> Some ammunition can take out a helicopter or blow straight through an armored tank followed by a concrete building, out the other side, then explode, hitting targets 18 football fields away.
I stopped reading here. What magical ammunition is this? An Abrams tank with a DU APFSDS penetrator isn't doing this. No ammunition that can "blow straight through an armored tank" is exploding on the other side.
> "Congress knew almost 100 years ago, in the days of Al Capone, that fully automatic weapons were unusually dangerous," ATF Director Steven Dettelbach said a public address on Feb. 28, 2023. "They have no place in our communities."
Or, Congress knew they needed a way to prosecute these folks, so they created convenient laws to fit and simultaneously expand their state monopoly on the use of force.
If you read the entire article, the police officers are sometimes quite directly selling guns to cartels and criminals. That would seem like a worrying pattern, no?
I sent this article to someone a few days ago because it was such a weird mix of outright goofy exaggeration of everything to do with guns and other weapons while at the same time ostensibly being about an actual problem with law enforcement. (We were amused by some of the quotes like one from previous commenter.) It's a very strangely written article.
That said, many folks who know things about guns have a tendency to assume that if they wrote wild things about weaponry that don't really make sense, the article overall isn't trustworthy.
It might just as well be that cops tell exaggerated shit to journalists and they lack the knowledge to know they're being fed shit.
DARE and other anti drug campaigns follow the exact same playbook, just with children on the receiving end - no, smoking 4/20 is not a direct pathway to ending up homeless and with a heroin needle sticking out your arm. Or religious anti-sex campaigns - no, having sex with people will not make you a whore or whatnot.
I do think the prices of legal machines guns relative to the simplicity of creating one suggest that there should be some kind of NFA legal way to obtain new manufacture machine guns. Could imagine even a huge tax might strike a better incentive balance for reducing behaviors alluded to in the article.
I mean "preventing folks from voting" is, at least in normal times, assuming normal methods, clearly on the side of not legal, undesirable, and against the law.
Meanwhile, "preventing people from owning machine guns" is widely accepted as legal, at least if they're made after a specific date.
I agree that there's probably not a strong reason to assume that moving modern manufacture machine guns to a tax stamp regime with a huge tax wouldn't trigger some kind of litigation, but that seems mostly like a tangent. (And I think by default you'd assume there's no reason for the court to seconds guess the tax level of a tax without questioning the current tax stamp regime too.)
It is, but we should still expect news services to do a good job.
The claims about the weapons effects (at least in the context of typical small arms) are on a similar even of magical effectiveness as the Supermicro allegations.
It's painful to see reporting something that is obviously (ethically and legally) wrong (law enforcement should not be trafficing firearms, regardless of your stance on 2A rights or automatic weapons bans), intermixed with factually dubious claims (or at least incredibly misleading claims).
I'm not sure why journalists continually feel the need to ruin their own credibility with this sort of hyperbolic nonsense, but the overall story seems legit.
I have wondered the same. Do they crank out lots of stories fast, and then the editor picks one to publish? Then I could almost understand.
But if they are actually spending some time on each article (which they should) it seems like it wouldn't be hard to actually do their job and talk to -if not an expert- at least a local enthusiast/hobbyist.
It’s worth considering why some writers feel the need to puff themselves up with ridiculous macho fantasies about munitions. It reeks of insecurity like they’re trying to cosplay as Sebastian Junger.
Unsurprisingly, the description is exaggerated. It could probably do a subset of those things at the same time, provided the "tank" is using pot metal armor or something.
Most tanks are low to the ground, as are most concrete walls: it's impossible for any "ammunition" fired at ground level to penetrate a bunch of ground level objects and then fly 18 football fields away ... and then explode.
> Those cases are just the tip of the iceberg, according to interviews with half a dozen former Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms agents who worked directly on these investigations. Several career agents shared anecdotes about letting police departments off with warnings after repeatedly finding their service weapons in the hands of private citizens. The agents explained that prosecutors have been generally reluctant to charge these cases, and the bureau stated that "it is our goal to educate, not investigate," according to a 2017 law enforcement memo obtained by CBS News. "We're not looking to prosecute fellow law enforcement officers," said Eric Harden, former special agent in charge of the ATF's Los Angeles field division.
Oh good at least they’re not looking to prosecute crimes as long as it’s fellow law enforcement. No moral hazards there.
> Wendt is unapologetic and has appealed his conviction. "If I'm guilty of this, every cop in the nation's going to jail," Wendt told CBS News just days before a federal judge sentenced him to a 5-year prison term. Wendt's crimes appear to be part of a nationwide pattern.
Yup no moral hazard. Of course gun trafficking in untracked war weapons would be something that should be within the purview of every random three person police department and lying on government forms is a-ok. At least this guy is getting persecuted but it’s worrying this is a large pattern:
> In 2011, federal agents busted a smuggling ring out of New Mexico involving a police chief, mayor and village trustee who delivered automatic firepower and tactical gear to a Mexican cartel.
Oh boy
> A decade later, prosecutors uncovered a multistate conspiracy linking a sanctioned Russian arms dealer with three police chiefs, one sheriff and a Delta Force veteran who sold machine guns directly to a criminal trafficker. All of them pleaded guilty.
Moral hazards exist but we always act like it’s ok for prosecutors and fellow law enforcement to act like it doesn’t for law enforcement.
Tons of these cases and quotes come from California because they have a goofy law where there is a list of approved guns (that get there by paying a fee) that, for some reason, police are exempt from. Police can legally buy an unapproved gun and then later decide to sell it to a Californian, legally. What they can't do is buy it with the intent to sell it but many do because the police also think the law is arbitrary and useless.
Exactly, when you pass laws that create a marketplace for a product which is legally available just over the state line from California, and then exempt one class of citizen from the enforcement of those laws, this is the predictable result. The California law in question has always allowed police to sell those firearms to civilians.
> they have a goofy law where there is a list of approved guns (that get there by paying a fee) that, for some reason, police are exempt from
Government always excepts itself from gun control regulation. It's why the NRA failing to support Breonna Taylor was so glaringly transparent - the entire point of the supposed lobbying organization is to defend private gun ownership against the conflicting desires of government. But instead they lined right up behind the government oppressors! Like what exactly do they think destruction of the second amendment looks like if it's not government agents invading your home at night and summarily executing you for exercising your purported right of self defense?
Kenneth Walker was in the exact position of someone defending against a night time home invasion. If you believe that defending yourself in such a way is a constitutional natural right, there is no choice but to conclude that his firearm use was justified. Then, this idea that police are justified in responding to a straightforward and lawful home defense by retaliating with a hail of bullets is plainly an anathema to the second amendment. As I said, what else do you think exercising the right to self defense in your home at night would involve?
Five years for illegal arms trafficking while pot smokers get the book thrown at them. Sometimes I think the US needs a federalized/nationalized police system—I think there would be fewer instances of reluctant prosecution if the cops were not from the local area.
Not anymore, post 9/11, congress will pass the yearly defense budget bill which includes sales of excess military hardware to police forces. To get the hardware your police have to meet specific operating requirements.
They get as local as a department for just 150-300 acres of Brazosport College / Rice University or the Tiki Island Police Department covering a village of 1,100 people, despite being just a 5-minute drive to Galveston (a city of 53,000 people)
I don’t think the problem is local vs national police. Either way the national culture can be poor overall (as it is now) and each local area can have widely different quality (as they do now)
A federal layer of oversight could help, which one would expect to already exist considering the continual budget inflation for these departments. Maybe because its local money that pays local police departments it only has local oversight. There needs to be a way to audit the actions and expenditures of these organizations yearly. Local police should be from the local community and held accountable by federal internal investigators in a way that randomizes and anonymizes interactions between investigators and the departments to prevent relationships from forming and corrupting the process.
No… police agencies care about overtime, gas and bullets from a budget perspective. The federal government uses strings tied to money to influence policy.
Considering that the person nominated for the director of the federal police force claimed he was shutting down the office and putting all 7000 agents in the field, I definitely concur that the last thing they need is more power.
“I’d shut down the FBI Hoover Building on day one and reopen it the next day as a museum of the ‘deep state,’” Patel said in an interview on the “Shawn Ryan Show” that aired in September. “Then, I’d take the 7,000 employees that work in that building and send them across America to chase down criminals. Go be cops. You’re cops — go be cops.”
The last part is generally--dishonestly--omitted in the headlines from our favorite and most trusted news sources. (edit: which is done to frame Patel as wanting to fire them all--a pathetic stunt that is no longer surprising from these corrupt tools.)
Anyway, what are these "circumstances" to which you refer?
Downvote me all you want, but 'deep state' is just shorthand for the administrative state: unelected bureaucrats with the power to set policy, resist oversight, and accumulate unchecked power. Disliking the term doesn't make the reality any less valid.
As for the parent comment, this administration plans to put more agents in the field immediately. Why is that a problem? Perhaps try persuasion instead of vague dogwhistles about 'circumstances.'
> I think there would be fewer instances of reluctant prosecution if the cops were not from the local area.
A consideration: One form of community policing uses officers that live in the area they patrol. The notion is that police will better know and protect their own community.
To support your larger point, it is my experience that there is little oversight of LEO at the peer level. ex:When meaningful oversight of county/city police happens, it is typically by state or federal LEO authority.
So we have a system that is capable of doing what needs to be done. However, it likely has a tiny fraction of the resources (and will) necessary to broadly keep Americans safe.
The Federal justice system is capped by Senate confirmed judges with lifetime appointments, US Attorneys who serve at the pleasure of the appointing authority, and various Federal agencies with few levers to influence from a citizen perspective.
You can also get a sneak peak at such a system by looking at Washington, DC. It’s justice system is a federally administered or supervised tip to tail, and it isn’t exactly a bastion of justice.
Just imagine how fun life will be when the cop at the end of your street has to enforce the politics of Washington, and then someone you don't like gets into office.
Do pot smokers get the book thrown at them? My understanding is there’s basically no one in prison merely for smoking pot. Everyone in prison for drugs is there with additional convictions like illegal possession of firearms and possession with intent to sell.
While the numbers have substantially decreased [1] over the years, "basically no one" are still human lives. Is trafficking illegals arms 5x as bad as simple possession of marijuana for personal use?
> "If I'm guilty of this, every cop in the nation's going to jail," Wendt told CBS News just days before a federal judge sentenced him to a 5-year prison term.
I'm not sure that was the gotcha he seemed to think it was...
This article is conflating a few different things.
1. Cop buys the kinds firearms regular people can buy using law enforcement discounts and then makes an otherwise legal private sale to profit from this. This violates the terms of these law enforcement discount programs. Also, federal law requires people who buy and sell firearms for profit have a federal firearms license. These firearms sometimes are used in crime.
2. In some jurisdictions like California and Massachusetts, law enforcement can buy certain handguns new that normal people cannot. This isn't about safety as these handguns are not capable of anything that the approved handguns are not. It's solely a measure to harm the market for handguns by restricting the kinds of handguns available and increasing their prices. Cops can legally sell these unapproved handguns to normal people. The problem here, again, is doing it for profit. These firearms sometimes are used in crime.
3. Cops buying "assault weapons" and then making illegal private sales to normal people who can't lawfully buy these weapons. This is nowhere near as common as the first two scenarios.
4. Cops playing games with post-1986 machinegun regulations so that federal firearms licensees who pay a special tax can acquire machineguns to rent to the public at ranges or just for their own personal fun. These firearms, which often are significantly more dangerous than the kinds of firearms normal people can lawfully acquire, have never been used in a crime.
Scenarios 1 and 2 have no public safety impact beyond private sales generally. Scenario 3 is only problematic from a public safety standpoint if you believe "assault weapons" are uniquely dangerous, which they aren't. Scenario 4 has not resulted in any violent crime.
You're thinking of the 1988 Waller case and the 1992 Ho case, both involving transferrable pre-1986 MAC-11 machineguns. The NFA items this article deals with are post-1986 samples, which require law enforcement agencies to write a law letter for class 3 SOTs to acquire. No post-1986 samples have ever been used in a violent crime.
I think the unauthorized sale concern is overblown, but do believe "assault weapons" are uniquely dangerous; this is a debate I've had on HN a number of times, and tends to start with a courtly dance of someone saying "that's because you don't know how firearms work" and the history of semi-automatic long guns, and end with ballistics reports and the machining simplicity of automatic sears.
I don't necessarily want to have that whole debate again, which I guess I could do by pressing the point, so much as to make space in this subthread for "maybe that one part of your strong comment is not as settled as you're making it out to be".
It absolutely is though. Guns are classified as "assault weapons" because of cosmetic features like barrel shrouds and bayonet lugs, and the fact that most people don't know this doesn't make it less true. The term "assault weapon" was deliberately chosen to confuse people into thinking it means the same as or something similar to "assault rifle", and that fact isn't really in dispute either.
And then I come back with 3 paragraphs about the legislative history of the assault weapons ban, which began by singling out a bunch of weapons by name but with a catchall of semi-automatic weapons with detachable clips, and got lobbied down to its cosmetic definition by the NRA.
You might believe I'm completely wrong about all of this, and that's OK. That's how message boards work. But do you think "you haven't read the assault weapons ban and don't know how silly it is" is going to work as a rhetorical strategy here?
Or we can just accept that reasonable, informed people might disagree on these points, and there's no winning this.
>And then I come back with 3 paragraphs about the legislative history of the assault weapons ban, which began by singling out a bunch of weapons by name but with a catchall of semi-automatic weapons with detachable clips, and got lobbied down to its cosmetic definition by the NRA.
There's an older thread where I pasted a link to it, but I'm not going to dig it up right now (you can; I promise you it's there). I'm pretty comfortable with the idea that people will take my word on stuff like this. I'm really not trying to convince people that I'm right about this, only that the question is unsettled.
I'm actually quite interested in your N paragraphs about why the category is written the way it is, and especially about the principles under which it is (or was meant to be) effective..
Frankly it's something I've always wondered about, but as mostly a spectator of these kinds of discussions I've never seen anyone explain. Like a lot of folks, from my surface-level knowledge it seems arbitrary and likely meaningless. But so much so that it feels like I must be missing something.
Or any chance of a link to your previous cpmments on the topic?
"Assault weapon" doesn't mean anything outside of New York and New Jersey. For New York it's an arbitrary combination of "features". For instance, threaded barrel + removable magazine. The M1A I'm looking to buy, a modern garand, is considered an assault weapon under the SAFE act. I want it as a ranch rifle, but because threaded barrels are a no-no I'll have to store it in another state when and if I have to move to NY.
Statistically speaking, based on shootings and crime, pistols are much more "dangerous". For whatever reason we've made laws solely on long gun features though.
> For whatever reason we've made laws solely on long gun features though.
You must be well-aware that handguns are much more tightly controlled than long guns pretty much across the board, totally aside from the fuzziness of "assault weapon" designation.
Ah, let's be specific about what you're talking about: Handgun modifications are more tightly controlled. For instance if I try to turn a hand gun into a long gun. That was always true of federal law.
What I'm pointing out is that a stock long rifle is arbitrarily made a felony only in New York and New Jersey law, which logically leads to a more dangerous outcome: I have to store said gun somewhere else while I live there for work.
Worse, I think. Federal law says you can transport a firearm in a locked case in a vehicle, in every state. But Illinois interprets that to mean, you can pass through Illinois (say on the freeway) and they respect the law.
But if you go off the route, say a couple miles off the freeway to visit a cousin as long as you are in Illinois, then a highway patrol stop can mean arrest and imprisonment.
The courtly dance begins. We can talk about the Sturmgewehr 44 and Eugene Stoner's design goals for the AR, if you like, or we can just accept that reasonable people can call all semi-automatic or select-fire long guns with detachable magazines "assault weapons" regardless of whether the Ruger Mini-14 does or does not look like an AK-47.
If detachable magazines are your issue then New York still allows them with 10 rounds or less on both pistols and long rifles. Phrasing that as "reasonable people" is a bit of a trap. I'm a leftist, have been all my life, that likes gun control in the form of:
- finger printing
- background checks
- no sale registries
- psych evals
- closing private sale (non FFL) and gun convention loopholes
New Yorks style of gun control is not what I think is effective or reasonable. It's just making the process more arduous and arbitrary without effecting the illegal sale market, where most of these crimes statistically occur.
Edit:
Throwing a point in post edit: Detachable magazines are actually not the deciding factor in the SAFE act. You can have a detachable magazine, just not when combined with a muzzle device (eg: a muzzle break or compensator).
The question here isn't whether existing gun control measures are effective (they are not, for multiple reasons). If I was elected emperor, my first step would not be to "ban assault weapons".
The question here is whether there exists a meaningful category of weapons called "assault weapons" (yes: the semi-automatic and select-fire long guns with detachable magazines, which were designed as weapons of war) and whether they are more dangerous than other legal firearms (yes).
>The question here is whether there exists a meaningful category of weapons called "assault weapons" (yes: the semi-automatic and select-fire long guns with detachable magazines, which were designed as weapons of war) and whether they are more dangerous than other legal firearms (yes).
No. Both you and the people you're arguing against think that the category of "assault weapons" exist, but you're using your own definition whereas others are using the legal definition. Why are you clinging so hard to the phrase "assault weapons" specifically? People who are using the legal definition have a pretty strong claim to that definition, because it's literally enshrined in law. Why not say "guns with detachable magazines" or whatever and save everyone from pointless word lawyering?
The earliest form of a magazine was the repeating rifle and it predates the Civil War. Clips, the earlier form of what we colloquially call a magazine, evolved through the same way. Where it converges was with the development of the M1 Garand that took a clip during WWII: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_Garand
None of this, as I said, is effectual to solving the problem people want to solve so the discussion is kind of moot. "Assault Weapon" is a grouping that some politicians came up with based on arbitrary characteristics. I think it's useful for appealing to their voter base that doesn't want to think too much about solving the actual problem of people who want to cause violence using gun. Beyond that, the term loses value rapidly.
There's a thread here (I'm not going to search for it right now, you can) where I pasted the earlier version of the AWB I'm talking about, so, no, I'm not, but this is just part of the dance. We're not going to convince each other, and I'm not trying to. I'm just going to make the case --- I think I've got it locked down and it's probably not worth pushing back, but you do you --- that this is not as settled as the root comment made it sound.
That's a very narrow, parsimonious claim, which is part of what makes it easy to defend.
Gun control laws certainly aren't settled. I'm passionate about them, but I'm also passionate about people taking an attempt in one state and broadcast it as the standard. Especially when that standard term is also defined federally as something entirely else. Time will go on, these discussions will continue to happen, and we'll have different outcomes. It's fine, and thanks for taking the time to discuss it with me.
No, my claim is even narrower than that; I'm not asking you to argue against gun control laws. I concede that point. I'm saying the question of whether "assault weapons" are uniquely dangerous is unsettled. Lots of things are uniquely dangerous; backyard pools, for instance. In this case, all I'm saying is: it's not a settled matter that the weapons people commonly refer to as "assault weapons" (semi-automatic long guns) are more or less dangerous than handguns. I think they are quite a bit more dangerous, but all I'm saying here is the matter is unsettled.
I think this is the weakest part of your argument about assault weapons bans fwiw.
It’s pretty clear statistically that handguns are in fact much much more dangerous than assault weapons.
But you don’t need to prove that to be anti-assault weapon but it feels very weird to look at the stats around these things and conclude that’s where the focus should be.
I think the focus is on assault weapons because handguns are off limits. The populace wants them and the courts are pretty clear on them.
I think if you're aiming to prevent the most deaths, you focus on car accidents.
If you're aiming to prevent the most firearm-related deaths, you focus on handguns.
If you're aiming to prevent mass shootings, assault weapons are very relevant.
You can ask "why prevent mass shootings, when ordinary shootings kill more people", and of course someone else can say "why focus on shootings at all when cars kill more people".
You’ll see 16 of 66 mass public shootings were performed by assault weapons that were illegal under the Brady ban but legal now (another one was an illegal conversion and a final one was performed by a police officer who could legally purchase under either regime).
So I don’t agree with you about where you’d focus if you wanted to stop mass shootings.
And worse than that I think focusing on assault rifles especially turns what is a pretty universally agreed upon problem (mass shootings are increasing and becoming more deadly) into a culture war issue.
The courts are nearly certain to affirm civilians rights to own assault rifles soon. We can keep chasing ever more caricatured laws around weapon definitions or we can focus on things that don’t require the culture war:
- strong and universal enforcement of the laws on the books that don’t abridge the legal possession rights of citizens (felony straw purchase enforcement, background checks, felony bans, etc)
- make domestic abuse disqualifying for firearm ownership (by making it a higher class of crime and enforcing it)
- red flag laws and training on identification (including a process to surrender firearms when in crisis and to regain your rights when not)
- repeal all the crazy laws preventing the gun industry from being researched and sued
- safe storage laws
- civil and criminal liability for providing firearms used in crimes
And while we’re at it let’s get gun owners mental health resources and build a culture where it’s normal to store guns outside of your house if you start having suicidal thoughts.
Ah, a subjective means to deny rights. Also, who is paying for this? Maybe you should have to have a psych eval to cast a vote.
> gun convention loopholes
Yesterday's compromise to pass the Brady bill is now being referred to as a "loophole." Do you see why that might make folks concerned about a restrictive agenda?
Most of what I'm following here is existing state based CHL checks. Those are reasonable, provide benefits (expedited sales), and are effective in that CHL holders are not typically the people that those people are trying to prevent sale to.
Brady I don't have much of an opinion on. I do know, as a value, that I buy all of my firearms through a licensed FFL. It's at most $50 + shipping. I don't think that's too restrictive.
I updated my comment before you commented and added:
> Brady I don't have much of an opinion on. I do know, as a value, that I buy all of my firearms through a licensed FFL. It's at most $50 + shipping. I don't think that's too restrictive.
I think we, as gun owners, do need to acknowledge there are people who go to gun shows to illegally acquire weapons or perform strawman sales with relative ease. Maybe my solution isn't the best, but it does need addressing.
If you really want to tread into analoging ownership to voting I think you'll be very disappointed. We require a lot of hurdles to vote. You have to go to an authorized voting location (akin to going to an FFL), you have to present ID that is known to the state so they can correlate that you are, in fact, in the right place (all those checks I mentioned), and afterwards they determine whether everyone who voted was eligible to vote. If they weren't, they're charged with a serious crime.
> you have to present ID that is known to the state
Not in most states.
---
There are people that go to the polling booth and commit voter fraud with relative ease, therefore it needs addressed.
The Brady bill was allowed to proceed because of the guarantee that people wouldn't need to involve the government to conduct a private sale between two individuals or gift firearms between father and son, for instance.
Calling it a loophole that "does need addressing" is reneging on a compromise.
Also, have you ever been to a gun show? Recently? Do you know the actual, real percentage of FFLs present vs private individuals? Today, these shows are composed of 95% FFLs anyway, all of whom perform background checks - and the available deals are shitty.
> Today, these shows are composed of 95% FFLs anyway, all of whom perform background checks
I have been to a gun show recently. We can, and should, close that 5% gap. An FFL is an intermediary and the ATF doesn't retain records about transactions they do by law. FFLs will maintain their own records, but they're no some widely searchable database (which is what people fear in an Orwellian sense).
There is no federal registry, that's why the FFL system exists. They track who they did transactions with and if the federal government needs to know about a transaction they can approach the FFL holders. The system works as designed to preserve privacy while also providing some amount of traceability.
All that needs to happen is the prohibition of private sale outside of an FFL. From there you can penalize gun shows that allow non-FFL holders to sell.
As I said earlier, there's not a good reason not to transact through an FFL. They're charged with maintaining your privacy as a purchaser while simultaneously preventing strawman purchases. They're a very basic extension of nearly every pawn broker.
Yeah, I'll just never comply and I won't be surprised when SCOTUS shuts this down entirely. The onus is on the state to prove unlawful transfer: I don't have to say anything whatsoever.
Thankfully, home manufacturing (a protected activity) of firearms is becoming cheap, simple and effective via 3D printing and machining - this is already a SCOTUS-affirmed, historically-legal activity.
What's next, regulating CNC machines and 3D printers?
I think you're imagining mental health evaluations as more subjective than they actually are. You're really just looking to sus out sociopaths, the extremity mentally unfit, obvious signs of suicidal ideation, and people with severe uncontrolled anger issues.
I don't really get why you're so defensive on this point? Like yeah, psych evals are probably a bit too onerous for every gun owner to go through just because of the time commitment alone but you seem to take issue with them on principle.
On principle I don't take issue with adding requirements to vote, you're more than welcome to push for them but additional restrictions do go counter the goal of increasing turnout which is already embarrassingly low.
Also I'm not taking a stance one way or another on the gun show thing, I personally don't care about them that much but by any definition they are a loophole. Even more so it's a near full escape hatch from the law. Instant background checks could be as easy as one of those Square payment terminals if we let it, the burden is really low.
You do pay to exercise your right to vote. There's a certain party that loves the color red that requires an ID to vote. They also require you to have up to date residency information in order to vote. Changes like that require money at the DMV and enable your right to vote.
The “reasonable people” phrase is so abused in this debate. “If you disagree with my logic, you’re not a reasonable person” is rhetoric that would not fly in any other debate setting but is standard in the discussion of firearm laws
The issue of "assault weapon" bans boils down to the question of whether or not restricted features like pistol grips and adjustable stocks make magazine-fed semi-automatic firearms more dangerous than those without. People who shoot these kinds of weapons tend to be unconvinced. Gun control advocates generally believe this distinction makes sense.
There's also the issue of how restricted magazine-fed semiautomatic weapons should be, apart from the baggage of "assault weapon" features, which I feel could be a more productive debate.
Yes, I recall you argued for an older proposal regulating "weapons of war" unmoored from any functional criteria as determined by cabinet appointees + a banned list from the legislature instead of the feature tests that have actually become law. I don't recall you arguing for any functional distinction between banned and not-banned magazine-fed semi-automatics.
I dispute that characterization but my bigger question is: stipulating what you say here, if you knew that to be my position, why did you write a comment about pistol grips and adjustable stocks?
My position is idiosyncratically well-informed. When you begin your comment with "we've argued this before" and go on to lay out the position you're opposing, you impute that position to me. Why?
I don’t actually think it’s that idiosyncratic a take. I think most people that want an assault weapons ban would be perfectly fine with “detachable fed, semiautomatic or select fire rifle (you can use the federal definition of rifle)”.
The cosmetic feature bans come from the mismash of court cases that define gun rights.
It's not really a courtly dance. It's a near impossible conversation to have because "assault weapon" doesn't have any kind of clear or helpful meaning. Even the expired AWB didn't do a decent job of defining. And arguably many "features" usually shoehorned in are just silly. Like there's nothing especially bad about pistol grips on rifles.
The term "assault weapon" usually indicates larger magazines and higher rate of fire than firearms that are typically used for self defense or sport. I don't know about "uniquely dangerous", but if a firearm can shoot more bullets faster it clearly has the potential to be more dangerous and cause more injury and loss of life than other firearms. Even the people who want to die on the hill of being pedantic about the term "assault weapon" have to admit that.
Will not have to admit. The term has nothing to do with rate of fire. Normally purchased weapons, assault or not, are semi automatic. Rate of fire only applies to automatic weapons.
Right, even then the rate of fire is only relevant as to say it was a single pull for multiple projectiles vs a pull for each round. If you have the money to pay the $200 tax stamp, undergo the background check, and can find a pre 1986 minigun, you can shoot upwards of 6k rpm. Some states may have prohibitions on it, but again, those are being contested in courts and I suspect post BRUEN they're not going to hold up to muster.
> The term "assault weapon" usually indicates larger magazines and higher rate of fire than firearms that are typically used for self defense or sport.
This is incorrect. An "assault weapon" is semi-automatic and it has no intrinsic rate of fire. The National Firearms Act of 1934 already regulates automatic firearms at the federal level. The definition of an assault weapon varies by state, but usually comes down to cosmetic and minor features such as a pistol grip, a shrouded barrel, a folding stock, a threaded barrel, etc...
> The definition of an assault weapon varies by state
Yet you define it concretely in your first line, and immediately contradict that statement in your second like. You seem more focused on arguing than being logical.
> The term "assault weapon" usually indicates larger magazines and higher rate of fire than firearms that are typically used for self defense or sport.
To be blunt, you've been lied to about this. No assault weapons ban has ever distinguished firearms based off of their rate of fire. The magazines banned are often are those typically used for self-defense and sport.
A semi-automatic firearm has a significantly higher rate of fire compared to a single-shot firearm. That's just a fucking fact buddy. Maybe not for every firearm every made, but broadly speaking.
It takes more than being semiautomatic for a firearm to be banned under the assault weapon bans we saw at the federal level and currently have in states like California and New York. In addition to being semiautomatic and having a detachable magazine/fixed magazine of a certain capacity, it needs to have some combination of banned cosmetic or ergonomic features like a pistol grip, an adjustable or foldable stock, or a flash hider.
After assault weapon bans, most of the market goes to "featureless" firearms that are still semiautomatic but lack enough banned features to remain legal.
It's a made up term. Law has delineated that how fast a user can pull the trigger is irrelevant. The difference is semi-automatic rate of fire or full auto rate of fire. One requires the trigger to reset before each shot fired (Semi) and one has a trigger that mechanically allows multiple rounds to expel from the weapon with one pull.
It's cut and dry. The NFA act of 1934 (which many believe is unconstitutional and should be overturned post BRUEN), was the only law written to establish this rule. The 1986 FOPA was written to stop the sale of post 86 machine guns from MFG and Sale (prior weapons are still legally able to be sold).
Again modern claims of assault weapon are used to conjure up an image rather than provide any factual definition in line with the above comment.
At the end of the day there is nothing for "people who want to die on the hill of being pedantic" have to admit. The laws are clear, emotionally charged words have no bearing and are being used to muddy discussions around a clearly defined set of laws.
Where law enforcement organizations have gotten involved here is writing a "law letter" saying, "Dear ATF: We're interested in firearm X. Please let machinegun dealer Y acquire a sample to demonstrate it for us." Then dealer Y can buy firearm X and keep it as long as they maintain their license, only being able to sell it to the government or another licensed machinegun dealer.
"These firearms, which often are significantly more dangerous than the kinds of firearms normal people can lawfully acquire, have never been used in a crime."
This is incorrect. NFA weapons have been used, albeit very rarely in crimes:
"Since 1934, there appear to have been at least two homicides committed with legally owned automatic weapons. One was a murder committed by a law enforcement officer (as opposed to a civilian). On September 15th, 1988, a 13-year veteran of the Dayton, Ohio police department, Patrolman Roger Waller, then 32, used his fully automatic MAC-11 .380 caliber submachine gun to kill a police informant, 52-year-old Lawrence Hileman." [1]
Ironically, it was a LEO who committed this crime.
And now, of course, it is possible that the UHC CEO was killed with a suppressed handgun which would add to the extremely small list of crimes committed with NFA weaponry.
Kinda worrying in many ways really - police taking guns from their departments and selling them to criminals and then saying "...but but I had no idea this was illegal or wrong!"
I doesn't even pass the sniff test.
Either the police are total idiots with no concept of right or wrong let alone knowledge of the law, OR they are willingly corrupt and will brazenly break the law to line their own pockets and to fuck with the consequences, which incidentally are pretty negligible because of the corruption and blind-eye turning of their buddies.
"the police are total idiots with no [...] knowledge of the law [...]" AND "are willingly corrupt and will brazenly break the law to line their own pockets"
Has anyone actually used a minigun in a crime anywhere ever? I'm pretty sure it would be nationwide news if it happened IRL, although it happens on tv all the time.
I'm not so sure about that. A friend of mine from Pakistan said that in his region, you could buy a machine gun at an open-air bazaar. Also, in a lot of countries, the government has little control over firearms, as they have little control over anything.
I would disagree, tons of countries with large gun ownership. The basis for it in the US stems from our founding and it's codification as a right to bear arms. It's not one granted by the government, but one upheld by it.
Some could say that if it weren't for this mindset and approach, much of the world would be worse off. The backbone military for the world that affords much of the stability needed is the US military. The emphasis on national defense capabilities and the government and civilian levels are what make us unique. It's not for everyone, but in the same vein, there's not a lack of people requesting help or intervention either.
I simply must remark on some details[brackets mine] FTFA:
>"Some ammunition can [1]take out a helicopter or [2]blow straight through an armored tank followed by a concrete building, out the other side, then explode, hitting targets 18 football fields away."<
Concerning [1]: a common .22 handgun can take out a helicopter. Even a well-placed rock can take out a helicopter:
That, and their inherent complexity and relatively low reliability, are the reasons why helicopters are my least-preferred means of transportation.
Concerning [2]: Bullshit. Mostly b/c no knowledgeable person would try to shoot "through an armored tank followed by a concrete building, out the other side, then explode, hitting targets 18 football fields away."
After all, to hit a target requires that you aim. You cannot aim "through an armored tank followed by a concrete building, out the other side".
And I've simply got to ask: what munition, after piercing a tank and a concrete building, "then explode[s], hitting targets 18 football fields away."?
This article's author is sadly uninformed: no experience, no knowledge of the physical world. Sad.
> a common .22 handgun can take out a helicopter. Even a well-placed rock can take out a helicopter:
You appear to be arguing that the DoD wasted a ton of money when all they needed to do was give the Ukrainian army lots of rocks. If that wasn’t your intent, consider that effectiveness might be the principal behind the law - there’s a huge difference between being able to get lucky with perfect circumstances and being able to reliably down aircraft. In particular, consider that the Border Patrol commonly uses helicopter rotor backwash as an improvised weapon against migrants which requires them to get much closer to their targets than would otherwise be the case - people can’t throw rocks anywhere near normal firearms distances.
TFA says "Some ammunition can take out a helicopter ..." which is true enough. I merely pointed out that most anything can "take out a helicopter".
Attachment of this discussion to the Ukrainian conflict and DOD is your imagination.
Of course people can’t throw rocks as far as a firearm can shoot. But to state that "people can’t throw rocks anywhere near normal firearms distances" is contrary to most gunshot assault statistics, especially for handguns:
While a firearm can shoot farther and more accurately than most persons can throw a rock, human encounters usually occur at short ("rock-throwing" or less) distances. Most conflicts occur at distances correlated more with the range of the human voice than with the range of a firearm.
TFA also specifically refers to military weaponry which is designed for the purpose of taking out equipment rather than a lucky shot. The reason I brought up Ukraine is that it’s the logical implication of your statement whether or not you recognize it: militaries don’t rely on luck, they want to stack the odds in their favor. What makes something military grade is that it can consistently perform that task, not relying on a soldier getting lucky.
This is why asides about handgun distances aren’t relevant: in the context of taking out helicopters, we’re not talking about close quarters situations - 3-5 yards means people are getting hit by prop wash or the rotors themselves!
167 comments
[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 231 ms ] threadI stopped reading here. What magical ammunition is this? An Abrams tank with a DU APFSDS penetrator isn't doing this. No ammunition that can "blow straight through an armored tank" is exploding on the other side.
> "Congress knew almost 100 years ago, in the days of Al Capone, that fully automatic weapons were unusually dangerous," ATF Director Steven Dettelbach said a public address on Feb. 28, 2023. "They have no place in our communities."
Or, Congress knew they needed a way to prosecute these folks, so they created convenient laws to fit and simultaneously expand their state monopoly on the use of force.
That said, many folks who know things about guns have a tendency to assume that if they wrote wild things about weaponry that don't really make sense, the article overall isn't trustworthy.
DARE and other anti drug campaigns follow the exact same playbook, just with children on the receiving end - no, smoking 4/20 is not a direct pathway to ending up homeless and with a heroin needle sticking out your arm. Or religious anti-sex campaigns - no, having sex with people will not make you a whore or whatnot.
Meanwhile, "preventing people from owning machine guns" is widely accepted as legal, at least if they're made after a specific date.
I agree that there's probably not a strong reason to assume that moving modern manufacture machine guns to a tax stamp regime with a huge tax wouldn't trigger some kind of litigation, but that seems mostly like a tangent. (And I think by default you'd assume there's no reason for the court to seconds guess the tax level of a tax without questioning the current tax stamp regime too.)
The claims about the weapons effects (at least in the context of typical small arms) are on a similar even of magical effectiveness as the Supermicro allegations.
It's painful to see reporting something that is obviously (ethically and legally) wrong (law enforcement should not be trafficing firearms, regardless of your stance on 2A rights or automatic weapons bans), intermixed with factually dubious claims (or at least incredibly misleading claims).
But if they are actually spending some time on each article (which they should) it seems like it wouldn't be hard to actually do their job and talk to -if not an expert- at least a local enthusiast/hobbyist.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raufoss_Mk_211
Unsurprisingly, the description is exaggerated. It could probably do a subset of those things at the same time, provided the "tank" is using pot metal armor or something.
Most tanks are low to the ground, as are most concrete walls: it's impossible for any "ammunition" fired at ground level to penetrate a bunch of ground level objects and then fly 18 football fields away ... and then explode.
Is this ACME ammunition?
Oh good at least they’re not looking to prosecute crimes as long as it’s fellow law enforcement. No moral hazards there.
> Wendt is unapologetic and has appealed his conviction. "If I'm guilty of this, every cop in the nation's going to jail," Wendt told CBS News just days before a federal judge sentenced him to a 5-year prison term. Wendt's crimes appear to be part of a nationwide pattern.
Yup no moral hazard. Of course gun trafficking in untracked war weapons would be something that should be within the purview of every random three person police department and lying on government forms is a-ok. At least this guy is getting persecuted but it’s worrying this is a large pattern:
> In 2011, federal agents busted a smuggling ring out of New Mexico involving a police chief, mayor and village trustee who delivered automatic firepower and tactical gear to a Mexican cartel.
Oh boy
> A decade later, prosecutors uncovered a multistate conspiracy linking a sanctioned Russian arms dealer with three police chiefs, one sheriff and a Delta Force veteran who sold machine guns directly to a criminal trafficker. All of them pleaded guilty.
Moral hazards exist but we always act like it’s ok for prosecutors and fellow law enforcement to act like it doesn’t for law enforcement.
Government always excepts itself from gun control regulation. It's why the NRA failing to support Breonna Taylor was so glaringly transparent - the entire point of the supposed lobbying organization is to defend private gun ownership against the conflicting desires of government. But instead they lined right up behind the government oppressors! Like what exactly do they think destruction of the second amendment looks like if it's not government agents invading your home at night and summarily executing you for exercising your purported right of self defense?
Here’s a list of the law enforcement agencies in the Houston Area: https://hapca.org/Member%20Agencies/member-agencies
They get as local as a department for just 150-300 acres of Brazosport College / Rice University or the Tiki Island Police Department covering a village of 1,100 people, despite being just a 5-minute drive to Galveston (a city of 53,000 people)
I don’t think the problem is local vs national police. Either way the national culture can be poor overall (as it is now) and each local area can have widely different quality (as they do now)
“I’d shut down the FBI Hoover Building on day one and reopen it the next day as a museum of the ‘deep state,’” Patel said in an interview on the “Shawn Ryan Show” that aired in September. “Then, I’d take the 7,000 employees that work in that building and send them across America to chase down criminals. Go be cops. You’re cops — go be cops.”
The last part is generally--dishonestly--omitted in the headlines from our favorite and most trusted news sources. (edit: which is done to frame Patel as wanting to fire them all--a pathetic stunt that is no longer surprising from these corrupt tools.)
Anyway, what are these "circumstances" to which you refer?
As for the parent comment, this administration plans to put more agents in the field immediately. Why is that a problem? Perhaps try persuasion instead of vague dogwhistles about 'circumstances.'
Every FBI director is an unelected bureaucrat. Patel will be as well.
And people really, really need to stop triggering themselves over the term (simply because it is often misunderstood and used as conspiracy fodder).
A consideration: One form of community policing uses officers that live in the area they patrol. The notion is that police will better know and protect their own community.
To support your larger point, it is my experience that there is little oversight of LEO at the peer level. ex:When meaningful oversight of county/city police happens, it is typically by state or federal LEO authority.
So we have a system that is capable of doing what needs to be done. However, it likely has a tiny fraction of the resources (and will) necessary to broadly keep Americans safe.
Obviously more government control will solve the issue. /s
The Federal justice system is capped by Senate confirmed judges with lifetime appointments, US Attorneys who serve at the pleasure of the appointing authority, and various Federal agencies with few levers to influence from a citizen perspective.
You can also get a sneak peak at such a system by looking at Washington, DC. It’s justice system is a federally administered or supervised tip to tail, and it isn’t exactly a bastion of justice.
[1]: https://www.ussc.gov/research/research-reports/weighing-impa...
I'm not sure that was the gotcha he seemed to think it was...
Things a cop would say but no sane civilian would.
1. Cop buys the kinds firearms regular people can buy using law enforcement discounts and then makes an otherwise legal private sale to profit from this. This violates the terms of these law enforcement discount programs. Also, federal law requires people who buy and sell firearms for profit have a federal firearms license. These firearms sometimes are used in crime.
2. In some jurisdictions like California and Massachusetts, law enforcement can buy certain handguns new that normal people cannot. This isn't about safety as these handguns are not capable of anything that the approved handguns are not. It's solely a measure to harm the market for handguns by restricting the kinds of handguns available and increasing their prices. Cops can legally sell these unapproved handguns to normal people. The problem here, again, is doing it for profit. These firearms sometimes are used in crime.
3. Cops buying "assault weapons" and then making illegal private sales to normal people who can't lawfully buy these weapons. This is nowhere near as common as the first two scenarios.
4. Cops playing games with post-1986 machinegun regulations so that federal firearms licensees who pay a special tax can acquire machineguns to rent to the public at ranges or just for their own personal fun. These firearms, which often are significantly more dangerous than the kinds of firearms normal people can lawfully acquire, have never been used in a crime.
Scenarios 1 and 2 have no public safety impact beyond private sales generally. Scenario 3 is only problematic from a public safety standpoint if you believe "assault weapons" are uniquely dangerous, which they aren't. Scenario 4 has not resulted in any violent crime.
But yea it's afaict not cops selling machine guns to people illegally, it's just getting them online or wherever.
Yeah, those $30 switches from Temu et al are another issue entirely.
Yea like maybe twice ever in the last 80 years, it's effectively never
I don't necessarily want to have that whole debate again, which I guess I could do by pressing the point, so much as to make space in this subthread for "maybe that one part of your strong comment is not as settled as you're making it out to be".
You might believe I'm completely wrong about all of this, and that's OK. That's how message boards work. But do you think "you haven't read the assault weapons ban and don't know how silly it is" is going to work as a rhetorical strategy here?
Or we can just accept that reasonable, informed people might disagree on these points, and there's no winning this.
Where is this?
Frankly it's something I've always wondered about, but as mostly a spectator of these kinds of discussions I've never seen anyone explain. Like a lot of folks, from my surface-level knowledge it seems arbitrary and likely meaningless. But so much so that it feels like I must be missing something.
Or any chance of a link to your previous cpmments on the topic?
Statistically speaking, based on shootings and crime, pistols are much more "dangerous". For whatever reason we've made laws solely on long gun features though.
You must be well-aware that handguns are much more tightly controlled than long guns pretty much across the board, totally aside from the fuzziness of "assault weapon" designation.
What I'm pointing out is that a stock long rifle is arbitrarily made a felony only in New York and New Jersey law, which logically leads to a more dangerous outcome: I have to store said gun somewhere else while I live there for work.
But if you go off the route, say a couple miles off the freeway to visit a cousin as long as you are in Illinois, then a highway patrol stop can mean arrest and imprisonment.
No one has been arrested just for traveling through Illinois yet.
- finger printing
- background checks
- no sale registries
- psych evals
- closing private sale (non FFL) and gun convention loopholes
New Yorks style of gun control is not what I think is effective or reasonable. It's just making the process more arduous and arbitrary without effecting the illegal sale market, where most of these crimes statistically occur.
Edit:
Throwing a point in post edit: Detachable magazines are actually not the deciding factor in the SAFE act. You can have a detachable magazine, just not when combined with a muzzle device (eg: a muzzle break or compensator).
The question here is whether there exists a meaningful category of weapons called "assault weapons" (yes: the semi-automatic and select-fire long guns with detachable magazines, which were designed as weapons of war) and whether they are more dangerous than other legal firearms (yes).
No. Both you and the people you're arguing against think that the category of "assault weapons" exist, but you're using your own definition whereas others are using the legal definition. Why are you clinging so hard to the phrase "assault weapons" specifically? People who are using the legal definition have a pretty strong claim to that definition, because it's literally enshrined in law. Why not say "guns with detachable magazines" or whatever and save everyone from pointless word lawyering?
The earliest form of a magazine was the repeating rifle and it predates the Civil War. Clips, the earlier form of what we colloquially call a magazine, evolved through the same way. Where it converges was with the development of the M1 Garand that took a clip during WWII: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_Garand
None of this, as I said, is effectual to solving the problem people want to solve so the discussion is kind of moot. "Assault Weapon" is a grouping that some politicians came up with based on arbitrary characteristics. I think it's useful for appealing to their voter base that doesn't want to think too much about solving the actual problem of people who want to cause violence using gun. Beyond that, the term loses value rapidly.
That's a very narrow, parsimonious claim, which is part of what makes it easy to defend.
It’s pretty clear statistically that handguns are in fact much much more dangerous than assault weapons.
But you don’t need to prove that to be anti-assault weapon but it feels very weird to look at the stats around these things and conclude that’s where the focus should be.
I think the focus is on assault weapons because handguns are off limits. The populace wants them and the courts are pretty clear on them.
If you're aiming to prevent the most firearm-related deaths, you focus on handguns.
If you're aiming to prevent mass shootings, assault weapons are very relevant.
You can ask "why prevent mass shootings, when ordinary shootings kill more people", and of course someone else can say "why focus on shootings at all when cars kill more people".
https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R48276
I’d guess you mean the mass public shooting one.
It’s hard to find comprehensive data on all the dimensions but in this report for instance https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/R44126.pdf
You’ll see 16 of 66 mass public shootings were performed by assault weapons that were illegal under the Brady ban but legal now (another one was an illegal conversion and a final one was performed by a police officer who could legally purchase under either regime).
So I don’t agree with you about where you’d focus if you wanted to stop mass shootings.
And worse than that I think focusing on assault rifles especially turns what is a pretty universally agreed upon problem (mass shootings are increasing and becoming more deadly) into a culture war issue.
The courts are nearly certain to affirm civilians rights to own assault rifles soon. We can keep chasing ever more caricatured laws around weapon definitions or we can focus on things that don’t require the culture war: - strong and universal enforcement of the laws on the books that don’t abridge the legal possession rights of citizens (felony straw purchase enforcement, background checks, felony bans, etc) - make domestic abuse disqualifying for firearm ownership (by making it a higher class of crime and enforcing it) - red flag laws and training on identification (including a process to surrender firearms when in crisis and to regain your rights when not) - repeal all the crazy laws preventing the gun industry from being researched and sued - safe storage laws - civil and criminal liability for providing firearms used in crimes
And while we’re at it let’s get gun owners mental health resources and build a culture where it’s normal to store guns outside of your house if you start having suicidal thoughts.
Why?
> background checks
These are being done, what else?
> psych evals
Ah, a subjective means to deny rights. Also, who is paying for this? Maybe you should have to have a psych eval to cast a vote.
> gun convention loopholes
Yesterday's compromise to pass the Brady bill is now being referred to as a "loophole." Do you see why that might make folks concerned about a restrictive agenda?
Brady I don't have much of an opinion on. I do know, as a value, that I buy all of my firearms through a licensed FFL. It's at most $50 + shipping. I don't think that's too restrictive.
> Brady I don't have much of an opinion on. I do know, as a value, that I buy all of my firearms through a licensed FFL. It's at most $50 + shipping. I don't think that's too restrictive.
I think we, as gun owners, do need to acknowledge there are people who go to gun shows to illegally acquire weapons or perform strawman sales with relative ease. Maybe my solution isn't the best, but it does need addressing.
If you really want to tread into analoging ownership to voting I think you'll be very disappointed. We require a lot of hurdles to vote. You have to go to an authorized voting location (akin to going to an FFL), you have to present ID that is known to the state so they can correlate that you are, in fact, in the right place (all those checks I mentioned), and afterwards they determine whether everyone who voted was eligible to vote. If they weren't, they're charged with a serious crime.
Not in most states.
---
There are people that go to the polling booth and commit voter fraud with relative ease, therefore it needs addressed.
The Brady bill was allowed to proceed because of the guarantee that people wouldn't need to involve the government to conduct a private sale between two individuals or gift firearms between father and son, for instance.
Calling it a loophole that "does need addressing" is reneging on a compromise.
Also, have you ever been to a gun show? Recently? Do you know the actual, real percentage of FFLs present vs private individuals? Today, these shows are composed of 95% FFLs anyway, all of whom perform background checks - and the available deals are shitty.
While I'm sure there's a non-zero amount of fraud going on, by all official accounts the actual rate is negligible.
> Today, these shows are composed of 95% FFLs anyway, all of whom perform background checks
I have been to a gun show recently. We can, and should, close that 5% gap. An FFL is an intermediary and the ATF doesn't retain records about transactions they do by law. FFLs will maintain their own records, but they're no some widely searchable database (which is what people fear in an Orwellian sense).
Good luck getting compliance without a formal registry.. oh wait.
All that needs to happen is the prohibition of private sale outside of an FFL. From there you can penalize gun shows that allow non-FFL holders to sell.
As I said earlier, there's not a good reason not to transact through an FFL. They're charged with maintaining your privacy as a purchaser while simultaneously preventing strawman purchases. They're a very basic extension of nearly every pawn broker.
Thankfully, home manufacturing (a protected activity) of firearms is becoming cheap, simple and effective via 3D printing and machining - this is already a SCOTUS-affirmed, historically-legal activity.
What's next, regulating CNC machines and 3D printers?
I don't really get why you're so defensive on this point? Like yeah, psych evals are probably a bit too onerous for every gun owner to go through just because of the time commitment alone but you seem to take issue with them on principle.
On principle I don't take issue with adding requirements to vote, you're more than welcome to push for them but additional restrictions do go counter the goal of increasing turnout which is already embarrassingly low.
Also I'm not taking a stance one way or another on the gun show thing, I personally don't care about them that much but by any definition they are a loophole. Even more so it's a near full escape hatch from the law. Instant background checks could be as easy as one of those Square payment terminals if we let it, the burden is really low.
Where in the Constitution does a "psych eval" constitute due process?
Why can I not be required to pay to exercise my right to vote?
When I got my CHL in Texas I was required to get a psych eval because I'm a veteran. Here's the form: https://www.dshs.texas.gov/sites/default/files/medical-advis...
You pay for it, but any old doctor can affirm the things on that form.
Reasonable is both a legal term used in legislation and a term that appears in gun debates at a disproportionate ratio.
The issue of "assault weapon" bans boils down to the question of whether or not restricted features like pistol grips and adjustable stocks make magazine-fed semi-automatic firearms more dangerous than those without. People who shoot these kinds of weapons tend to be unconvinced. Gun control advocates generally believe this distinction makes sense.
There's also the issue of how restricted magazine-fed semiautomatic weapons should be, apart from the baggage of "assault weapon" features, which I feel could be a more productive debate.
The cosmetic feature bans come from the mismash of court cases that define gun rights.
This is incorrect. An "assault weapon" is semi-automatic and it has no intrinsic rate of fire. The National Firearms Act of 1934 already regulates automatic firearms at the federal level. The definition of an assault weapon varies by state, but usually comes down to cosmetic and minor features such as a pistol grip, a shrouded barrel, a folding stock, a threaded barrel, etc...
Yet you define it concretely in your first line, and immediately contradict that statement in your second like. You seem more focused on arguing than being logical.
To be blunt, you've been lied to about this. No assault weapons ban has ever distinguished firearms based off of their rate of fire. The magazines banned are often are those typically used for self-defense and sport.
After assault weapon bans, most of the market goes to "featureless" firearms that are still semiautomatic but lack enough banned features to remain legal.
It's cut and dry. The NFA act of 1934 (which many believe is unconstitutional and should be overturned post BRUEN), was the only law written to establish this rule. The 1986 FOPA was written to stop the sale of post 86 machine guns from MFG and Sale (prior weapons are still legally able to be sold).
Again modern claims of assault weapon are used to conjure up an image rather than provide any factual definition in line with the above comment.
At the end of the day there is nothing for "people who want to die on the hill of being pedantic" have to admit. The laws are clear, emotionally charged words have no bearing and are being used to muddy discussions around a clearly defined set of laws.
Never been used in a violent crime. They have been vehicles of financial crime, which is what’s being alleged here.
But buying things with the idea of selling seems like an organization that's operating way outside it's mandate.
Which isn't something a law enforcement organisation should ever do.
>Which isn't something a law enforcement organisation should ever do.
It's unclear whether it's the "law enforcement organizations" doing the transactions, or its employees.
Is something really "significantly more dangerous" if you can carve a part out a piece of thin sheet metal to obtain the property in question?
This is incorrect. NFA weapons have been used, albeit very rarely in crimes:
"Since 1934, there appear to have been at least two homicides committed with legally owned automatic weapons. One was a murder committed by a law enforcement officer (as opposed to a civilian). On September 15th, 1988, a 13-year veteran of the Dayton, Ohio police department, Patrolman Roger Waller, then 32, used his fully automatic MAC-11 .380 caliber submachine gun to kill a police informant, 52-year-old Lawrence Hileman." [1]
Ironically, it was a LEO who committed this crime.
And now, of course, it is possible that the UHC CEO was killed with a suppressed handgun which would add to the extremely small list of crimes committed with NFA weaponry.
[1] https://guncite.com/gun_control_gcfullau.html
EDIT: I see your reply to my sibling post - you were referring very specifically to post-sample MGs and I suspect you are correct.
I doesn't even pass the sniff test.
Either the police are total idiots with no concept of right or wrong let alone knowledge of the law, OR they are willingly corrupt and will brazenly break the law to line their own pockets and to fuck with the consequences, which incidentally are pretty negligible because of the corruption and blind-eye turning of their buddies.
Both options are pretty troubling.
"the police are total idiots with no [...] knowledge of the law [...]" AND "are willingly corrupt and will brazenly break the law to line their own pockets"
Some could say that if it weren't for this mindset and approach, much of the world would be worse off. The backbone military for the world that affords much of the stability needed is the US military. The emphasis on national defense capabilities and the government and civilian levels are what make us unique. It's not for everyone, but in the same vein, there's not a lack of people requesting help or intervention either.
>"Some ammunition can [1]take out a helicopter or [2]blow straight through an armored tank followed by a concrete building, out the other side, then explode, hitting targets 18 football fields away."<
Concerning [1]: a common .22 handgun can take out a helicopter. Even a well-placed rock can take out a helicopter:
https://www.foxnews.com/story/border-patrol-chopper-forced-d...
That, and their inherent complexity and relatively low reliability, are the reasons why helicopters are my least-preferred means of transportation.
Concerning [2]: Bullshit. Mostly b/c no knowledgeable person would try to shoot "through an armored tank followed by a concrete building, out the other side, then explode, hitting targets 18 football fields away."
After all, to hit a target requires that you aim. You cannot aim "through an armored tank followed by a concrete building, out the other side".
And I've simply got to ask: what munition, after piercing a tank and a concrete building, "then explode[s], hitting targets 18 football fields away."?
This article's author is sadly uninformed: no experience, no knowledge of the physical world. Sad.
You appear to be arguing that the DoD wasted a ton of money when all they needed to do was give the Ukrainian army lots of rocks. If that wasn’t your intent, consider that effectiveness might be the principal behind the law - there’s a huge difference between being able to get lucky with perfect circumstances and being able to reliably down aircraft. In particular, consider that the Border Patrol commonly uses helicopter rotor backwash as an improvised weapon against migrants which requires them to get much closer to their targets than would otherwise be the case - people can’t throw rocks anywhere near normal firearms distances.
Attachment of this discussion to the Ukrainian conflict and DOD is your imagination.
Of course people can’t throw rocks as far as a firearm can shoot. But to state that "people can’t throw rocks anywhere near normal firearms distances" is contrary to most gunshot assault statistics, especially for handguns:
"The True Distance of a Typical Gunfight"
https://www.luckygunner.com/lounge/the-true-distance-of-a-ty...
(tl;dr - 3 to 5 yards)
While a firearm can shoot farther and more accurately than most persons can throw a rock, human encounters usually occur at short ("rock-throwing" or less) distances. Most conflicts occur at distances correlated more with the range of the human voice than with the range of a firearm.
This is why asides about handgun distances aren’t relevant: in the context of taking out helicopters, we’re not talking about close quarters situations - 3-5 yards means people are getting hit by prop wash or the rotors themselves!