Gun Control Measures

[SlowSpyder]

So let me get this right -- mind you I am using your own words -- You mean the point of the Constitution is to protect the murdering of children????

Rights that can cause harm can only be taken away through a pretty substantial process. Take free speech, if it is decided that the ability to say mean things causes too many suicides, the constitution still protects our right to say what we want. The desire to limit speech would have to be enough that our elected officials would vote at a large majority to change the amendment. The constitution is purposely insulated from flavor of the day thinking.

What you're really asking is akin to asking why you anti-2A'ers haven't tried to further limit access to tobacco seeing as it kills several times as many innocent people as firearms. Are you saying the liberty to smoke or use tobacco still exists despite it killing innocent people?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Well, it looks like the rightwingers are getting what they ask for. Unfortunately, responsible gun owners are going to be punished which was ridiculously easy to foresee.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Another poster compared the 737 MAX fix (a small number of causalities overall, but magnified in the public eye due to the drama of it all) to doing something to limit the 2A to help lower the number of causalities from mass shootings (also a small number of causalities overall, but magnified in the public eye due to the drama of it all). This comparison is stupid because to fix the 737 MAX no one lost any part of their constitutional rights. Further limiting the 2A is doing exactly that, there are as many as 100 million gun owners in this country. The 2A says the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. We already lost automatic weapons, an infringement technically given the plain wording of the 2A. Now the anti-2A'ers want the semi auto weapons. This is the slippery slope in action, happening right before us. When this does nothing to stop deaths, as it is a do-nothing-feel-good move, then it'll be revolvers and repeating arms in general next.

blah blah blah....

 

[JEDIYoda]

Uh, no the hell you are not. Nowhere have I said such a thing. You might want to read the thread again.

That is exactly what you said.....using different words...same meaning...

 

[JEDIYoda]

Rights that can cause harm can only be taken away through a pretty substantial process. Take free speech, if it is decided that the ability to say mean things causes too many suicides, the constitution still protects our right to say what we want. The desire to limit speech would have to be enough that our elected officials would vote at a large majority to change the amendment. The constitution is purposely insulated from flavor of the day thinking.

What you're really asking is akin to asking why you anti-2A'ers haven't tried to further limit access to tobacco seeing as it kills several times as many innocent people as firearms. Are you saying the liberty to smoke or use tobacco still exists despite it killing innocent people?

All your supposed examples mean nothing when it comes to innocent children`s lives being taken by a firearms! Like most die hard gun advocates you just don`t get it -- you do no5t have a right to bear automatic weapons and those who wrote the constitution had no idea what weapons there would be in the future...had they known I am sure it would have been written a bit different! Sorry -- but no right you have trumps an innocent child`s right to live!!

 

[nOOky]

My FB feed is inundated with folks posting about their right to keep and bear arms, blah blah blah. Not a one of the fucking mnorons I see posting about their 2nd amendment rights has even acknowledged the innocent murdered people. They go right to the whining "you can't take my guns away" baloney. Fucking whiny little losers, they don't realize they could actually be part of a solution if they wouldn't bury their heads in the sand.

 

[glenn1]

My FB feed is inundated with folks posting about their right to keep and bear arms, blah blah blah. Not a one of the fucking mnorons I see posting about their 2nd amendment rights has even acknowledged the innocent murdered people. They go right to the whining "you can't take my guns away" baloney. Fucking whiny little losers, they don't realize they could actually be part of a solution if they wouldn't bury their heads in the sand.

The frustration must be mounting if you think continuing to repeat “think about the children” in an increasingly strident manner is going to result in gun control law or outright bans of semi-autos. If you are truly that concerned maybe you should buy your kid some body armor to reduce the .000002% chance of dying in a mass shooting to .000001% or so.

 

[Bird222]

That is exactly what you said.....using different words...same meaning...

Are you serious dude? You write 'I'm using your words' then you turn around and say 'using different words'. Work on your reading comprehension.

 

[Bird222]

All your supposed examples mean nothing when it comes to innocent children`s lives being taken by a firearms! Like most die hard gun advocates you just don`t get it -- you do no5t have a right to bear automatic weapons and those who wrote the constitution had no idea what weapons there would be in the future...had they known I am sure it would have been written a bit different! Sorry -- but no right you have trumps an innocent child`s right to live!!

As smart as they were you would think they would have thought 'hey we don't know the future so let's just say muskets can't be infringed' (even though there were other weapons) but somehow they didn't wonder why?

 

[nOOky]

The frustration must be mounting if you think continuing to repeat “think about the children” in an increasingly strident manner is going to result in gun control law or outright bans of semi-autos. If you are truly that concerned maybe you should buy your kid some body armor to reduce the .000002% chance of dying in a mass shooting to .000001% or so.

No dude, the entire gun problem including all deaths requires more than people babbling "think about the children", or "don't take away my guns", but the gun owners won't even acknowledge there is a problem, that would require a bit of self sacrifice on their part. I am a gun owner, and I'm 100% in favor of stricter laws regarding magazine/clip capacity and general ownership requirements. It should be hard to own a gun, like the requirements for driving a car on steroids. The majority of the recent massacres were legal gun owners until they did what they did.

 

[Veliko]

The frustration must be mounting if you think continuing to repeat “think about the children” in an increasingly strident manner is going to result in gun control law or outright bans of semi-autos. If you are truly that concerned maybe you should buy your kid some body armor to reduce the .000002% chance of dying in a mass shooting to .000001% or so.

Gun nuts really are pathetic worms.

 

[glenn1]

No dude, the entire gun problem including all deaths requires more than people babbling "think about the children", or "don't take away my guns", but the gun owners won't even acknowledge there is a problem, that would require a bit of self sacrifice on their part. I am a gun owner, and I'm 100% in favor of stricter laws regarding magazine/clip capacity and general ownership requirements. It should be hard to own a gun, like the requirements for driving a car on steroids. The majority of the recent massacres were legal gun owners until they did what they did.

They almost certainly would have passed “stricter general ownership requirements” laws also. It’s not like people who commit mass shootings (or fly planes into buildings, etc) have neon signs above their heads. The false positive rate would be astronomical for investigating every person who seems “weird” or capable of instigating violence, it would make the TSA “take off your shoes” checks at the airport look surgical in comparison.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Are you serious dude? You write 'I'm using your words' then you turn around and say 'using different words'. Work on your reading comprehension.

That the best you can do?? TRIGGERED!!

 

[JEDIYoda]

As smart as they were you would think they would have thought 'hey we don't know the future so let's just say muskets can't be infringed' (even though there were other weapons) but somehow they didn't wonder why?

That is thre most asinine answer I ever heard!! I reeks of smelly doo doo!! You can do better than that!! What a loser you are!!

 

[piasabird]

My Idea of gun control is the death penalty for all crimes committed with a farearm.

 

[soundforbjt]

My Idea of gun control is the death penalty for all crimes committed with a farearm.

You'll never see a cop get the death penalty for killing an unarmed man, they don't even lose their jobs.

 

[Wuzup101]

You are doing a background check that requires three different agencies. You are required to do fingerprints and a photo. Those things cost time and money. I did some searching and could not find a estimate for how much each NFA background check costs, but I did find some small piece of information that raises my estimate of how much they cost: It is not a one time deal. You have to then support each NFA stamp by requiring approval for every transfer, ever time someone crosses a state line, every time they change address. So, unless you want to charge for all of that as well, it needs to all be factored into that original fee.

Those things are mostly automated and you can get them done relatively cheaply. We are talking tens of dollars, not thousands of dollars. You have to send in photographs and finger prints (generally taken at your local police/sherifs dept) when you apply for a stamp. You pay for this separately, it's inexpensive.

What you say about every transfer is correct. If you want to sell your NFA regulated firearm, the buyer has to go through the same process as you did previously, despite it being on the used market. This would be the same way that that used guns are sold currently, except for private sales in areas where background checks are not required (i.e. what people call the gun show loophole, which is really a private sales loophole). But yes, this would mean a full background check every time a NFA regulated weapon is sold.

As far as the state line thing, that only applies to certain NFA items. Specifically, it does not apply to suppressors and AOWs. Also, it's important to realize that this isn't a background check. It's literally a "permission slip" from the BATFE to allow you to move them from state to state.

I'm not trying to be a dick here, but what is your estimate based on? Thousands of dollars is ridiculous for a background check (yes, even from multiple agencies) in the age of computers.

I agree it is a good first step. It has a number of other provisions I think would help as well.

It makes the penalty for owning a NFA controlled item considerable higher than is current for any other firearm and with less burden of proof. Just having possession of a NFA controlled firearm with out proof of a permit is a felony with a $10,000 fine and 10 years in federal prison.

You can not sell or otherwise transfer a NFA controlled item with out ATF permission and a background check, basically all transfers of NFA controlled items is treated just like an original sell. It closes the gun show loophole and makes all grey markets into a black market.

You can not cross state lines with a NFA controlled item without written permission from the ATF.

You must always be able to provide proof of registration for any ATF controlled item on request. (want to carry a gun, you must carry it's registration papers as well)

Obliterating, removing, changing, or altering the serial number of a NFA controlled item is against the law.

Any violation of those things could carry a penalty of up to $10,000 and 10 years in federal prison, and the possibility of secondary charges that include of up to $500,000 fine and an additional 5 years in prison.

Agreed. Note, most of us with NFA weapons always carry copies of our paperwork with our weapons. I should also note that it is, in general, not required that you carry your paperwork with you, only that you can produce it upon request. It's just obviously easier to have a copy with you so that you can produce it if circumstances require it. I've never been asked to produce my documents for any reason.

 

[SMOGZINN]

This would be the same way that that used guns are sold currently, except for private sales in areas where background checks are not required (i.e. what people call the gun show loophole, which is really a private sales loophole). But yes, this would mean a full background check every time a NFA regulated weapon is sold.

This would be quite a positive change to how gun sales currently work. One of the keys to gun control is going to have to be doing better at making sure that weapons are registered to the person that owns them. I know we won't get perfect, but closing this loophole will go a long way.

As far as the state line thing, that only applies to certain NFA items. Specifically, it does not apply to suppressors and AOWs.

But if we made the change that we are talking about it would apply to approximately 300 million more weapons. Suppressors and AOWs are actually pretty rare.

Also, it's important to realize that this isn't a background check. It's literally a "permission slip" from the BATFE to allow you to move them from state to state.

I get that, but it is going to take a lot of man hours to implement and maintain, just due to the shear number of items being tracked. I would imagine that thousands, maybe even tens of thousands, of items that would be covered cross state lines daily.

I'm not trying to be a dick here, but what is your estimate based on? Thousands of dollars is ridiculous for a background check (yes, even from multiple agencies) in the age of computers.

Lets just agree to disagree on this. My experience working with the federal government leads me to believe that this will be much more expensive then you think, but the truth is we are both guessing. The thing is if we were to have a serious national discussion about using this solution then we could get real numbers and decide from there is it is reasonable or not, because I think we both agree that if a number in the $200 or less range is right then it is reasonable, if it is more in the $2000 range it probably is not.

Agreed. Note, most of us with NFA weapons always carry copies of our paperwork with our weapons. I should also note that it is, in general, not required that you carry your paperwork with you, only that you can produce it upon request. It's just obviously easier to have a copy with you so that you can produce it if circumstances require it. I've never been asked to produce my documents for any reason.

I understand that you are not actually required to have your papers with you at all times, but I think that if we were to pass this it would probably become a best practice rather quickly. I am almost certain that if we made this change that police would ask for papers much more often, probably just about every time they dealt with someone with a firearm.

 

[Wuzup101]

But if we made the change that we are talking about it would apply to approximately 300 million more weapons. Suppressors and AOWs are actually pretty rare.

I know - the real question is: does this even matter. I.e. are we really concerned about people crossing state lines with these weapons. I would argue that the background checks are much more important than this "permission slip." I will also point out that this regulation (i.e. requiring people to ask "approval" to move their guns from state to state) would probably be a sticking point for many supporting something like this. As someone who has to do it periodically (I have an SBR), it's a royal pain in the arse.

I get that, but it is going to take a lot of man hours to implement and maintain, just due to the shear number of items being tracked. I would imagine that thousands, maybe even tens of thousands, of items that would be covered cross state lines daily.


Lets just agree to disagree on this. My experience working with the federal government leads me to believe that this will be much more expensive then you think, but the truth is we are both guessing. The thing is if we were to have a serious national discussion about using this solution then we could get real numbers and decide from there is it is reasonable or not, because I think we both agree that if a number in the $200 or less range is right then it is reasonable, if it is more in the $2000 range it probably is not.

I agree, it's pretty irrelevant for us to argue about haha sorry.

I understand that you are not actually required to have your papers with you at all times, but I think that if we were to pass this it would probably become a best practice rather quickly. I am almost certain that if we made this change that police would ask for papers much more often, probably just about every time they dealt with someone with a firearm.

Not sure how I feel about this. Obviously, I get the desire to allow law enforcement to constantly check to see if you are legal from a security standpoint. However, these are tax documents and generally only have to be provided to a BATFE agent, not local police. Maybe a license system would be easier given the sheer number of weapons that would be put into this system. You could still "register" the weapons in the NFA, but maybe use full background checks every X years when you renew the license, and you need it to buy them?

To be honest, I wish we just had one set of national gun laws. I would love to be able to legally carry / transport in all 50 states without having to know all the state and local laws. If I could do that with a national licensing system, even if it required me to register all of my guns, I'd probably support it. Making me fill out a BS document every time I wanted to cross state lines is a major sticking point. And the thing is, you definitely need the support of gun owners to make something like this work.

 

[SMOGZINN]

I know - the real question is: does this even matter. I.e. are we really concerned about people crossing state lines with these weapons. I would argue that the background checks are much more important than this "permission slip." I will also point out that this regulation (i.e. requiring people to ask "approval" to move their guns from state to state) would probably be a sticking point for many supporting something like this. As someone who has to do it periodically (I have an SBR), it's a royal pain in the arse.

I would need to hear the arguments pro and con for this part of it. I have not really thought this part of it through very well, I just assumed that since it was in the law currently that there was some legitimate reasoning for it. But honestly when I first talked about it I was thinking more along the lines of permanently relocating across state lines rather than just travel. I think that might be the better happy medium, if you are going to permanently (or at least long term, say more than 3 months) relocate the firearm to a new state you need to officially request permission. I would also add that the 'permission' should be more or less a rubber stamp approval, as long as there is not some specific reason to disallow it, it really should be more or less just to keep the records accurate.

Not sure how I feel about this. Obviously, I get the desire to allow law enforcement to constantly check to see if you are legal from a security standpoint. However, these are tax documents and generally only have to be provided to a BATFE agent, not local police. Maybe a license system would be easier given the sheer number of weapons that would be put into this system. You could still "register" the weapons in the NFA, but maybe use full background checks every X years when you renew the license, and you need it to buy them?

I agree, a licensing system would be better. I was trying to work within the system already in place.
If we were to make major changes to make this work I think that it should probably be a single card, like a drivers license, with a picture, a national firearm owners id number, some biometric info (height, weight, eye color, basically same stuff on a drivers license for identification purposes) on a RFID chip or something that they can scan and then do a database lookup to see what firearms you have registered to you.

Heck, maybe this would be a good opportunity for us to update the SSN card to a national ID card, and hook it onto that (but that might be too much to do all at once, it might trigger too much paranoia). If we could get all the states on board it could even all be on your drivers license. Done right it would be fairly unobtrusive to anyone that has a legal right to have the firearm in question.

My goal with this would be to make it easy to prove you are legally allowed to possess the firearm. If it is easy it will be used.

 

[SlowSpyder]

No dude, the entire gun problem including all deaths requires more than people babbling "think about the children", or "don't take away my guns", but the gun owners won't even acknowledge there is a problem, that would require a bit of self sacrifice on their part. I am a gun owner, and I'm 100% in favor of stricter laws regarding magazine/clip capacity and general ownership requirements. It should be hard to own a gun, like the requirements for driving a car on steroids. The majority of the recent massacres were legal gun owners until they did what they did.

Such laws will not achieve anything, though. Well, lawful gun owners will lose some of their right, but people will still be killed on very much the same trend as before such measures were put in place.

 

[fskimospy]

Such laws will not achieve anything, though. Well, lawful gun owners will lose some of their right, but people will still be killed on very much the same trend as before such measures were put in place.

Empirical research disagrees.

 

[compuwiz1]

Here is something to put in our pipe and smoke for awhile:
The Philadelphia shooter in the standoff with the cops was a convicted felon, who had an extensive criminal history, including numerous firearm violations. He was using an AR-15, known as a ghost gun. A ghost gun is assembled from parts, vs. purchasing a complete unit, which is available legitimately. A ghost gun is untraceable to any individuals. My take is that no amount of gun control laws would have kept the perp from obtaining a firearm. Ammo would be obtained the same way, from underground sources, no matter what the laws are.

The question is, what laws are gonna stop these kinds of people? BTW, people who commit heinous acts with firearms are all those kinds of people. That particular shooter is one who should have been still locked up, is and will always be a danger to society. Hopefully this time, he never gets out of prison.

 

[soundforbjt]

Here is something to put in our pipe and smoke for awhile:
The Philadelphia shooter in the standoff with the cops was a convicted felon, who had an extensive criminal history, including numerous firearm violations. He was using an AR-15, known as a ghost gun. A ghost gun is assembled from parts, vs. purchasing a complete unit, which is available legitimately. A ghost gun is untraceable to any individuals. My take is that no amount of gun control laws would have kept the perp from obtaining a firearm. Ammo would be obtained the same way, from underground sources, no matter what the laws are.

The question is, what laws are gonna stop these kinds of people? BTW, people who commit heinous acts with firearms are all those kinds of people. That particular shooter is one who should have been still locked up, is and will always be a danger to society. Hopefully this time, he never gets out of prison.

The ones where those parts are no longer available.

 

[SMOGZINN]

The question is, what laws are gonna stop these kinds of people? BTW, people who commit heinous acts with firearms are all those kinds of people. That particular shooter is one who should have been still locked up, is and will always be a danger to society. Hopefully this time, he never gets out of prison.

Can't solve 100% of the problem in one go so why try? Why do we even bother making it illegal to kill cops, it obviously did't stop him.