A bit of a rant... *rough draft of my email is up*

[Actaeon]

So I am in US Government class today, and we're going over the bill of rights, and we get to the "right to bear arms" section. He says he agrees with the fact we can have weapons, and so do I. But he adds a small comment about "Do we really need assault weapons?". He then decribes a .50 Caliper Fully Automatic weapon, and how its silly we can own one.

I tell him we can't, and that no fully automatic weapon can be legally purchased now. He said yes we can, since the the AWB (assault weapon ban) was lifted. I told him that the AWB didn't apply to Automatic Weapons, and they've been illegal since about 1920~ (its actually 1934 under the National Firearms Act, couldn't remember the date or the name of the act off the top of my head during class). So he insists that you can buy them, I'm telling him you couldn't since then anyway, and he goes on to tells me to believe what I want to believe. Several people in the class are giggling, and of course they believe him hes the professor, I expect the students to, but I feel its wrong to spread mis-information on a subject he apparently knows little about.

The AWB only applies to weapons that have similar looks to automatic weapons, such as pistol grips, folding stock, grenade launchers, bayonet mounts, etc etc. NOT Automatic weapons, which has been banned for over 70 years now.

I have no incentive to sway people from his opinion to mine, because I don't own any weapons, and currently don't plan on owning one any time soon, but I've done decent research on this subject, and I know for a fact that fully automatic weapons have been illegal along time ago. He spread misinformation, and puts me on the spot for confronting him on something he knows oh-so-much about. Even if he didn't agree with me, he should have been respectful, and at least offered to find out more information on it. I could have cited at least one source off the top of my head (awbsunset.com) for him to look up information on.

Well whatever, hes a easy professor and it would be extremely difficult to fail his class, but hes very biased (not necessiarly on weapons, but on other subjects we have discussed), and hes a know-it-all.


Suggestions on how to deal with this? Print out some sources and bring it to class? E-mail him? I seriously want to show him up for this.

Cliffnotes:
Its not that long, you can read it.


EDIT:

Sorry, I had a bit of mis-interperation regarding the National Firearms Act, they made automatic firearms illegal for "regular citizens", regulated such weapons with a tax and licenses, but it could be purchaseable. Importation of automatic weapons was severely limited by the Gun control act of 1968, restricting it to manufacturers, dealers and importers. The manufactuer of new machine guns for the civilian market was banned by the 1986 Firearm Owners Protection Act. It has been illegal to create an automatic weapon for civilian use for nearly 20 years now, but All machine guns legally registered prior to the date of enactment are still legal for transfer among civilians.

To clarify, you can purchase an automatic weapon that was manufactured before then. Huge restrictions have applied since 1934. The paperwork required for the transfer of an NFA weapon consists of an application form with the applicant's photograph attached and a fingerprint card. These are submitted the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms in duplicate along with the transfer tax. The finger print cards are forwarded to the FBI for a background check; not very different from a background check that would be performed for a "Secret Level" security clearance. The background check and transfer process takes about 3 months or so depending on the examiners? work load.

This makes it nearly impossible for anyone with such a criminal motive to get such a weapon. Regardless, as it stands there is no way you can go to wal-mart and buy a .50 caliber automatic machine gun.

I do stand corrected on apart of my rant, there are several technicalities in which you could buy an automatic weapon, but regardless, this had nothing to do with the AWB which we were discussing.


EDIT2

Hello Professor ******,

In our Saturday, January 29th, 2005 class, we discussed the AWB and automatic weapons.

The National Firearms Act, made automatic firearms illegal for "regular citizens", they regulated such weapons with a tax and licenses, but it could be purchaseable. Importation of automatic weapons was severely limited by the Gun control act of 1968, restricting it to manufacturers, dealers and importers. The manufactuer of new machine guns for the civilian market was banned by the 1986 Firearm Owners Protection Act. It has been illegal to create an automatic weapon for civilian use for nearly 20 years now, but all machine guns legally registered prior to the date of enactment are still legal for transfer among civilians.

To clarify, you can purchase an automatic weapon that was manufactured before 1986. Huge restrictions have applied since 1934. The paperwork required for the transfer of an NFA weapon consists of an application form with the applicant's photograph attached and a fingerprint card. These are submitted the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms in duplicate along with the transfer tax. The finger print cards are forwarded to the FBI for a background check; not very different from a background check that would be performed for a "Secret Level" security clearance. The background check and transfer process takes about 3 months or so depending on the examiners? work load.

This makes it nearly impossible for anyone with such a criminal motive to get such a weapon. Regardless, as it stands there is no way you can drive to wal-mart and buy a .50 caliber automatic machine gun, then start shooting up people the next day.

I do stand corrected on apart of our discussion, there are several technicalities in which you could buy an automatic weapon, but regardless, this had nothing to do with the AWB which we were discussing in class.

The 1994 Assault Weapon Ban has put restrictions on several classes of weapons out there. There were different classes of weapons, pistols and rifles. According to the ban, if a rifle has at least two of these features, a folding stock, pistol grip, bayonet mount, a flash suppressor, and lastly, a grenade launcher, it was an assault weapon. If a pistol has two of these features, enlarged magazines, threaded barrel that can accept silencers, weight of more than 50 ounces when unloaded, and if it?s the semi-automatic version of an automatic weapon, it would then be considered a Semi-Automatic Assault Weapon. For accessories, it made high capacity magazine clips illegal. A high capacity magazine has more than 10 rounds. All firearms addressed in the ban are semi-automatic firearms, that is, firearms that fire one shot each time the trigger is pulled, without the user reloading by operating a bolt or lever. Neither the AWB nor its expiration affects the legal status of fully-automatic firearms, which can fire more than one round with a single trigger-pull; these have been illegal except by special permit since 1934.



Once again, after doing a little more research, I do stand corrected it is possible to legally acquire an automatic weapon. BUT the 1994 AWB that was recently dismissed has absolutely nothing to do with automatic weapons and the process of purchasing one.


Please read my sources for more information on the subject.

http://www.atf.gov/firearms/saw-faqs.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F...ault_weapons_ban_(USA)

I have no incentive to sway students from your opinion to mine, because I don't own any weapons, and currently don't plan on owning one any time soon, but I've done decent research on this subject. I did not expect any of my fellow students to believe what I have said, over your lessons, you are the professor, I am not, but please, when a student does inform you of something on the subject matter please do not dismiss it immediately. Consider it, and if you aren't sure, offer to find more information. Wether you agree people should or shouldn't need one is besides the point, I personally do not feel they need one, but again, thats not the point. The AWB had nothing to do with the legality of automatic weapons, only semi-automatic weapons with certain characteristics.

This is by no means any form of disrespect or an attempt to prove something, I would just like to clarify for you that the AWB has nothing to do with Automatic weapons, and perhaps when you re-teach this class another semester, and if this subject is ever brought up again, you have a bit more information to go along with your lesson plan.

Thank you
Jonathan

How does that sound?

 

[minendo]

You have class on Saturday? That must suck.

 

[Legendary]

This is a question of how much your value your pride vs. your grades.
If your school has a good grade dispute policy, I would bring in the information that contradicts him, and if he hoses you on the final grade, dispute it (provided you didn't deserve it, of course)

 

[jtusa]

Print out the laws and set them on his desk or give it to him if you want to be nice about it and not prove him wrong in front of the class. I think it's important that he understands the laws correctly, especially if he's going to be talking about them in class.

Or, if you don't like him, show up to class early and write the laws word for word on the blackboard/whiteboard for him and everyone to see as they come in.

I'd go with option 2, but then again I'm very passionate about the RKBA.

 

Let it go. My advice to you from now on: if you disagree with a prof and it'll cause a scene like your comment did, then wait 'till office hours. No need to embarass a prof in front of his or her class. How would you like it if a prof held up your exam in front of his lecture and dissected everything you did wrong in it?

I'm not sure why you had to cause a scene, office hours or after class would have been a much more private, less embarassing place to bring that up.

 

[jtusa]

Originally posted by: jumpr
Let it go. My advice to you from now on: if you disagree with a prof and it'll cause a scene like your comment did, then wait 'till office hours. No need to embarass a prof in front of his or her class. How would you like it if a prof held up your exam in front of his lecture and dissected everything you did wrong in it?

I'm not sure why you had to cause a scene, office hours or after class would have been a much more private, less embarassing place to bring that up.

It doesn't sound like he caused a scene, just tried to correct the professor. If the prof was mature and actually cared about teaching/learning/educating, he would encourage this, not do the whole "I'm right and you're wrong because I'm your teacher."

The two best professors I had in college, the only two that made an impact on me, liked it when I/we would correct them if they got something wrong as long as you were mature about it.

 

[Gunslinger08]

College professors are 95% liberal and about 75% are stuck up their own butts. Experiences may vary at different universities.

 

[olds]

IIRC, it is legal for properly licensed individuals (not law enforcement) to purchase automatic weapons.

 

[jtusa]

Originally posted by: oldsmoboat
IIRC, it is legal for properly licensed individuals (not law enforcement) to purchase automatic weapons.

You are correct.

 

[Spencer278]

Originally posted by: oldsmoboat
IIRC, it is legal for properly licensed individuals (not law enforcement) to purchase automatic weapons.

And the rest of use have to buy the semi-automatic weapons and a file to make them fully automatic.

 

[olds]

http://brian.carnell.com/6267

The Firearms Owners' Protection Act of 1986 also banned the sale of *new* automatic weapons. It does not apply to fully automatic weapons manfuctured prior to the law's passage.. Legally purchasing an automatic weapon certainly involves a bit more effort and costs than buying a semiautomatic, but it is not the case that automatic weapons are outright banned for private, civilian ownership. In fact, according to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, about half of the legally owned automatic weapons in the United States are owned by civilians.

 

[jtusa]

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: oldsmoboat
IIRC, it is legal for properly licensed individuals (not law enforcement) to purchase automatic weapons.

And the rest of use have to buy the semi-automatic weapons and a file to make them fully automatic.

And go to a Federal PMITA for a long time if you get caught. Full-auto is fun, but there's no way it's worth the risk.

 

[TonyG]

Yeah, you can still buy and own fully auto weapons, but they must be legally registered, and you must have all the correct paperwork filed.
It is currently illegal to build or import any new fully auto weapon though. But even this may be seeing the supreme courts here shortly, dealing with building a machine gun for personal use only, that will not be sold or transported across state lines.

I just wish I had an area to go shoot some fully auto stuff, as my father has a couple.

 

[Actaeon]

Sorry, I had a bit of mis-interperation regarding the National Firearms Act, they made automatic firearms illegal for "regular citizens", regulated such weapons with a tax and licenses, but it could be purchaseable. Importation of automatic weapons was severely limited by the Gun control act of 1968, restricting it to manufacturers, dealers and importers. The manufactuer of new machine guns for the civilian market was banned by the 1986 Firearm Owners Protection Act. It has been illegal to create an automatic weapon for civilian use for nearly 20 years now, but All machine guns legally registered prior to the date of enactment are still legal for transfer among civilians.

To clarify, you can purchase an automatic weapon that was manufactured before then. Huge restrictions have applied since 1934. The paperwork required for the transfer of an NFA weapon consists of an application form with the applicant's photograph attached and a fingerprint card. These are submitted the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms in duplicate along with the transfer tax. The finger print cards are forwarded to the FBI for a background check; not very different from a background check that would be performed for a "Secret Level" security clearance. The background check and transfer process takes about 3 months or so depending on the examiners? work load.

This makes it nearly impossible for anyone with such a criminal motive to get such a weapon. Regardless, as it stands there is no way you can go to wal-mart and buy a .50 caliber automatic machine gun.

I do stand corrected on apart of my rant, there are several technicalities in which you could buy an automatic weapon, but regardless, this had nothing to do with the AWB which we were discussing.

 

[jtusa]

Originally posted by: TonyG
Yeah, you can still buy and own fully auto weapons, but they must be legally registered, and you must have all the correct paperwork filed.
It is currently illegal to build or import any new fully auto weapon though. But even this may be seeing the supreme courts here shortly, dealing with building a machine gun for personal use only, that will not be sold or transported across state lines.

I just wish I had an area to go shoot some fully auto stuff, as my father has a couple.

What's he have? I would LOVE to have a select fire AR to sit next to my semi-auto AR.

Hmmm, maybe someday.

 

[Actaeon]

Hello Professor ******,

In our Saturday, January 29th, 2005 class, we discussed the AWB and automatic weapons.

The National Firearms Act, made automatic firearms illegal for "regular citizens", they regulated such weapons with a tax and licenses, but it could be purchaseable. Importation of automatic weapons was severely limited by the Gun control act of 1968, restricting it to manufacturers, dealers and importers. The manufactuer of new machine guns for the civilian market was banned by the 1986 Firearm Owners Protection Act. It has been illegal to create an automatic weapon for civilian use for nearly 20 years now, but all machine guns legally registered prior to the date of enactment are still legal for transfer among civilians.

To clarify, you can purchase an automatic weapon that was manufactured before 1986. Huge restrictions have applied since 1934. The paperwork required for the transfer of an NFA weapon consists of an application form with the applicant's photograph attached and a fingerprint card. These are submitted the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms in duplicate along with the transfer tax. The finger print cards are forwarded to the FBI for a background check; not very different from a background check that would be performed for a "Secret Level" security clearance. The background check and transfer process takes about 3 months or so depending on the examiners? work load.

This makes it nearly impossible for anyone with such a criminal motive to get such a weapon. Regardless, as it stands there is no way you can drive to wal-mart and buy a .50 caliber automatic machine gun, then start shooting up people the next day.

I do stand corrected on apart of our discussion, there are several technicalities in which you could buy an automatic weapon, but regardless, this had nothing to do with the AWB which we were discussing in class.

The 1994 Assault Weapon Ban has put restrictions on several classes of weapons out there. There were different classes of weapons, pistols and rifles. According to the ban, if a rifle has at least two of these features, a folding stock, pistol grip, bayonet mount, a flash suppressor, and lastly, a grenade launcher, it was an assault weapon. If a pistol has two of these features, enlarged magazines, threaded barrel that can accept silencers, weight of more than 50 ounces when unloaded, and if it?s the semi-automatic version of an automatic weapon, it would then be considered a Semi-Automatic Assault Weapon. For accessories, it made high capacity magazine clips illegal. A high capacity magazine has more than 10 rounds. All firearms addressed in the ban are semi-automatic firearms, that is, firearms that fire one shot each time the trigger is pulled, without the user reloading by operating a bolt or lever. Neither the AWB nor its expiration affects the legal status of fully-automatic firearms, which can fire more than one round with a single trigger-pull; these have been illegal except by special permit since 1934.



Once again, after doing a little more research, I do stand corrected it is possible to legally acquire an automatic weapon. BUT the 1994 AWB that was recently dismissed has absolutely nothing to do with automatic weapons and the process of purchasing one.


Please read my sources for more information on the subject.

http://www.atf.gov/firearms/saw-faqs.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F...ault_weapons_ban_(USA)

I have no incentive to sway students from your opinion to mine, because I don't own any weapons, and currently don't plan on owning one any time soon, but I've done decent research on this subject. I did not expect any of my fellow students to believe what I have said, over your lessons, you are the professor, I am not, but please, when a student does inform you of something on the subject matter please do not dismiss it immediately. Consider it, and if you aren't sure, offer to find more information. Wether you agree people should or shouldn't need one is besides the point, I personally do not feel they need one, but again, thats not the point. The AWB had nothing to do with the legality of automatic weapons, only semi-automatic weapons with certain characteristics.

This is by no means any form of disrespect or an attempt to prove something, I would just like to clarify for you that the AWB has nothing to do with Automatic weapons, and perhaps when you re-teach this class another semester, and if this subject is ever brought up again, you have a bit more information to go along with your lesson plan.

Thank you
Jonathan

How does that sound?

 

[jlee]

You may want to use a different word than 'rant' in your letter..

According to the ban, if a rifle has at least two of these features, a folding stock, pistol grip, bayonet mount, a silencer, and lastly, a grenade launcher, it was an assault weapon.

Flash hider..not 'silencer' (suppressor).

Once again, after doing a little more research, I do stand corrected it is possible to legally acquire an automatic weapon, BUT the 1994 AWB that was recently dismissed has absolutely nothing to do with automatic weapons in which you have implied are now readily purchaseable.

I can't quite decipher that sentence either.

Other than some improper commas/etc, it looks alright to me. :thumbsup:

 

[Actaeon]

Originally posted by: CadetLee
You may want to use a different word than 'rant' in your letter..

According to the ban, if a rifle has at least two of these features, a folding stock, pistol grip, bayonet mount, a silencer, and lastly, a grenade launcher, it was an assault weapon.

Flash hider..not 'silencer' (suppressor).

Once again, after doing a little more research, I do stand corrected it is possible to legally acquire an automatic weapon, BUT the 1994 AWB that was recently dismissed has absolutely nothing to do with automatic weapons in which you have implied are now readily purchaseable.

I can't quite decipher that sentence either.

Other than some improper commas/etc, it looks alright to me. :thumbsup:

Alright, thanks, I after re-reading it several times, I've fixed a few things, going to send it off in a few.

 

[jlee]

There was an article in our local newspaper after the AWB ban was lifted...reeking of misinformation. It stated that flash hiders make the shooter invisible. I tried to send a letter to the author of the article, but nobody replied to my email asking for contact info...bah.

 

[Actaeon]

Originally posted by: CadetLee
There was an article in our local newspaper after the AWB ban was lifted...reeking of misinformation. It stated that flash hiders make the shooter invisible. I tried to send a letter to the author of the article, but nobody replied to my email asking for contact info...bah.

Yeah, that is my biggest problem with people who support the ban, tons of misinformation. Had they bothered to research it a bit, they would understand exactly what the law DID and DID NOT do. Honestly, I do not feel such weapons are neccessary, but I do support the fact it is dropped. The ban had absolutely no effect on crime-rates, and only affected those who abided the law. Criminals with bad intentions who want weapons will buy them regardless if its illegal or not.

We had small discussion in another one of my classes, and we were discussing the AWB. This kid said the excuse for people who wanted the law dropped was that "assault weapons are used for hunting", which, aside from use on the range is pretty much true. He was trying to say an "Uzi" wasn't neccessary for hunting, and the AWB should have stayed, and blah blah. I told him "Of course an Uzi isn't neccessary, but the AWB had nothing to do with an automatic weapon", and of course he goes on telling me it is, and blah blah. We then "argued" about it for a bit, but this was student-to-student, and no one was really put on the spot. It really bothers me when people use mis-information to support their personal flawed ideas and logic.

Well, whatever. I sent the email off, I hope to get a reply soon.