Memphis TN wants to put new gun laws on the ballot. Republicans in the state house threaten to withhold funding.

[brycejones]

Does it really matter what type of circumstance kills you?

Have we had a trial yet to determine the answer?

 

[Lost_in_the_HTTP]

Should all laws be based on the most extreme circumstances?

I spent some number of days in various Public Safety training classes. At the beginning of each session they would ask a series of questions, one ... sort of jokingly was ' are you currently carrying any grenades or other explosive devices?'

The reason for the question?

Apparently some asshole state trooper had done just that .... carried flashbangs into a training class.

 

[HomerJS]

That's right. But the rule was federal and applies nation wide. That's a law I have no problem with. The only reason anybody would really need a machine gun for self defense is if you were up against one. And the passage of that law was deemed constitutional meaning no change to the second amendment required.

How come liberals aren't out marching to ban cell phones. Our kids are committing suicide from being bullied on line. And don't tell me its sick people punching the keys, it's the cell phone that's the weapon.

Because a cell phone is not designed to kill.

 

[HomerJS]

Has your right to bear armed been infringed by not having an AR style rifle?

To use a silly example if pink guns were banned would that infringe on your right to bear arms? Banning bright colors to prevent mistaking guns for toys.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

It’s sustained in MA. We do have mag size limits for other semi autos

Edit: MA has recently been making the news around here for creating even more strict gun laws. It’s a bold move, we will have to see how it plays out.

What's the text of the law? I'm curious what they've been able to actually get applied.

 

[ch33zw1z]

What's the text of the law? I'm curious what they've been able to actually get applied.

Probably the easiest to read here:

https://www.mass.gov/guides/frequently-asked-questions-about-the-assault-weapons-ban-enforcement-notice

News article about the most recent gun bill

What to know about the proposed gun laws in Massachusetts

The Massachusetts House and Senate have passed bills aimed at cracking down on untraceable weapons known as ghost guns, and strengthening the state's gun laws.

www.wgbh.org

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Probably the easiest to read here:

https://www.mass.gov/guides/frequently-asked-questions-about-the-assault-weapons-ban-enforcement-notice

So basically this:
''Assault weapon'', shall have the same meaning as a semiautomatic assault weapon as defined in the federal Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. section 921(a)(30) as appearing in such section on September 13, 1994, and shall include, but not be limited to, any of the weapons, or copies or duplicates of the weapons, of any caliber, known as: (i) Avtomat Kalashnikov (AK) (all models); (ii) Action Arms Israeli Military Industries UZI and Galil; (iii) Beretta Ar70 (SC–70); (iv) Colt AR–15; (v) Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/LAR and FNC; (vi) SWD M–10, M–11, M–11/9 and M–12; (vi) Steyr AUG; (vii) INTRATEC TEC–9, TEC–DC9 and TEC–22; and (viii) revolving cylinder shotguns, such as, or similar to, the Street Sweeper and Striker 12; provided, however, that the term assault weapon shall not include: (i) any of the weapons, or replicas or duplicates of such weapons, specified in appendix A to 18 U.S.C. section 922 as appearing in such appendix on September 13, 1994, as such weapons were manufactured on October 1, 1993; (ii) any weapon that is operated by manual bolt, pump, lever or slide action; (iii) any weapon that has been rendered permanently inoperable or otherwise rendered permanently unable to be designated a semiautomatic assault weapon; (iv) any weapon that was manufactured prior to the year 1899; (v) any weapon that is an antique or relic, theatrical prop or other weapon that is not capable of firing a projectile and which is not intended for use as a functional weapon and cannot be readily modified through a combination of available parts into an operable assault weapon; (vi) any semiautomatic rifle that cannot accept a detachable magazine that holds more than five rounds of ammunition; or (vii) any semiautomatic shotgun that cannot hold more than five rounds of ammunition in a fixed or detachable magazine.

So this is the problem I figured they would run into. They've had to blacklist individual models of firearm from specific manufacturers, basically defining a list of things not permitted.

I guess Daniel Defense gets a pass, assuming a DDM AR-15 doesn't conflict with a Colt AR-15 (I'd argue against it, it's a hunk of metal until branded):

Daniel Defense AR15 Semi Automatic Rifles | Daniel Defense

Shop a full selection of AR15-style semi-automatic firearms backed by the best gun warranty in the industry.

danieldefense.com

FN SCAR 17s gets a pass.
I'm sure there'll be more if I were to check for more.

On top of the constitutionality of banning specific firearms with the 2A still around, you're also running afoul of the govt blessing off specific manufacturers for commercial products, which we generally don't like. Unless it's a product we don't like more, I guess.

 

[ch33zw1z]

So basically this:
''Assault weapon'', shall have the same meaning as a semiautomatic assault weapon as defined in the federal Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. section 921(a)(30) as appearing in such section on September 13, 1994, and shall include, but not be limited to, any of the weapons, or copies or duplicates of the weapons, of any caliber, known as: (i) Avtomat Kalashnikov (AK) (all models); (ii) Action Arms Israeli Military Industries UZI and Galil; (iii) Beretta Ar70 (SC–70); (iv) Colt AR–15; (v) Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/LAR and FNC; (vi) SWD M–10, M–11, M–11/9 and M–12; (vi) Steyr AUG; (vii) INTRATEC TEC–9, TEC–DC9 and TEC–22; and (viii) revolving cylinder shotguns, such as, or similar to, the Street Sweeper and Striker 12; provided, however, that the term assault weapon shall not include: (i) any of the weapons, or replicas or duplicates of such weapons, specified in appendix A to 18 U.S.C. section 922 as appearing in such appendix on September 13, 1994, as such weapons were manufactured on October 1, 1993; (ii) any weapon that is operated by manual bolt, pump, lever or slide action; (iii) any weapon that has been rendered permanently inoperable or otherwise rendered permanently unable to be designated a semiautomatic assault weapon; (iv) any weapon that was manufactured prior to the year 1899; (v) any weapon that is an antique or relic, theatrical prop or other weapon that is not capable of firing a projectile and which is not intended for use as a functional weapon and cannot be readily modified through a combination of available parts into an operable assault weapon; (vi) any semiautomatic rifle that cannot accept a detachable magazine that holds more than five rounds of ammunition; or (vii) any semiautomatic shotgun that cannot hold more than five rounds of ammunition in a fixed or detachable magazine.

So this is the problem I figured they would run into. They've had to blacklist individual models of firearm from specific manufacturers, basically defining a list of things not permitted.

I guess Daniel Defense gets a pass, assuming a DDM AR-15 doesn't conflict with a Colt AR-15 (I'd argue against it, it's a hunk of metal until branded):

Daniel Defense AR15 Semi Automatic Rifles | Daniel Defense

Shop a full selection of AR15-style semi-automatic firearms backed by the best gun warranty in the industry.

danieldefense.com

FN SCAR 17s gets a pass.
I'm sure there'll be more if I were to check for more.

On top of the constitutionality of banning specific firearms with the 2A still around, you're also running afoul of the govt blessing off specific manufacturers for commercial products, which we generally don't like. Unless it's a product we don't like more, I guess.

I would be surprised if the Daniel’s model didn’t fall under this piece:

The weapon’s internal functional components are substantially similar to the construction or configuration of a weapon that is expressly banned under the law (such as a Colt AR-15 or a Kalashnikov AK-47);

OR

The weapon has a receiver that includes or accepts key operating components that are interchangeable with those of a banned weapon. The relevant operating components may include, but are not limited to:

1) the trigger assembly;

2) the bolt carrier or bolt carrier group;

3) the charging handle;

4) the extractor or extractor assembly; or

5) the magazine port.


This is basically calling out certain models that are banned and saying anything like that would be banned as well, but not limited to the specific list.


so basically, check with your local PD since they do the licensing for their town. They’ll tell ya if that thing you wanna buy makes you run afoul of the law.

 

[HomerJS]

So basically this:
''Assault weapon'', shall have the same meaning as a semiautomatic assault weapon as defined in the federal Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. section 921(a)(30) as appearing in such section on September 13, 1994, and shall include, but not be limited to, any of the weapons, or copies or duplicates of the weapons, of any caliber, known as: (i) Avtomat Kalashnikov (AK) (all models); (ii) Action Arms Israeli Military Industries UZI and Galil; (iii) Beretta Ar70 (SC–70); (iv) Colt AR–15; (v) Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/LAR and FNC; (vi) SWD M–10, M–11, M–11/9 and M–12; (vi) Steyr AUG; (vii) INTRATEC TEC–9, TEC–DC9 and TEC–22; and (viii) revolving cylinder shotguns, such as, or similar to, the Street Sweeper and Striker 12; provided, however, that the term assault weapon shall not include: (i) any of the weapons, or replicas or duplicates of such weapons, specified in appendix A to 18 U.S.C. section 922 as appearing in such appendix on September 13, 1994, as such weapons were manufactured on October 1, 1993; (ii) any weapon that is operated by manual bolt, pump, lever or slide action; (iii) any weapon that has been rendered permanently inoperable or otherwise rendered permanently unable to be designated a semiautomatic assault weapon; (iv) any weapon that was manufactured prior to the year 1899; (v) any weapon that is an antique or relic, theatrical prop or other weapon that is not capable of firing a projectile and which is not intended for use as a functional weapon and cannot be readily modified through a combination of available parts into an operable assault weapon; (vi) any semiautomatic rifle that cannot accept a detachable magazine that holds more than five rounds of ammunition; or (vii) any semiautomatic shotgun that cannot hold more than five rounds of ammunition in a fixed or detachable magazine.

So this is the problem I figured they would run into. They've had to blacklist individual models of firearm from specific manufacturers, basically defining a list of things not permitted.

I guess Daniel Defense gets a pass, assuming a DDM AR-15 doesn't conflict with a Colt AR-15 (I'd argue against it, it's a hunk of metal until branded):

Daniel Defense AR15 Semi Automatic Rifles | Daniel Defense

Shop a full selection of AR15-style semi-automatic firearms backed by the best gun warranty in the industry.

danieldefense.com

FN SCAR 17s gets a pass.
I'm sure there'll be more if I were to check for more.

On top of the constitutionality of banning specific firearms with the 2A still around, you're also running afoul of the govt blessing off specific manufacturers for commercial products, which we generally don't like. Unless it's a product we don't like more, I guess.

Same question, can one still bear arms?

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

I would be surprised if the Daniel’s model didn’t fall under this piece:

The weapon’s internal functional components are substantially similar to the construction or configuration of a weapon that is expressly banned under the law (such as a Colt AR-15 or a Kalashnikov AK-47);

OR

The weapon has a receiver that includes or accepts key operating components that are interchangeable with those of a banned weapon. The relevant operating components may include, but are not limited to:

1) the trigger assembly;

2) the bolt carrier or bolt carrier group;

3) the charging handle;

4) the extractor or extractor assembly; or

5) the magazine port.


This is basically calling out certain models that are banned and saying anything like that would be banned as well, but not limited to the specific list.


so basically, check with your local PD since they do the licensing for their town. They’ll tell ya if that thing you wanna buy makes you run afoul of the law.

Probably. I guess mfgs will have to come up with new bolt placements to make them not interchangeable. Fragmentation of the models will be created, which can nullify the law.

As fore the 'substantially similar' line, that's a little absurd since firearms have been 'substantially similar' since invention.

Same question, can one still bear arms?

Sure, one can bear some arms. If I ban all speech against the president, you still have free speech, just not on that topic.

 

[Lost_in_the_HTTP]

Knives are arms.

Clubs are arms.

Nunchuks are arms.

 

[Moonbeam]

Has your right to bear armed been infringed by not having an AR style rifle?

To use a silly example if pink guns were banned would that infringe on your right to bear arms? Banning bright colors to prevent mistaking guns for toys.

Yes in California it has. I am not allowed to have a semiauto rifle with a removable clip that has a collapsable stock, a forward or pistol grip, or a flash seppressor. A clip can only have ten rounds. In other states I could buy a much better weapon both to shoot and not go deaf but better for self defense. This is like some states being allowed to pass laws permitting slavery.

Communication device development was driven by battlefield needs.

I did black stainless and olive green. My AR is a work of art. Naturally my opinion.

 

[brycejones]

Same question, can one still bear arms?

Depends on if one finds a dead bear on the side of the road. Just ask RFK.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Yes in California it has. I am not allowed to have a semiauto rifle with a removable clip that has a collapsable stock, a forward or pistol grip, or a flash seppressor. A clip can only have ten rounds. In other states I could buy a much better weapon both to shoot and not go deaf but better for self defense. This is like some states being allowed to pass laws permitting slavery.

Communication device development was driven by battlefield needs.

I did black stainless and olive green. My AR is a work of art. Naturally my opinion.

At the time the 2A was crafted, single shot black powder was the thing. So let’s say that’s what you can own, good?

May wanna pick up a pair of hearing protection to protect your ear drums. You’re welcome.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Probably. I guess mfgs will have to come up with new bolt placements to make them not interchangeable. Fragmentation of the models will be created, which can nullify the law.

As fore the 'substantially similar' line, that's a little absurd since firearms have been 'substantially similar' since invention.


Sure, one can bear some arms. If I ban all speech against the president, you still have free speech, just not on that topic.

We can split hairs over substantially, which is probably the point of the wording. Sure, they all fire small projectiles at high speed. But not all do it to the same effect

This has been law in MA for some time. The way it’s worded, even changing something about the model doesn’t immediately circumvent the law.

Edit: the new bill that just was signed last month by our governor (ex-AG Healy) wasn’t really new to MA, it revisions on an already strict gun control take.

For me, I like the fact that I can go out and about and it’s unlikely I’ll run into an armed person. There’s no open carry, and concealed requirements are strict. This doesn’t really effect hunting, which there’s not much of a shortage of in my anecdotal area.

 

[Moonbeam]

Gun bans are initiated by people who can’t trust that their suppressed rage won’t explode suddenly resulting in them killing someone projected onto the outer world. Everybody with a gun is potentially out to kill them. Others have guns for the same reason. Some want the law to take away the right of self defense in a violent society whereas others see those who want to disable their right to self defense as indifferent to them being killed. Such fun.

Meanwhile nothing is done about what is creating the violence that people are feeling because they are terrified of knowing the depth and depravity of that rage.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Gun bans are initiated by people who can’t trust that their suppressed rage won’t explode suddenly resulting in them killing someone projected onto the outer world. Everybody with a gun is potentially out to kill them. Others have guns for the same reason. Some want the law to take away the right of self defense in a violent society whereas others see those who want to disable their right to self defense as indifferent to them being killed. Such fun.

Meanwhile nothing is done about what is creating the violence that people are feeling because they are terrified of knowing the depth and depravity of that rage.

MA also has healthcare for all, and that includes mental health treatment. Not only is your premise overall flawed, but in MA’s case, you’re wrong about treating the source.

 

[HomerJS]

Probably. I guess mfgs will have to come up with new bolt placements to make them not interchangeable. Fragmentation of the models will be created, which can nullify the law.

As fore the 'substantially similar' line, that's a little absurd since firearms have been 'substantially similar' since invention.


Sure, one can bear some arms. If I ban all speech against the president, you still have free speech, just not on that topic.

There is some speech against the President that is banned.

 

[Moonbeam]

At the time the 2A was crafted, single shot black powder was the thing. So let’s say that’s what you can own, good?

May wanna pick up a pair of hearing protection to protect your ear drums. You’re welcome.

I have shot a gun one time in my life as an adult and that was many years ago. I bought electronic ear protection when I built my AR, but thanks. (The law is idiotic) It is not properly torqued and the scope isn’t mounted or sighted in. I have a lot to do before I can build a workbench with a gun vice. I have all the tools except the vice and a bench.

 

[ch33zw1z]

I have shot a gun one time in my life as an adult and that was many years ago. I bought electronic ear protection when I built my AR, but thanks. (The law is idiotic) It is not properly torqued and the scope isn’t mounted or sighted in. I have a lot to do before I can build a workbench with a gun vice. I have all the tools except the vice and a bench.

One time in your life as an adult? Sad. Visit the range once in a while, other wise all that fancy stuff you want is just wasted money anyways. People would probably call you a poser.

And really, if you want all that stuff you’re on about, just move to a state that it’s allowed. What’s the hold up?

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

There is some speech against the President that is banned.

Sure, and some firearms are already banned as well.

You want more guns banned, I want more speech banned. Sounds fair?

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

At the time the 2A was crafted, single shot black powder was the thing. So let’s say that’s what you can own, good?

May wanna pick up a pair of hearing protection to protect your ear drums. You’re welcome.

Counter point: it says arms, not black powder rifles. Also, they had cannons, can we have cannons too?

 

[ch33zw1z]

Counter point: it says arms, not black powder rifles. Also, they had cannons, can we have cannons too?

Thanks for proving out this point. Canons, tmk, are not something anyone can buy. We restrict them, correct?

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Thanks for proving out this point. Canons, tmk, are not something anyone can buy. We restrict them, correct?

You need an appropriate license. Some might say it's debatable whether it runs counter to the 2A (let's just say I wouldn't want it to go to the SC today).

If there's enough momentum behind it, we might be able to get semi autos on there too, I'm not convinced though and I'm absolutely not convinced it will survive the SC.

 

[ch33zw1z]

You need an appropriate license. Some might say it's debatable whether it runs counter to the 2A (let's just say I wouldn't want it to go to the SC today).

If there's enough momentum behind it, we might be able to get semi autos on there too, I'm not convinced though and I'm absolutely not convinced it will survive the SC.

I don’t think all semi auto’s should be banned. I’m cool with mag size limits in general though.

I agree, the current SC will likely toss anything you mentioned out. I’m waiting for the MA laws to get tossed, it’s not small chance that could happen. I also think we would see a big jump in gun deaths afterwards