Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[PhaelixWW]

I have to ask why do you think automatic weapons should be easier to acquire by civilians?

Who said easier?

[Stormdash]

Adding people who have not been convicted or adjudicated to NICS is an affront to the 5th Amendment, let alone the 2nd. It basically Grant's a default preliminary injunction to the government for merely having someone's name on the docket. A world of nope.

National CCW, nah. That is a step backwards for the 10 or 12 constitutional carry jurisdictions, after all. Reciprocity, yes.

NICS should be available to private transfers, not compulsory, though.

[Unholyground]

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.

[BannedForViews]

No, he's right.

At least 2 pro gun posters have outright said that their 2a rights are more important than the lives of strangers they will never meet, because they feel that their 2a rights protect their lives.

I think its kind of a morally bankrupt position, but it is internally consistent and I can respect people with the convictions to state it outright.

Who doesn't think that their right to protect their own life is more important than the lives of strangers they will never meet?

Lets rephrase this. If I could guarantee you that a) a gun would for sure protect you from certain death at least once in the potential amount of years you could live and b) another person you don't know would for certain die from gun violence by another, would your position be "oh well, I should be the one to die so that this other nameless person can go on living"?

All of this ignoring that you can't show that taking guns away will stop murders, only gunshot inflicted murders, and that you can't actually take guns away since most deaths caused by guns are through illegally owned ones, i.e. guns a change in laws won't remove from "the streets."

[Casterbridge]

Who said easier?

Fair enough, I did infer that you wanted it easier for civilians to get a hold of automatic weapons, so then what would be the point of the change? I am honestly curious?

[PhaelixWW]

Fair enough, I did infer that you wanted it easier for civilians to get a hold of automatic weapons, so then what would be the point of the change? I am honestly curious?

Automatic firearms are NFA items and are subject to much more restriction and a more intense background check than a standard firearm purchase. I wasn't talking about changing any of that. But despite their restricted but legal nature and the fact that they're basically never used in crime, it's been illegal to manufacture new ones since 1986. All I was looking to do was to end the restriction on manufacture, not make it easier to get one.

[Stormdash]

Who said easier?

Quite so, I don't think the class 3 requirements are too cumbersome to obtain an automatic weapon, but we do need to throw out that import/manufacture ban. Would create jobs even!

[Antiganon]

If you find the posts you're talking about, we can discuss the possible meaning in context. Otherwise, I'll believe that their intent was somewhat different than as read by you and others. When two people say "the cost of the Second Amendment", they can mean two wildly different things.

And if you actually care more about your gun rights than my children's right to live, that's fine.

Just own it.

Look, I don't know you or your kids, so no, I don't care about them specifically.

However, stripping away our rights puts all children in much greater jeopardy.

Literally means what I said it means.

And as I said - I have no problem with others using that line of thinking. I disagree, but it is internally consistent, and I have respect for those willing to state it outright.

I see people wanting to take away a citizen's right to protect themself and their family because they're under the mistaken impression that they'll ever live in a gun-free world. I prefer for all people to have the right to choose for themself whether or not they want to defend their life by the most effective means possible. I'm also all for measures that target criminals and criminal usage of firearms more assiduously, without seriously impacting legal use. I'm not a big believer in "trickle down gun control".

Criminals by their nature operate outside the law. Any new law is necessarily going to impact law abiding citizens more than criminals. 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.

Jesus, critical thinking is a lost art, I guess. The made up numbers were stated as such, specifically so that people wouldn't get their panties in a bunch. And they weren't used to prove any kind of material point, except for explaining how certain people feel, which doesn't really need any justification, as it's not being used to prove anything material, either.

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.

I'm not against any of those things, per se. But a few notes:
Universal background checks sound nice, but they're almost completely unenforceable. I live in California; I know this first-hand.

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

I'm also not sure I'm up for criminal charges for failure to report, but some kind of enhanced system needs to be in place to make sure those data are accumulated properly, yes.

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 also am leery of blocking constitutional rights based solely on SSDI benefit collection. You've added oversight, which is good, but I'd still rather have a system that said "Ok, you can have your firearm up front, but we'll do our government-paid-for mental health assessment in the following weeks to confirm the situation" rather than delay a situation in which someone may be worried about their personal safety.

It isn't solely based on SSDI. It's based on two things:
a) Report from mental health professional that you are a likely risk of doing physical harm to yourself or others; or
b) SSDI recipient, for a mental health related issue, with a 3rd party managing your benefits on your behalf.

In both cases, you would go on NICS provisionally, pending adjudication, based on recommendations by a court-appointed psychiatrist.

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.

If somebody in that situation is worried about their personal safety, they can speak to police, same as anyone else worried about their personal safety who doesn't yet own a gun.

What exactly do you mean by licensing? Having to have a license (via training/testing) before you can own? Registration? Something else?

Yes, you would need a license before ownership. Would require a rudimentary training course, similar to the 8 hour safety/hunting courses offered by the NRA all over the country. NRA courses could qualify. If it was available in high school as an elective, I would have it be a semester long course, dealing with firearms safety, hunting, conservation, and marksmanship, including a practical. Your final exam would be the gun license exam, and would also include a practical portion. This would be a one-time requirement - the license would never expire under normal circumstances (obviously it could be revoked in the situations where you would currently lose 2A rights, i.e. felonies).

I would grandfather this such that anyone who has purchased a gun in the last say 10 years (and been through NICS), or has (or has had within the last 10 years) a CCW permit from any issuing jurisdiction, would be exempt for life.

Yeah, magazine size is largely irrelevant to almost all gun violence. And honestly, I wouldn't be entirely opposed to the idea of making it slightly more difficult to get a semi-automatic rifle, with the compromise being that states can't individually ban them, and also that suppressors and SBS's be taken off the NFA, as well as rolling back the manufacturing restrictions on automatic firearms.

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

[Tasttey]

Adding people who have not been convicted or adjudicated to NICS is an affront to the 5th Amendment, let alone the 2nd. It basically Grant's a default preliminary injunction to the government for merely having someone's name on the docket. A world of nope.

What about bumping the "wait" response to 7 business days instead of the current 3, defaulting said "at risk people" to a wait status, and requiring the evaluation/hearing to occur within 7 days of the reporting? This way its not an indefinite injunction, but still puts another layer of defense between a firearm and someone who maybe shouldn't own one.

National CCW, nah. That is a step backwards for the 10 or 12 constitutional carry jurisdictions, after all. Reciprocity, yes.

I'd be ok with National CCW, provided they still allow states to remain Constitutional Carry jurisdictions for their own citizens, sorta like the whole legalization/decriminalization of marijuana at the state level. I mean I live in one of those jurisdictions currently, but still maintain my CCW for work and since I'm pretty much on the border of 4 states (3 of which have reciprocity, damn you MD and your ridiculous regulations.)

NICS should be available to private transfers, not compulsory, though.

I too feel it should be available to private sellers, but I also feel that there should be some type of penalty if one sells/transfers to a prohibited person. Maybe not the felony that it is now, but perhaps a civil penalty, say $1000 fine per instance. That way you can still sell/trade a piece to your shooting buddy without the hassle of going to an FFL; but at the same time are somewhat liable if they're just flipping guns on the street to any Tom, Dick, or Harry without care as to whether or not they can legally possess them.

[Antiganon]

Adding people who have not been convicted or adjudicated to NICS is an affront to the 5th Amendment, let alone the 2nd. It basically Grant's a default preliminary injunction to the government for merely having someone's name on the docket. A world of nope.

You misunderstand.

You would go on NICS on a temporary basis, pending adjudication, if and only if you are reported by your mental health provider as being a likely danger to yourself or others, or if you are collecting SSDI for mental health related issues AND you have a 3rd party managing your benefits. Due process is preserved, because the person gets their day in court, and if ruled mentally incompetent, they could appeal in a higher court.

National CCW, nah. That is a step backwards for the 10 or 12 constitutional carry jurisdictions, after all. Reciprocity, yes.

I never said anything about Kansas giving up constitutional carry within Kansas borders. My point is that if you want to conceal carry across state lines, you would need the Federal permit.

The alternative is for states like CT to continue not honoring any other state's CCWs, because our requirements are more strict here.

NICS should be available to private transfers, not compulsory, though.

I'm going to vehemently disagree here.

What is the virtue of an optional background check?

- - - Updated - - -

What about bumping the "wait" response to 7 business days instead of the current 3, defaulting said "at risk people" to a wait status, and requiring the evaluation/hearing to occur within 7 days of the reporting? This way its not an indefinite injunction, but still puts another layer of defense between a firearm and someone who maybe shouldn't own one.

This would be a great compromise. I would be 100% on board with this. If they don't get the hearing within the 7 days, they get to buy the gun, still have their hearing for whenever it is scheduled, and whatever the results of the hearing are would still apply, including seizure if warranted.

I'd be ok with National CCW, provided they still allow states to remain Constitutional Carry jurisdictions for their own citizens, sorta like the whole legalization/decriminalization of marijuana at the state level. I mean I live in one of those jurisdictions currently, but still maintain my CCW for work and since I'm pretty much on the border of 4 states (3 of which have reciprocity, damn you MD and your ridiculous regulations.)

This is what I meant the entire time. Federal = reciprocity. No federal permit = subject to state laws.

I too feel it should be available to private sellers, but I also feel that there should be some type of penalty if one sells/transfers to a prohibited person. Maybe not the felony that it is now, but perhaps a civil penalty, say $1000 fine per instance. That way you can still sell/trade a piece to your shooting buddy without the hassle of going to an FFL; but at the same time are somewhat liable if they're just flipping guns on the street to any Tom, Dick, or Harry without care as to whether or not they can legally possess them.

Why is going to an FFL such a hassle? I have 2 gun shops and a pawn shop between my office and my house, and I live and work in CT suburbs. I also pass two Wal Marts.

Honestly asking, I just don't get it. Does the FFL charge a fee to run NICS or something?

[Guy4123]

Honestly asking, I just don't get it. Does the FFL charge a fee to run NICS or something?

Yes they do.

[Antiganon]

Who doesn't think that their right to protect their own life is more important than the lives of strangers they will never meet?

Lets rephrase this. If I could guarantee you that a) a gun would for sure protect you from certain death at least once in the potential amount of years you could live and b) another person you don't know would for certain die from gun violence by another, would your position be "oh well, I should be the one to die so that this other nameless person can go on living"?

All of this ignoring that you can't show that taking guns away will stop murders, only gunshot inflicted murders, and that you can't actually take guns away since most deaths caused by guns are through illegally owned ones, i.e. guns a change in laws won't remove from "the streets."

My entire point is that this is a perfectly valid position and I don't begrude those who hold it - only those who hold it and hide behind statements like "there is no school shooting problem, it is not statistically significant."

And I'll need a source that most deaths caused by guns are illegally owned ones, my understanding from other posts in this thread is that most deaths are caused by legally owned guns, 2/3 suicides, 1/3 homicides or accidental death.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes they do.

How much is the fee? Assuming it is set by the ATF rather than the FFL dealer.

I would be open to having a taxpayer funded grant to cover private sale through FFLs if it meant every gun that changed hands went to a recipient who has been through NICS.

[Guy4123]

My entire point is that this is a perfectly valid position and I don't begrude those who hold it - only those who hold it and hide behind statements like "there is no school shooting problem, it is not statistically significant."

And I'll need a source that most deaths caused by guns are illegally owned ones, my understanding from other posts in this thread is that most deaths are caused by legally owned guns, 2/3 suicides, 1/3 homicides or accidental death.

- - - Updated - - -

How much is the fee? Assuming it is set by the ATF rather than the FFL dealer.

I would be open to having a taxpayer funded grant to cover private sale through FFLs if it meant every gun that changed hands went to a recipient who has been through NICS.

I think it varies by state and dealer. Some states require their own background check in addition to a federal one so that ups the price.

[Svifnymr]

What is the virtue of an optional background check?

You give folks an easy solution to feeling safe with their firearm sale, and open folks that don't do it to liability should they do something wrong.

Why is going to an FFL such a hassle? I have 2 gun shops and a pawn shop between my office and my house, and I live and work in CT suburbs. I also pass two Wal Marts.

Honestly asking, I just don't get it. Does the FFL charge a fee to run NICS or something?

I think California mandates the fee is $10, which honestly seems unfair to the dealer depending on how busy they are. Most dealers here charge $30 for a transfer from an online/out of state vendor. Florida also has a $5 FDLE fee for the bg check. There's also coordinating two people to go to the dealer at the same time, unless you expect the dealer to store the firearm. Of course, waiting periods and/ or conditional (rather than approve/ non approve) on background check. There's also the NICS downtimes/ delays or just backlogs ("90% happen in minutes, most of the rest within a few hours!"), standing around at a dealer for a few hours.

Storage also leads to liability issues and of course returning the firearm to the seller if the buyer doesn't check out, might require it's own background check and stuff.

That's of course ignoring the "idea" of having to do all this when selling to a buddy you've known your entire life or a relative or something. I'd assume there'd be some kind of exception for concealed license holders, but who knows.

[Tasttey]

Why is going to an FFL such a hassle? I have 2 gun shops and a pawn shop between my office and my house, and I live and work in CT suburbs. I also pass two Wal Marts.

Honestly asking, I just don't get it. Does the FFL charge a fee to run NICS or something?

Pretty much all FFLs charge a "transfer fee" for running a NICS check on any firearm they don't sell, my local one has it at $25 for FFL transfers (guns bought out of state, shipped to them, where they do the paperwork, you know legally buying a firearm on the internet stuff) and $45 for private transfers (Jack sells Tom a gun and wants a NICS check run on him.)

Then there's the availability of FFLs in a given area, you mention passing 2 LGSs and a pawn shop on your way to work, I have to travel to the next county to find an FFL that isn't a Wal-Mart (they don't do transfers in my area, not sure about nationwide) hell it takes me 15 minutes just to get to a McDonalds/Burger King.

Considering the FFL side of it is just inputting information into a web form and waiting for a reply, I don't see why it would be too difficult to port it to a smart phone app, where one could take a snapshot of a buyers ID, have it auto fill the form, send it off and get a response back in seconds/minutes.

[Guy4123]

You give folks an easy solution to feeling safe with their firearm sale, and open folks that don't do it to liability should they do something wrong.



I think California mandates the fee is $10, which honestly seems unfair to the dealer depending on how busy they are. Most dealers here charge $30 for a transfer from an online/out of state vendor. Florida also has a $5 FDLE fee for the bg check. There's also coordinating two people to go to the dealer at the same time, unless you expect the dealer to store the firearm. Of course, waiting periods and/ or conditional (rather than approve/ non approve) on background check. There's also the NICS downtimes/ delays or just backlogs ("90% happen in minutes, most of the rest within a few hours!"), standing around at a dealer for a few hours.

Storage also leads to liability issues and of course returning the firearm to the seller if the buyer doesn't check out, might require it's own background check and stuff.

That's of course ignoring the "idea" of having to do all this when selling to a buddy you've known your entire life or a relative or something. I'd assume there'd be some kind of exception for concealed license holders, but who knows.

Damn I wish. The cheapest guy I've found here runs his business out his garage and charges $45 for transfers. Gun shops usually want over $100 for a transfer.

I've never paid only $10 for a fee in California either. Usually around $45 again.

[Antiganon]

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.

[Stormdash]

Some FFLs throw in the NICS fee if you are buying from them, some -- absolutely all of them will charge you if your only business with them it to do a 3rd party transfer, and they'll charge a convenience fee for that, too.

[baskev]

Have you ever even fired gun? It's one of the most exhilarating things in the world. My Brother in law and I have been on a push the last few years to build some nice long range rifles that we can easily get some tight grouping at 1000+ yards, guess what they are semi auto and look "scary". making a shot like this is amazing and feels great, I will protect my God given right to own guns until the day I die, this has nothing to do with the gun Lobby I have been shooting firearms since I was 10 years old, and will continue to teach my children when they are old enough to shoot how to safely and properly use firearms. I use them for many things on my farm, clay pigeon shooting, keeping the raccoons, opossum, woodchucks, skunks, and other varmint down, protection of my family, and for Hunting. A gun is a Tool nothing more nothing less, it does not commit genocide or other evil acts.

- - - Updated - - -



The issue isn't even that you want to take away guns, the issue is that you want to abolish one of our God given rights. The issue is that once the 2nd amendment is gone then there is nothing in stopping History from repeating itself and then Freedom of Speech is next, then Martial law happens. And the the eventuality of guess what we are all of the sudden back in WW2 with a New Nazi regime that has done all the things that everyone on the Left is proposing. Then you will see what all of your PC, Liberal, Evil, Socialism is all about.

read what i wrote. I am not for removing of guns. If you can not even understand that there is not point to discuss gun laws.

- - - Updated - - -

Do you know what a semi auto is?

a gun that not only fire's a bullet, but also loads in in the chamber so you can fire again. So if you pull the trigger fast enough you can shoot very fast.

- - - Updated - - -

Well, thankfully what others in other countries think, has no bearing on our Constitutional rights. I mean, we had to kick some Nazi ass to point that out in the past.

- - - Updated - - -



I might if I can not successfully defend myself. So yeah, it is fundamental to all the rights we have under the Constitution here.

It is absolutely a part of our cornerstone of rights here. Lose a solid corner stone on a building and see what happens.

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 - - -

I don't think you have any idea what a firearm background check is like. Or the fact that it's consistent across the US.


How have guns changed, really? Semi-automatic handguns haven't changed appreciably in over 100 years.

Unless semiautomatic handguns are restricted, restricting rifles of any kind if somewhat of a farce. And restricting semiautomatic handguns is realistically never going to happen.

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?

Again. Not saying it will work. It might only lower % of shootings and every % is a %. And its a discussion. Maybe you are right or not. But hey...that is what discussion is for. Find out how we can best solve a problem. I know mmo champion threads are just soap boxes to shout from.

- - - Updated - - -

You do realize that people who shoot actively for sport or training tend to buy ammo by the case right? Hell I bought 1000 rounds of 9mm last week when I picked up my new pistol just because my LGS had it on sale and its the most common caliber I own.

Again, its not a fix number. Its a suggestion to a idea. to look at. All you and your friends here can do is think...he is taking our guns, he took his guns ( think south park rednecks).

I am just saying stuff we might want to look at. Somethings will not work, will be impractical or have no effect. But discussing it and looking at it is the only way you can change. If we do nothing...nothing happens

[Svifnymr]

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

I don't think most folks would care about silencers if they didn't get misrepresented in media so often, so I'll focus on the other categories. It's a tricky area, federal definitions.

A shotgun has a 18" or longer barrel, 26" overall and has a stock.


A short barrel shotgun (SBS) has a stock, and less than 18" barrel, 26" overall and is NFA.


An Any Other Weapon (AOW) never had a stock, and has less than 26" overall, barrel doesn't matter. It's NFA.


And lastly, you have guns that are fairly recent. They never had a stock, so can't be a "shotgun" or "short barrel shotgun", but are over 26", so can't be an AOW.
So, it's just a "Firearm", no subcategory.


So, obviously, the shorter guns are "easier to conceal", but none of them are really EASY to conceal. The problem back in the 30's was more the single shot sawed off shotguns. The shorter guns are also harder to control (recoil/ accuracy) and less energy on the bullet.

The main problem with NFA is the wait. It is currently running 8 months for approval. The SBS is $200 and the AOW is $5 to transfer, but if someone puts a stock on the AOW or "Firearm" they've made an illegal SBS and it's sort of a stupid law.

Rifles are also in an odd category, with the new braces (which I can explain if you want) making AR15 pistols very easy to shoot. Even then, AR15's are generally big, so the difference between an AR15 pistol, SBR (NFA) and rifle are sort of irritating. Couple that with making a pistol an AOW if you put a forward pistol grip on it.


On top, an NFA SBR, took me 8 months to transfer, $200 stamp (it's literally a postage stamp, sort of hilarious) for the 10.3" barrel.
On bottom, a bullpup keltec rifle, 17" barrel, normal rifle.

The entire NFA has sort of become overly complicated and silly. It was a form of gun-ban in it's day, since the $200 in 1934 was a much "higher" price than now.

That said, neither of us is saying remove Machineguns from NFA. Both of us would prefer that machineguns could be manufactured again. Currently you can only buy guns made before 1986, and they are $8000 and up. The transfer tax is still $200. I'd be fine with raising the tax to make/transfer to like $500 or $1000 and allow new MG's to be made. They were basically never used in crime when registered. Include bump stocks if you want, though if folks could get real mg's, no one would want that pos anyway...

This is a Registered Lightning Link, to convert a AR15 (with certain other parts, but this is the registered part) into a full auto.


It is over $10,000 last I saw, if you can find someone selling...