Sure glad I'm not living there. It includes lovely bans such as a pistol with
"A folding, telescoping or thumbhole stock."
Yeah because that's totally not a short barreled rifle under federal law which already a felony without the proper paperwork.
Or
"A shroud attached to the barrel, or that partially or completely encircles the barrel, allowing the bearer to hold the firearm with the nontrigger hand without being burned, but excluding a slide that encloses the barrel;"
Yeah, because why would any honest citizen ever want to not burn their hand?
And unlike the proposed federal ban and other similar ones, your shit isn't just grandfathered in.
" A person may not register more than one assault weapon and three large capacity magazines under this section. Additional assault weapons and large capacity magazines must be disposed of in the manner specified in section 3 of this 2013 Act."
Yeah, you might get to keep your AR and 3 mags, but there goes all the rest of your mags and anything else that happens to be scary looking.
Except, it's going to stand for about thirty seconds, because by those definitions, they're banning practically every rifle and handgun ever made, in their enthusiasm to ban things that are black and scary - which is unconstitutional. And I only say practically because it saves me trying to think of the handful of exceptions, which I'm pretty sure are all pistols.
Christ, if this law was any more ridiculously broad in trying to ban all things black and scary, they'd have to bar Mike Tyson from entering the state.
Except for the things they are restricting are mostly cosmetic. A rifle having a pistol grip or folding stock doesn't really change its deadliness. The only actual mechanical thing being banned is "high capacity" magazines and the idea that it would actually help is murky at best. This isn't about making more restrictions so that guns don't get into the wrong hands, its just about making the guns out there less scary looking. Now, I don't think it will probably pass anyway but just the fact that they're this ignorant pisses me off.
Not really. Our points are different - yours is that they're pointless cosmetic restrictions that don't help anything, mine is that if the law is enforced as written, then it's blatantly unconstitutional.
I don't understand people that go bow hunting in the US. Like I really can't get my head round in.
I think bows are neat and all but I'd just be afraid I wouldn't get a clean kill like with a rifle. I think a lot of people just bow hunt because they want something to do when its not rifle season, or at least that's the impression I've gotten around here.
I don't understand people that go bow hunting in the US. Like I really can't get my head round in.
I feel bow hunters want to get all they can out of the hunting experience. Hunting with a gun gives you tons of advantages. Take those away then you truly have to hone your skills to get close enough to get your kill. Most my friends hunt with rifles, and get their kills at 100-300 yards. And they get one every other year or so. But if they only had a 50 yard effective range, they would have to really be in tune with what they were doing to get anything.
I'm a big gun nut; but I'm not a... conspiracy theorist, or someone who anticipates the 'gubmnt g'nna tk er gnz', I'm not gonna go innawoods with an SKS, and I'm not blind to the frustration and dissatisfaction of many Americans to the issue of gun violence being pretty out of hand. And I'm also quite in tune with the frustration faced by gun owners who have to deal with laws that make no sense, and arbitrarily make their life more miserable for no discernable reason.
We can say guns are bad and thy should go away, and that is a great idea as much as any idealistic notion. It's not gonna happen tho; because a lot of reasons, the least of all is how utterly difficult it will be to do so. Pandoras box has been left open a long time. Seriously, it's just wide open and the expiration date is passed and the milk has turned to some kind of new mold colony: there is no way to make that shit good again. You can seal it if you want but it's still wafted its shit out into the atmosphere AND it'll still just be a rotten core.
My girlfriend argues that we should at least try. Well, why? It's a system where trying isn't good enough, trying and failing is worse than not trying at all. It's almost unfortunate, but it's my belief that we're better off dealing with the reality that people have guns and accepting that fact than trying to make a utopia.
But since we're not gonna ban guns entirely in this country we need to come together and make a plan that will freaking work and makes some sense. And then it should be locked down and codified so there's no more ambiguity.
I could go on for a while about it, but lunch is over so back to work.
1. Mandatory background checks for all gun sales: no exceptions 2. Mandatory registration for all guns: no exceptions 3. Mandatory reporting of lost/stolen guns 4. Mandatory gun seller inventory management and auditing requirements 5. Severe penalties for failing to comply with the above four items
Every article, every study, every story I see involving the origin of the guns used in most crime hints that these guns are purchased mostly legally due to the severe loopholes in our existing system, and then distributed illegally after the fact.
For example, the recent This American Life on Harper High School directly stated that the guns in that neighborhood are straight-up straw purchases from outside the city/state, bypassing the otherwise highly effective local gun laws.
Federal implementation of the 5 points above is the obvious, most effective, most reasonable change to effect.
1 is apparently now in effect 2 is not a bad idea in principle but convincing people that it isn't going to lead directly to confiscation is vital for such a plan to gain traction. 3. is, to my knowledge, already in effect; perhaps not on the federal level 4. is also to my knowledge already in effect to some degree, part of being an FFL is keeping a bound log of inventory coming in and out with random audits at any time possible. (I know a local gun shop got shut down numerous times (ownership would transfer to a clean person each time until they finally plugged it for good) for gross failure to track and log firearms inventory, and back-door sales.) 5. would be the logical extension of those policies.
But that isn't what many gun owners are complaining about, tho some will argue the principle of it being unjustified on personal freedoms grounds no matter how positive the outcome is on curbing distribution to unlawful users.
If that was the extent of gun control laws in the US: "don't sell shit to people who have committed felonies or have otherwise proven themselves incompatible with the right to bear arms" and it involved some simple gateways to pass through to ensure a person is on the up-and-up; well good. I'm sure people are able to live with that.
what gets me frustrated are things like the NFA, the assault weapons bans, the attempts to control or limit type of tool one uses based on fairly benign or perhaps spurious reasoning.
These are not rules made by gun owners with the well-being of society in mind. They display little understanding of the purpose and application of design featurs and parts used on modern weapons, and are essentially trying to find the secret 11 herbs and spices of what turns a happy hunting rifle into a black death dealer; but its all a fantasy.
That a second federal AWB is all-but-dead in the water, on the national scene, is telling perhaps. If it made any actual sense congress would have actually been pretty hard-pressed to oppose it.
So if lawmakers could all agree not to go on trying to ban pistol grips on rifles and the ability to swap magazines, and that all stocks are fixed in place permanently and all of the other design features that logically make sense on a weapon for almost any purpose... then people would probably chill out and accept that yes, some laws making it harder to straw purchase a Hi-Point are worth discussing.
4. is hardly in effect at all on a national level: the ATF has basically zero enforcement power on this.
Dead wrong. The ATF can and does pull licenses for infractions with record keeping all the time. They may have a hard time throwing folks in jail, but they can shut a dealer down in a god awful hurry.
The ATF has been hobbled to some extent by budgetary and legislative restrictions, but that doesn't mean they have no impact at all. They can shut down an FFL for a single inventory discrepancy.That's enforcement power.
The ATF needs to have some of those restrictions lifted, but they are a long way from having zero influence.
Edit: in 2011 the ATF conducted more that 13,000 inspections.
More importantly, what about the specific claim that the ATF can not force dealers to actually conduct inventory checks? That appears to be true based on a reading of the ATF's site.
I found numerous reports of non-enforcement of repeated offenses on a regular basis with less than a minute of googling.
Your statement was very specifically that they can't. That's what I said was incorrect and i stand by that statement.
More importantly, what about the specific claim that the ATF can not force dealers to actually conduct inventory checks? That appears to be true based on a reading of the ATF's site.
Your right they can't call you and demand an inventory check over the phone, they can however show up and check your books and stock in person and then shut you down.
Edit: Just to be clear, I agree with your 5 points up there. I just think you don't really have a good picture of how firearms dealers view this whole thing. The ATF Scares the piss out of most of us.
The ATF and their enforcement of laws, for good or bad, is wanting.
Between failing to enforce laws (as you cite one example), overzealously trying to enforce others (see: Olofson), intentionally breaking the law themselves (see Fast and Furious) and generally having questionable impact with their efforts (see: http://trac.syr.edu/tracatf/newfindings/current/)
I know that one local store has been shut down by the ATF for failing to comply with inventory control as specified. Here's one interesting arfcom thread about another local store being audited by the ATF... http://3gn.ar15.com/archive/topic.html?b=8&f=26&t=397898 note the post talking about Frank D'andrea.
1. Mandatory background checks for all gun sales: no exceptions 2. Mandatory registration for all guns: no exceptions 3. Mandatory reporting of lost/stolen guns 4. Mandatory gun seller inventory management and auditing requirements 5. Severe penalties for failing to comply with the above four items
Everyone I have talked to of sound mind about guns would agree to all of these (including #2) if it meant that there would be no more ban/buyback/confiscation talk in the future. But gun opponents would not be happy with just the above and will always push for more. And confiscation or mandatory buyback is scary considering the public outcry for change when a tragic event happens.
On #1, I am a longtime NRA member and I have never liked La'Pier's change of attitude towards background checks. Considering they don't keep the records, I wish he would support that one.
In regards with SWATrous's post. I just have one issue with something you said.
So if lawmakers could all agree
I don't see this ever happening for anything as hot topic as gun control. Regardless of how much I want them to agree on something reasonable.
Oh I know it isn't going to happen... I'm just posting a hypothetical case that IF that were to somehow happen, then people might see a shift of attitudes on certain policies.
1. Mandatory background checks for all gun sales: no exceptions 2. Mandatory registration for all guns: no exceptions 3. Mandatory reporting of lost/stolen guns 4. Mandatory gun seller inventory management and auditing requirements 5. Severe penalties for failing to comply with the above four items
I find it amusing that -- despite the debates that have taken place in this thread and the sides people have taken in them -- this is significantly further to the right than what Churba has suggested.
Oh I know it isn't going to happen... I'm just posting a hypothetical case that IF that were to somehow happen, then people might see a shift of attitudes on certain policies.
Comments
Sure glad I'm not living there. It includes lovely bans such as a pistol with Yeah because that's totally not a short barreled rifle under federal law which already a felony without the proper paperwork.
Or Yeah, because why would any honest citizen ever want to not burn their hand?
And unlike the proposed federal ban and other similar ones, your shit isn't just grandfathered in. Yeah, you might get to keep your AR and 3 mags, but there goes all the rest of your mags and anything else that happens to be scary looking.
Christ, if this law was any more ridiculously broad in trying to ban all things black and scary, they'd have to bar Mike Tyson from entering the state.
Edit- Churbs beat me to it.
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/mit-lockdown-after-reports-armed-gunman
I'm a big gun nut; but I'm not a... conspiracy theorist, or someone who anticipates the 'gubmnt g'nna tk er gnz', I'm not gonna go innawoods with an SKS, and I'm not blind to the frustration and dissatisfaction of many Americans to the issue of gun violence being pretty out of hand. And I'm also quite in tune with the frustration faced by gun owners who have to deal with laws that make no sense, and arbitrarily make their life more miserable for no discernable reason.
We can say guns are bad and thy should go away, and that is a great idea as much as any idealistic notion. It's not gonna happen tho; because a lot of reasons, the least of all is how utterly difficult it will be to do so. Pandoras box has been left open a long time. Seriously, it's just wide open and the expiration date is passed and the milk has turned to some kind of new mold colony: there is no way to make that shit good again. You can seal it if you want but it's still wafted its shit out into the atmosphere AND it'll still just be a rotten core.
My girlfriend argues that we should at least try. Well, why? It's a system where trying isn't good enough, trying and failing is worse than not trying at all. It's almost unfortunate, but it's my belief that we're better off dealing with the reality that people have guns and accepting that fact than trying to make a utopia.
But since we're not gonna ban guns entirely in this country we need to come together and make a plan that will freaking work and makes some sense. And then it should be locked down and codified so there's no more ambiguity.
I could go on for a while about it, but lunch is over so back to work.
1. Mandatory background checks for all gun sales: no exceptions
2. Mandatory registration for all guns: no exceptions
3. Mandatory reporting of lost/stolen guns
4. Mandatory gun seller inventory management and auditing requirements
5. Severe penalties for failing to comply with the above four items
Every article, every study, every story I see involving the origin of the guns used in most crime hints that these guns are purchased mostly legally due to the severe loopholes in our existing system, and then distributed illegally after the fact.
For example, the recent This American Life on Harper High School directly stated that the guns in that neighborhood are straight-up straw purchases from outside the city/state, bypassing the otherwise highly effective local gun laws.
Federal implementation of the 5 points above is the obvious, most effective, most reasonable change to effect.
2 is not a bad idea in principle but convincing people that it isn't going to lead directly to confiscation is vital for such a plan to gain traction.
3. is, to my knowledge, already in effect; perhaps not on the federal level
4. is also to my knowledge already in effect to some degree, part of being an FFL is keeping a bound log of inventory coming in and out with random audits at any time possible. (I know a local gun shop got shut down numerous times (ownership would transfer to a clean person each time until they finally plugged it for good) for gross failure to track and log firearms inventory, and back-door sales.)
5. would be the logical extension of those policies.
But that isn't what many gun owners are complaining about, tho some will argue the principle of it being unjustified on personal freedoms grounds no matter how positive the outcome is on curbing distribution to unlawful users.
If that was the extent of gun control laws in the US: "don't sell shit to people who have committed felonies or have otherwise proven themselves incompatible with the right to bear arms" and it involved some simple gateways to pass through to ensure a person is on the up-and-up; well good. I'm sure people are able to live with that.
what gets me frustrated are things like the NFA, the assault weapons bans, the attempts to control or limit type of tool one uses based on fairly benign or perhaps spurious reasoning.
These are not rules made by gun owners with the well-being of society in mind. They display little understanding of the purpose and application of design featurs and parts used on modern weapons, and are essentially trying to find the secret 11 herbs and spices of what turns a happy hunting rifle into a black death dealer; but its all a fantasy.
That a second federal AWB is all-but-dead in the water, on the national scene, is telling perhaps. If it made any actual sense congress would have actually been pretty hard-pressed to oppose it.
So if lawmakers could all agree not to go on trying to ban pistol grips on rifles and the ability to swap magazines, and that all stocks are fixed in place permanently and all of the other design features that logically make sense on a weapon for almost any purpose... then people would probably chill out and accept that yes, some laws making it harder to straw purchase a Hi-Point are worth discussing.
2. is necessary or else 1 can't be enforced and illegal guns can't be traced back to their origins.
3 is not in effect for all intents and purposes on a national, uniform level.
4. is hardly in effect at all on a national level: the ATF has basically zero enforcement power on this.
The ATF has been hobbled to some extent by budgetary and legislative restrictions, but that doesn't mean they have no impact at all. They can shut down an FFL for a single inventory discrepancy.That's enforcement power.
The ATF needs to have some of those restrictions lifted, but they are a long way from having zero influence.
Edit: in 2011 the ATF conducted more that 13,000 inspections.
http://www.atf.gov/publications/factsheets/factsheet-ffl-revocation-process.html
More importantly, what about the specific claim that the ATF can not force dealers to actually conduct inventory checks? That appears to be true based on a reading of the ATF's site.
I found numerous reports of non-enforcement of repeated offenses on a regular basis with less than a minute of googling.
Your right they can't call you and demand an inventory check over the phone, they can however show up and check your books and stock in person and then shut you down.
Edit: Just to be clear, I agree with your 5 points up there. I just think you don't really have a good picture of how firearms dealers view this whole thing. The ATF Scares the piss out of most of us.
Between failing to enforce laws (as you cite one example), overzealously trying to enforce others (see: Olofson), intentionally breaking the law themselves (see Fast and Furious) and generally having questionable impact with their efforts (see: http://trac.syr.edu/tracatf/newfindings/current/)
I know that one local store has been shut down by the ATF for failing to comply with inventory control as specified. Here's one interesting arfcom thread about another local store being audited by the ATF... http://3gn.ar15.com/archive/topic.html?b=8&f=26&t=397898 note the post talking about Frank D'andrea.
On #1, I am a longtime NRA member and I have never liked La'Pier's change of attitude towards background checks. Considering they don't keep the records, I wish he would support that one.
In regards with SWATrous's post. I just have one issue with something you said. I don't see this ever happening for anything as hot topic as gun control. Regardless of how much I want them to agree on something reasonable.