Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[petej0]

But you get what they are trying to say they are basically saying hunting rifles, handguns and shotguns are fine but anything more should have regulation.

Thats where you are going to lose a lot of people. You have to define "Hunting Rifle"...both of these can be considered a hunting rifle. While one looks more scary then the other, they both are similar when it concerns mass shooting capability.

https://www.cabelas.com/product/shoo...0.uts?slotId=2

https://www.cabelas.com/product/shoo...7.uts?slotId=8

[Svifnymr]

But you get what they are trying to say they are basically saying hunting rifles, handguns and shotguns are fine but anything more should have regulation. This entire strategy is used by the NRA because they don't want people to talk about guns period. Aside from gun crazies most people agree that doing nothing is not a good option which is what the NRA advocates.

As Pete said above, I don't go after folks for saying Clip when it is nearly always a magazine, or similar stuff.

But if you want to ban a rifle because you think it's a machinegun instead of a semi-automatic, that is a huge functional difference. It'd be like accidentally banning Vespa's by saying they're ducati's.

Same with the "AR15 is high powered", no, the ammo isn't high powered. Just don't make the claim and you're fine, but if you want to make the claim to ban the item, it's a lie. Not an error, a straight up lie.

The AR doesn't mean Assault Rifle is not a big deal, except that during the early days it was common to claim that it meant Assault Rifle as a sign of how it needed to be banned because Assault Rifles are machineguns. So if it says AR, it must be a machinegun. That leap of logic isn't used so much anymore, just the misrepresentation of "semi auto" with terms like "fully semi-auto", which is just stupid.

When you're making value judgements based on the mechanics of an item, you DO need to be accurate in your knowledge of those mechanics.

[petej0]

When you're making value judgements based on the mechanics of an item, you DO need to be accurate in your knowledge of those mechanics.

I couldnt have said it any better.

[Svifnymr]

Most people don't know the difference between a gas operated rifle and a bolt action rifle. I believe when people ask for assault weapon bans or similar, what they're really saying is there is no need for gas operated rifle in the general public. While I disagree with that notion, I'm just trying to get some clarity of what someone would want when they are seeking a ban or a limitation.

Yeah, it's been brought up before. If you want to ban semi-automatic rifles, then say that. Don't misrepresent it as "assault weapons". Same with universal background checks or "gun show loophole" lies. Just say "no private transfers", be honest and succinct.

If they have to lie about what an item is, to demonize it enough to get it banned through misinformation, then it probably isn't a big danger.


Florida has now banned "bump stocks", but the description is "any device that increases rate of fire", and I don't know how they'll measure that. I don't have any bumpstocks, but it's still a bad law. They do not provide any compensation, though at least they're giving you until October I think before you become a Felon because some guy in Vegas was an asshat.

They also raised all firearms to 21 to purchase, made the current 3 day wait apply to long guns as well as handguns, and have an overly complicated armed-school-person (can't be a teacher) that is subject to local approval (which means tri-county Dade/ Broward/ Palm Beach will say no). Broward is one of the counties that used the local option years ago to make the 3 day handgun wait a 5 day firearm wait, so the shooter waited his week.

- - - Updated - - -

Oh, and remember that the Assault Weapons Ban is not just rifles. They want to ban pistols and shotguns that look mean also.

[Kathandira]

I'd love to say that we can ban any firearm which allows a changeable magazine, but then pistols would basically be outlawed. That would be an issue for those who use them for home defense. But as for hunting rifles, bolt action is fine. Part of the sport, or the hunt should be partly the limitation of your weapon in my opinion. Having a semi-automatic takes a significant amount of the difficulty away.

[petej0]

I'd love to say that we can ban any firearm which allows a changeable magazine, but then pistols would basically be outlawed. That would be an issue for those who use them for home defense. But as for hunting rifles, bolt action is fine. Part of the sport, or the hunt should be partly the limitation of your weapon in my opinion. Having a semi-automatic takes a significant amount of the difficulty away.

You can still have bolt action rifles that are magazine fed. While the rate of fire is lower, you can still do a lot of damage if properly trained. Personally, I admired the DC Sniper. They set up a good distance from their targets and had the whole area in terror for weeks. Although I think they used an AR.

[Draco-Onis]

Thats where you are going to lose a lot of people. You have to define "Hunting Rifle"...both of these can be considered a hunting rifle. While one looks more scary then the other, they both are similar when it concerns mass shooting capability.

https://www.cabelas.com/product/shoo...0.uts?slotId=2

https://www.cabelas.com/product/shoo...7.uts?slotId=8

But that is going into the weeds which is something else entirely for example what type of guns and models an assault weapons ban cover. But again the point of the NRA is not to have any conversation period, their tactics have nothing to do with nuance arguments just not having any arguments.

- - - Updated - - -

As Pete said above, I don't go after folks for saying Clip when it is nearly always a magazine, or similar stuff.

But if you want to ban a rifle because you think it's a machinegun instead of a semi-automatic, that is a huge functional difference. It'd be like accidentally banning Vespa's by saying they're ducati's.

Same with the "AR15 is high powered", no, the ammo isn't high powered. Just don't make the claim and you're fine, but if you want to make the claim to ban the item, it's a lie. Not an error, a straight up lie.

The AR doesn't mean Assault Rifle is not a big deal, except that during the early days it was common to claim that it meant Assault Rifle as a sign of how it needed to be banned because Assault Rifles are machineguns. So if it says AR, it must be a machinegun. That leap of logic isn't used so much anymore, just the misrepresentation of "semi auto" with terms like "fully semi-auto", which is just stupid.

When you're making value judgements based on the mechanics of an item, you DO need to be accurate in your knowledge of those mechanics.

see above.

[petej0]

But that is going into the weeds which is something else entirely for example what type of guns and models an assault weapons ban cover. But again the point of the NRA is not to have any conversation period, their tactics have nothing to do with nuance arguments just not having any arguments.
.

That is where you need to go if you are going to ban weapons. You need to list the features and/or types of models affected. In the end, you will always have a group of weapons not covered that are just as dangerous as the banned weapons.

[AlphaOut]

You can still have bolt action rifles that are magazine fed. While the rate of fire is lower, you can still do a lot of damage if properly trained. Personally, I admired the DC Sniper. They set up a good distance from their targets and had the whole area in terror for weeks. Although I think they used an AR.

Then you get into the conversation of what is more deadly. A 30 round magazine semi auto gas operated rifle; or a bolt action rifle that's capable of dismantling people from basically another zip code. It's all perspective of what someone considers is more "scary," or can do more damage.

[Draco-Onis]

That is where you need to go if you are going to ban weapons. You need to list the features and/or types of models affected. In the end, you will always have a group of weapons not covered that are just as dangerous as the banned weapons.

That's really talking about flying when you can't even walk people talking about assault weapons ban are not being realistic. I mean to this day we still haven't done anything on guns on the federal level and we probably never will. There are different conversations to be had when it comes to gun but in the US we aren't even capable of doing the bare basics.

The following should be the focus

People with a history of mental issues getting guns and keeping guns and law enforcement unable to do anything.
Domestic abusers and certain violent offenders being able to get guns.
Straw and internet purchases which are the source of most of the guns used by criminals not being regulated.
Banning bump stocks.
A background check system that works where it is connected to all states and submitting the information is mandated.
The ATF being streamlined and focused to be just about monitoring the gun market.
Fixing any other obvious holes in the system.


I have said this already nothing will happen on guns especially not under this administration not that I don't blame democrats either it was not a priority when they were in charge.

[Stormdash]

Most people don't know the difference between a gas operated rifle and a bolt action rifle. I believe when people ask for assault weapon bans or similar, what they're really saying is there is no need for gas operated rifle in the general public. While I disagree with that notion, I'm just trying to get some clarity of what someone would want when they are seeking a ban or a limitation.

Vile Twitter lizard Shannon Watts deemed a .22 bolt action to be an "assault weapon" because it was tacti-cool. Banners and grabbers don't care a bit that when they talk about guns it is like listening to people talk about cars and referring to flux capacitors like they are real.

[Ghostpanther]

But you get what they are trying to say they are basically saying hunting rifles, handguns and shotguns are fine but anything more should have regulation. This entire strategy is used by the NRA because they don't want people to talk about guns period. Aside from gun crazies most people agree that doing nothing is not a good option which is what the NRA advocates.

Not true. They talk about guns all the time to their 5 million members and to the media mainly on gun control, because that is what the media wants to discuss. :P

- - - Updated - - -

Thats where you are going to lose a lot of people. You have to define "Hunting Rifle"...both of these can be considered a hunting rifle. While one looks more scary then the other, they both are similar when it concerns mass shooting capability.

https://www.cabelas.com/product/shoo...0.uts?slotId=2

https://www.cabelas.com/product/shoo...7.uts?slotId=8

Exactly. A SKS does not have a lot of the scary features of a AK-47, but when used in semi-auto only, both are equally deadly.

[Svifnymr]

That's really talking about flying when you can't even walk people talking about assault weapons ban are not being realistic. I mean to this day we still haven't done anything on guns on the federal level and we probably never will. There are different conversations to be had when it comes to gun but in the US we aren't even capable of doing the bare basics.

As long as you ignore all the prior laws passed and restrictions in place, sure...

People with a history of mental issues getting guns and keeping guns and law enforcement unable to do anything.

I agree, but it's not a gun issue. More to do with ability to have someone committed and HIPAA regulations that prevent reporting in some cases.

Domestic abusers and certain violent offenders being able to get guns.

Not sure what "certain" violent offenders. Those convicted of domestic violence cannot own/buy a firearm. There is a large problem in this case with "no contest/ adjudication withheld" which is not a gun problem.

Straw and internet purchases which are the source of most of the guns used by criminals not being regulated.

Internet purchases aren't a significant source, they've done various studies. Straw purchasers are the main problem that needs to be addressed IMO, but "straw purchase" is an illegal activity that is rarely prosecuted. Not a gun problem, but a Federal Prosecution resource problem.

Banning bump stocks.

Bump stocks, in the 10 years available, were used once in one crime. The guy could have used nearly anything else to similar effect. The guy had the money to buy an ACTUAL machinegun and had accumulated weapons over DECADES. The biggest threat with bump stocks is that the press blows them out of proportion so much, it's like a commercial for criminals.

And I think bumpstocks are stupid. I don't own one or see a use for one, but that doesn't mean I consider banning them a good move. A few pages back I linked the ATF guy talking about the bump stock ruling, and he demonstrates bump firing (without a bump stock) as an example. It is a meaningless ban that serves no purpose other than to restrict people that did nothing wrong and make felons out of people that probably bought a range-toy accessory.

A background check system that works where it is connected to all states and submitting the information is mandated.

I mean, we have a national background check system, NICS (National Instant Check System). There were a couple bills to improve the information, but democrats voted them down because the NRA supported them so they had to fight them.

The ATF being streamlined and focused to be just about monitoring the gun market.

Honestly, eliminate the ATF entirely. Make the labs their own division in the FBI.
I mean, you've probably seen ATF agents at these crime scenes, decked out in armor with helmets and rifles, long after the shooter is gone. The ATF response team isn't a response team... Literally, the ATF's function at the crime scenes is to assist in an investigative role since in theory they have more knowledge. In practice, they get no more training in firearms than an entry level FBI agent, so them at a crime scene is beyond pointless Federal posturing.

I have said this already nothing will happen on guns especially not under this administration not that I don't blame democrats either it was not a priority when they were in charge.

I think the issue is resources to enforce laws already on the books. The democrats rarely focus on law enforcement stuff, and the republicans don't throw money at anti-gun folks. They're appointees though, and they ARE political. The head of the ATF should be informed on laws, certainly, but not actively anti-gun and trying to over-reach his role. SO neither side cares since it doesn't net them political gain.

There's also the identity politics, can't have the ATF focusing their efforts on gun trafficers in poor black areas. Can't talk about the southern border very much. The US gives guns to Mexico that then turn around and end up in cartel hands, can't implicate our own government in such things though.

Nobody wants to get stuff done. They want to pass laws that will not reduce crime, especially since they'll just make criminals out of law abiding citizens that don't realize the hell-fire trigger they bought in the 80's is now illegal (well, in October) in Florida. The laws will be obeyed by the law abiding.

It's like the folks that want to legalize drugs so they can be taxed and such, there's no point in making a criminal out of some guy with a little marijuana. But then, flip it around, and you want to make a guy a criminal for having a bumpstock for shooting soda bottles at his farm for fun.

[Tasttey]

So Florida passed its newest gun control legislation. Full text: https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bil...illText/er/PDF

Haven't gotten a chance to go through all of it yet, but a couple of things stood out in my browsing.

1. The 21+ age requirement for rifles/shotgun sales doesn't apply to active duty military personnel, but would apply to IRR service members. Also only applies to sales/transfers done by licensed dealers, not private sales.

2. The 5 day waiting period for rifles/shotguns doesn't apply if you've completed the state's hunter safety course.

3. Includes a "red flag law" provision allowing ex parte RPOs; granting authorities to the ability to temporarily seize firearms/ammo prior to a mental health evaluation.

4. Increases required mental health resources in schools, but doesn't grant state funding for the increase.

5. Sets up the "Guardian" program allowing certain school employees to carry firearms if they meet all the requirements and complete the training, but doesn't grant state funding for said training.

6. "Bump-stock" ban is incredibly vague, bans more than just bump stocks, has no grandfather clause, offers to restitution for current owners (not a buyback.)

I foresee chunks of this being challenged in court relatively soon, but I defer to our resident Constitutional Law expert @Stormdash.

[Ghostpanther]

So Florida passed its newest gun control legislation. Full text: https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bil...illText/er/PDF

Haven't gotten a chance to go through all of it yet, but a couple of things stood out in my browsing.

1. The 21+ age requirement for rifles/shotgun sales doesn't apply to active duty military personnel, but would apply to IRR service members. Also only applies to sales/transfers done by licensed dealers, not private sales.

2. The 5 day waiting period for rifles/shotguns doesn't apply if you've completed the state's hunter safety course.

3. Includes a "red flag law" provision allowing ex parte RPOs; granting authorities to the ability to temporarily seize firearms/ammo prior to a mental health evaluation.

4. Increases required mental health resources in schools, but doesn't grant state funding for the increase.

5. Sets up the "Guardian" program allowing certain school employees to carry firearms if they meet all the requirements and complete the training, but doesn't grant state funding for said training.

6. "Bump-stock" ban is incredibly vague, bans more than just bump stocks, has no grandfather clause, offers to restitution for current owners (not a buyback.)

I foresee chunks of this being challenged in court relatively soon, but I defer to our resident Constitutional Law expert @Stormdash.

Some of those are ok. Some are about worthless without funding and number 3 could be a slippery slope which could be abused. And how long they could temporarily hold your firearms would be important. Most government agencies are notoriously slow. :P

[Svifnymr]

So Florida passed its newest gun control legislation. Full text: https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bil...illText/er/PDF

Haven't gotten a chance to go through all of it yet, but a couple of things stood out in my browsing.

1. The 21+ age requirement for rifles/shotgun sales doesn't apply to active duty military personnel, but would apply to IRR service members. Also only applies to sales/transfers done by licensed dealers, not private sales.

2. The 5 day waiting period for rifles/shotguns doesn't apply if you've completed the state's hunter safety course.

3. Includes a "red flag law" provision allowing ex parte RPOs; granting authorities to the ability to temporarily seize firearms/ammo prior to a mental health evaluation.

4. Increases required mental health resources in schools, but doesn't grant state funding for the increase.

5. Sets up the "Guardian" program allowing certain school employees to carry firearms if they meet all the requirements and complete the training, but doesn't grant state funding for said training.

6. "Bump-stock" ban is incredibly vague, bans more than just bump stocks, has no grandfather clause, offers to restitution for current owners (not a buyback.)

I foresee chunks of this being challenged in court relatively soon, but I defer to our resident Constitutional Law expert @Stormdash.

I didn't read the entire thing, but thought part of the 400mil was earmarked for mental health resources in schools.

Also, the guardian program is hilarious, since it requires more training than most police departments.

[Stormdash]

Bump stocks get hammered on because they are low hanging fruit. They are as frequent a danger to people as lightning striking during bear rides, statistically, but they make "that thing go gra-ta-ta-ta" as the great philosopher says, and that's all it takes when the argument being made is an emotional one to begin with.

Straw purchases are 100% an enforcement issue. Axioms of management often hold true for law enforcement -- "that which do you not inspect, they will not respect". Straw purchases are not widely prosecuted, so the law forbidding them is not always followed. The problem with enforcing existing laws is more a problem for the disarmament minded, because if existing laws were given force and working, the impetus to make more and aggressive laws toward bans and confiscation would be less.

[bladeXcrasher]

So Florida passed its newest gun control legislation. Full text: https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bil...illText/er/PDF

Haven't gotten a chance to go through all of it yet, but a couple of things stood out in my browsing.

1. The 21+ age requirement for rifles/shotgun sales doesn't apply to active duty military personnel, but would apply to IRR service members. Also only applies to sales/transfers done by licensed dealers, not private sales.

2. The 5 day waiting period for rifles/shotguns doesn't apply if you've completed the state's hunter safety course.

3. Includes a "red flag law" provision allowing ex parte RPOs; granting authorities to the ability to temporarily seize firearms/ammo prior to a mental health evaluation.

4. Increases required mental health resources in schools, but doesn't grant state funding for the increase.

5. Sets up the "Guardian" program allowing certain school employees to carry firearms if they meet all the requirements and complete the training, but doesn't grant state funding for said training.

6. "Bump-stock" ban is incredibly vague, bans more than just bump stocks, has no grandfather clause, offers to restitution for current owners (not a buyback.)

I foresee chunks of this being challenged in court relatively soon, but I defer to our resident Constitutional Law expert @Stormdash.

NRA is already going at it, lol. What a bunch of loons.

[Stormdash]

So Florida passed its newest gun control legislation. Full text: https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bil...illText/er/PDF

Haven't gotten a chance to go through all of it yet, but a couple of things stood out in my browsing.

1. The 21+ age requirement for rifles/shotgun sales doesn't apply to active duty military personnel, but would apply to IRR service members. Also only applies to sales/transfers done by licensed dealers, not private sales.

2. The 5 day waiting period for rifles/shotguns doesn't apply if you've completed the state's hunter safety course.

3. Includes a "red flag law" provision allowing ex parte RPOs; granting authorities to the ability to temporarily seize firearms/ammo prior to a mental health evaluation.

4. Increases required mental health resources in schools, but doesn't grant state funding for the increase.

5. Sets up the "Guardian" program allowing certain school employees to carry firearms if they meet all the requirements and complete the training, but doesn't grant state funding for said training.

6. "Bump-stock" ban is incredibly vague, bans more than just bump stocks, has no grandfather clause, offers to restitution for current owners (not a buyback.)

I foresee chunks of this being challenged in court relatively soon, but I defer to our resident Constitutional Law expert @Stormdash.

One has actually already been filed by the NRA.

There are huge overbroad and vague terms in the bump-stock component (read broadly, this would ban almost any aftermarket modification of triggers for even cleaner mechanical function, let alone for "race guns" for competition shooting). This one should easily fail the scrutiny required by Heller on federal grounds if the court recognizes it as hitting the 2A "threshold". I'm not as familiar with litigation on Florida's own constitutional grounds, but FL does have its own constitutional protection of RKBA.

I have very serious due process concerns about the RPOs. I personally think you'd see a lot less political resistance to this idea if it included the option of an accused to transfer their arms to an FFL for storage pending court order, because then there would not be government confiscation which is pretty much the dire issue for a lot of 2A advocates, but I also think there are serious problems in turning gun owners into per se suspect persons, somehow living under a lower standard for judicial declaratory action than the rest of the general public.

The age requirement is the thing I think the NRA has focused its challenge on but I haven't actually read their complaint, only a CNN piece about it. That would probably be litigated first and foremost as a 14th Amendment equal protection challenge and not a 2nd Amendment challenge, although, again, would need to read their complaint and briefs.

[Tasttey]

One has actually already been filed by the NRA.

There are huge overbroad and vague terms in the bump-stock component (read broadly, this would ban almost any aftermarket modification of triggers for even cleaner mechanical function, let alone for "race guns" for competition shooting). This one should easily fail the scrutiny required by Heller on federal grounds if the court recognizes it as hitting the 2A "threshold". I'm not as familiar with litigation on Florida's own constitutional grounds, but FL does have its own constitutional protection of RKBA.

I have very serious due process concerns about the RPOs. I personally think you'd see a lot less political resistance to this idea if it included the option of an accused to transfer their arms to an FFL for storage pending court order, because then there would not be government confiscation which is pretty much the dire issue for a lot of 2A advocates, but I also think there are serious problems in turning gun owners into per se suspect persons, somehow living under a lower standard for judicial declaratory action than the rest of the general public.

The age requirement is the thing I think the NRA has focused its challenge on but I haven't actually read their complaint, only a CNN piece about it. That would probably be litigated first and foremost as a 14th Amendment equal protection challenge and not a 2nd Amendment challenge, although, again, would need to read their complaint and briefs.

Yeah the bump-stock section seems to be written by someone with no experience tuning firearms. Lighter fire control springs, flat front triggers, and polished/tuned actions all increase the possible rate of fire, but do not change the mechanical functions of the firearm or trigger, but could be subject to this law. Hell I know guys who can bump-fire without any additional accessories or kits; it takes practice but its doable with nothing but technique.

It does allow for respondents of an RPO to transfer their firearms/ammunition to a 3rd party, details are on page 43.

Ooh, new tidbit glossed over by the media:

Any person who makes written threats to conduct a mass shooting can now be found guilty of a 2nd degree felony. page 48