Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[baskev]

Driving isn't a right. At least not in the US.

Its a privilege i know.
So should guns be. More and more people seem not to handle guns. So maybe look at the laws.
I find it funny , i am trying to discuss and find ways and idea so people can still have their guns and improve gun safety and all you can see is guns away!! Like i said. Would hate the see my great uncle's m1 garand leave the family.

[Svifnymr]

I'd be fine with waiving the NICS for private sales to current CCW holders, provided a bill of sale is recorded with the town clerk or similar.

There has to be some sort of record that it was a lawful transfer, or prosecuting unlawful transfers is this big pain in the ass gray area.

NICS doesn't have a fee, but some states are "point of contact", like Florida. Florida charges $5 for the background. Amusingly, Florida law doesn't require backgrounds on redeeming a gun you pawned, but Federal does, so pawn shops must register with NICS and do the NICS check through the feds for pawn redemptions, while calling FDLE for actual gun transfer/ sales. (Unless something changed recently, I've never pawned.)

As for "some sort of record", that gets into the "registration" idea which is another can of worms.

[wheresmywoft]

Then stop expecting me to read your mind. :P Make your point with details if it is possible. Has nothing to do with delusion, but a lack of communicate on your part.

... What part of that statement required you to read my mind.

Ironically, if you did need mind reading powers to understand it, your response would then be a fabrication. You know, since you're claiming you can't understand what you're responding to.

[misterpuk]

NICS for private sales wouldn't work. There's too much paperwork retention involved for the average citizen. This is part of why there are FFL's

Nobody likes paperwork

How long are licensees required to maintain ATF Forms 4473?

Licensees shall retain each ATF Form 4473 for a period of not less than 20 years after the date of sale or disposition. Where a licensee has initiated a National Instant Background Check System (NICS) check for a proposed firearms transaction, but the sale, delivery, or transfer of the firearm is not made, the licensee shall record any transaction number on the Form 4473, and retain the Form 4473 for a period of not less than 5 years after the date of the NICS inquiry.

[PhaelixWW]

Literally means what I said it means.

No, it really doesn't.

Which is why my main proposals rely on better preventing the people we have already decided shouldn't have guns from getting them in the first place.

... That would fall under the "criminal usage" part of what I said.

Numbers for your feelings are irrelevant. This is either a fact-based discussion, in which case much of the left is overwhelmingly ignorant and needs to be better informed, or it isn't, in which case the "gunsplaining" in this thread needs to stop.

Seriously? You claimed to know people's mindsets. Stop attempting to claim that you know someone's intent (based upon their feelings) if you're not able to withstand criticism for your woeful close-mindedness. I was simply trying to help you understand where other people in the discussion are coming from, and you're just being pissy as fuck about it. Get over it.

If I attempt to use made-up numbers to prove a material point, then you can call me on it. But this is just fucking ridiculous.

That sounds like a problem for law enforcement to deal with. Maybe somebody from the FBI or ATF could give Congress a better option.

Local law enforcement won't enforce it. Heck, the ATF doesn't even really enforce penalties for lying on a firearm purchase form.

What would you propose? Initially I suggested heavy fines for both the department and the individual who failed to report, but it was pointed out that that just results in the government paying the government and nobody wins.

I'd rather a system that was constructive, not punitive. Build a better system, with some oversight and people dedicated to making it work, rather than punish people when the kludgy system doesn't work right.

It isn't solely based on SSDI. It's based on two things:

Right, I was only addressing the SSDI portion. Honestly, I don't have a problem with California's slightly enhanced prohibited persons categories list.

The alternative is to let somebody with mental health issues, who is either considered dangerous by their therapist or is not competent to manage their own finances, purchase a gun, then issue them a notice to appear in court, then after the hearing, maybe you try to take their guns away.

This is more what I meant, but specifically for the SSDI portion.

Yes, you would need a license before ownership.

And this I'd have a problem with. Again, we're talking about a constitutional right, as well as a potential means of self-defense. I don't want to gate someone's right to self-defense behind a process that could take months. I'd love for this kind of training to be offered, even encouraged, especially if it was government funded. I'd even be fine with something like a tax on firearm or ammunition purchases that is waived if you show some kind of license from this course. That would encourage, but not require, people to get said training early.

I would be opposed to your repeal of the NFA, so semi auto rifles can stay as-is.

Uh, I didn't say anything about repealing the NFA. Though reading back over it, I meant SBR's, not SBS's. SBR's aren't really any more dangerous than a handgun or a normal-length rifle. SBS's, though, have the potential to spread shot more indiscriminately than I'm comfortable with. And suppressors being on the NFA is a joke.

But nowhere did I suggest easing up on the NFA restrictions for automatic firearms except as it pertains to new manufactures.

[Antiganon]

NICS doesn't have a fee, but some states are "point of contact", like Florida. Florida charges $5 for the background. Amusingly, Florida law doesn't require backgrounds on redeeming a gun you pawned, but Federal does, so pawn shops must register with NICS and do the NICS check through the feds for pawn redemptions, while calling FDLE for actual gun transfer/ sales. (Unless something changed recently, I've never pawned.)

As for "some sort of record", that gets into the "registration" idea which is another can of worms.

Said record already exists if you buy from an FFL. They keep sales records for a minimum of 7 years, by federal law.

[PhaelixWW]

I think California mandates the fee is $10, which honestly seems unfair to the dealer depending on how busy they are.

The mandated fee in California is $25 for the background check and $10 per firearm. Many FFLs in California also have a "paperwork fee" and/or "storage fee" to offset the fact that they have the added liability of holding onto said firearm(s) for 10+ days as well as the time it takes to run through the copious amounts of paperwork required by the state and federal governments.

[triplesdsu]

Its a privilege i know.
So should guns be. More and more people seem not to handle guns. So maybe look at the laws.
I find it funny , i am trying to discuss and find ways and idea so people can still have their guns and improve gun safety and all you can see is guns away!! Like i said. Would hate the see my great uncle's m1 garand leave the family.

I didnt see or say anything to that effect. Simply commenting about an inaccuracy in the post. You can suggest that guns should be a privilege but due to being specifically mentioned in the bills of rights, they cant be. Im not saying everyone should be or deserves to be armed but guns also arent going anywhere.

I also find it frustrating that a lot of the laws we already have arent punished as they should be. This idea that we should hold items accountable and not people is foolish. I work in a decent sized citys police department and its stupid how many violent crimes are commited by people who should be locked up and not free to hurt people but got pled down and released early only to return to their violent life styles. Here in california they keep trying to make it harder for normal citizens to get guns as they pass laws to classify people who do driveby shootings as "nonviolent offenders" and release them early. Where is the logic in that?

[misterpuk]

Said record already exists if you buy from an FFL. They keep sales records for a minimum of 7 years, by federal law.

How long are licensees required to maintain ATF Forms 4473?

Licensees shall retain each ATF Form 4473 for a period of not less than 20 years after the date of sale or disposition. Where a licensee has initiated a National Instant Background Check System (NICS) check for a proposed firearms transaction, but the sale, delivery, or transfer of the firearm is not made, the licensee shall record any transaction number on the Form 4473, and retain the Form 4473 for a period of not less than 5 years after the date of the NICS inquiry.

[Antiganon]

No, it really doesn't.



... That would fall under the "criminal usage" part of what I said.



Seriously? You claimed to know people's mindsets. Stop attempting to claim that you know someone's intent (based upon their feelings) if you're not able to withstand criticism for your woeful close-mindedness. I was simply trying to help you understand where other people in the discussion are coming from, and you're just being pissy as fuck about it. Get over it.

If I attempt to use made-up numbers to prove a material point, then you can call me on it. But this is just fucking ridiculous.



Local law enforcement won't enforce it. Heck, the ATF doesn't even really enforce penalties for lying on a firearm purchase form.



I'd rather a system that was constructive, not punitive. Build a better system, with some oversight and people dedicated to making it work, rather than punish people when the kludgy system doesn't work right.



Right, I was only addressing the SSDI portion. Honestly, I don't have a problem with California's slightly enhanced prohibited persons categories list.



This is more what I meant, but specifically for the SSDI portion.



And this I'd have a problem with. Again, we're talking about a constitutional right, as well as a potential means of self-defense. I don't want to gate someone's right to self-defense behind a process that could take months. I'd love for this kind of training to be offered, even encouraged, especially if it was government funded. I'd even be fine with something like a tax on firearm or ammunition purchases that is waived if you show some kind of license from this course. That would encourage, but not require, people to get said training early.



Uh, I didn't say anything about repealing the NFA. Though reading back over it, I meant SBR's, not SBS's. SBR's aren't really any more dangerous than a handgun or a normal-length rifle. SBS's, though, have the potential to spread shot more indiscriminately than I'm comfortable with. And suppressors being on the NFA is a joke.

But nowhere did I suggest easing up on the NFA restrictions for automatic firearms except as it pertains to new manufactures.

it would not take mntgs for a license under my proposal. We are talking about an 8 hour class on a Saturday.

It would be a months long elective course in high school, similar to how some schools offer drivers ed as an elective class.

[PhaelixWW]

Not all states have the same background checks.

The standard background check used by almost all states is a federal background check; the "N" in "NICS" stands for "national". So, yes, they're the same.

Lol you are kidding right?!?! guns have not changed in a 100 years?!?!?! Lol...so you are saying 1900 to 1910 the guns had the same fire rate

I said semi-automatic handguns, specifically. The model 1911 came out in... yarp, 1911. And it's still one of the most common handguns today.

[Guy4123]

Not all states have the same background checks. So maybe look into making those better?

Lol you are kidding right?!?! guns have not changed in a 100 years?!?!?! Lol...so you are saying 1900 to 1910 the guns had the same fire rate , there where already machine guns. And the law was made when flintlock guns where still the rage...so maybe take a look if the laws still apply?

The NICS is a federal background check not a state background. Some states have an extra background check but honestly it's just a money generating fee for the state because it doesn't do anything different than the federal one.

a M1919 (for the year 1919) Thompson SMG had a RoF of 1500 rounds a minute. Later versions were toned down to 700-800 which is about the same as modern day assault rifles.

Likewise the BAR (made in 1918) had a RoF of 500-650 which wouldn't be far off any modern rifle that's chambered in a large round like the old 30.06. Something like a H&K G3.

Pistols are the same.

So in essence, yes in the last 100 years guns have not changed drastically in operation. Advancements in ergonomics and different calibers has happened but the mechanics of how guns operate isn't hugely different.

[PhaelixWW]

it would not take mntgs for a license under my proposal. We are talking about an 8 hour class on a Saturday.

What if the classes are full? What if the instructor is sick or on vacation? What if it's 40 miles away and you have no access to a car on Saturdays? What if you work on Saturdays?

There are plenty of scenarios where the class becomes a significant bar to someone being able to exercise their right to obtain a firearm for self-defense.

But you didn't comment on my alternate suggestion. Are you against that idea?

[Guy4123]

An Illinois town has issued an ordinance to ban sale, manufacture, and POSESSION all assault weapons. What they consider an assault weapon is anything that can accept more than 10 rounds, or any shotgun with a rotating cyclinder, and a laundry list of the usual scary guns.

The big kicker? Since it's not legal for them to just bust up into your house and take your gun, they're going to fine you $1000 a day for possessing said gun in the city limits. Financial ruin is usually one of the routs people who hate guns go, and why people don't want their government to know exactly what they possess.

[Dystemper]

An Illinois town has issued an ordinance to ban sale, manufacture, and POSESSION all assault weapons. What they consider an assault weapon is anything that can accept more than 10 rounds, or any shotgun with a rotating cyclinder, and a laundry list of the usual scary guns.

The big kicker? Since it's not legal for them to just bust up into your house and take your gun, they're going to fine you $1000 a day for possessing said gun in the city limits. Financial ruin is usually one of the routs people who hate guns go, and why people don't want their government to know exactly what they possess.

That law will never hold up. Its unconstitutional

[Ghostpanther]

If you want to stop systemic violence you need to empower and educate the poor and disenfranchised. If you start there you will reduce violent crimes tenfold, I am for gun regulations and strengthening requirements for obtaining high powered weapons, but anyone on any side of this argument has to look at it from many angles and the true root of this problem is income inequality. The US Gov as well as many others need to create a basic income for anyone who needs it if they are not willing to help people who struggle to survive even when they try their hardest.

No thanks. We have enough on welfare now who are able to work, but rather just get freebies and stuff their faces. We need to keep creating more job opportunities and assist people into a vocational type training for skills which actually are needed in the work force. But this is getting off topic. lol!

- - - Updated - - -

... What part of that statement required you to read my mind.

Ironically, if you did need mind reading powers to understand it, your response would then be a fabrication. You know, since you're claiming you can't understand what you're responding to.

Then you are welcome to come back when you have some useful input into the discussion on gun control.

- - - Updated - - -

- - - Updated - - -



- - - Updated - - -



again what freedom does it give you? you have yet to response. And just like cars, guns have changed ( and their usage) so looking at the laws at redefining them is not a bad thing.

- - - Updated - - -


- - - Updated - - -

I thought it was something I did not have to make clear on. I mean, all you have to do is read the Second Amendment. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Then as a legal highest court in the land ruled, it is a right citizens can claim for self defense apart from a militia. So to make it crystal clear, I have the freedom ( right ) to possess and carry a firearm for self defense. A Constitutional right.

[Stormdash]

An Illinois town has issued an ordinance to ban sale, manufacture, and POSESSION all assault weapons. What they consider an assault weapon is anything that can accept more than 10 rounds, or any shotgun with a rotating cyclinder, and a laundry list of the usual scary guns.

The big kicker? Since it's not legal for them to just bust up into your house and take your gun, they're going to fine you $1000 a day for possessing said gun in the city limits. Financial ruin is usually one of the routs people who hate guns go, and why people don't want their government to know exactly what they possess.

Lawsuit already filed. Hopefully this one will be the one we get cert on, too, and put an end to this AWB nonsense and hopefully 'may issue' nonsense while we're at it.

[Ghostpanther]

Lawsuit already filed. Hopefully this one will be the one we get cert on, too, and put an end to this AWB nonsense and hopefully 'may issue' nonsense while we're at it.

I would love to see it found unconstitutional, but I am not sure it will be. I mean they may have to tone down the fine and such. Or as Mass did, grandfather the existing AR-15's in.

[Stormdash]

I would love to see it found unconstitutional, but I am not sure it will be. I mean they may have to tone down the fine and such. Or as Mass did, grandfather the existing AR-15's in.

Oh, the circuit very well might. Might get lucky with a responsible trial judge like in Peruta or in the Maryland case, but the circuit often circles the wagons en banc if they have to. Which, again, is why Justice Thomas was right, SCOTUS at some point needs to step up and vindicate its own rulings in Heller and McDonald and Caetano.

[Ghostpanther]

Oh, the circuit very well might. Might get lucky with a responsible trial judge like in Peruta or in the Maryland case, but the circuit often circles the wagons en banc if they have to. Which, again, is why Justice Thomas was right, SCOTUS at some point needs to step up and vindicate its own rulings in Heller and McDonald and Caetano.

For sure. They left too many questions open on the subject. Not addressing how far can the states regulate conceal carry. As the case in D.C. which was doing what New York and some others do, require a person to prove they have a need to carry a firearm for self defense. Thankfully a Federal District Judge ruled what D.C. was doing, was unconstitutional.