Biden's Proposed Gun Control Measures

K

KyJim

New member
Per Fox News, Biden has ordered:

1. DOJ to promulgate a rule within 30 days banning "ghost" guns;

2. DOJ to propose a new rule on gun braces within 60 days;

3. DOJ to propose action on "community violence intervention," whatever that means (I would suggest enforcing current firearms laws and states like California quit letting violent felons out early);

4. DOJ to promulgate "red flag" laws;

5. Issue a report on gun trafficking (I assume the report will castigate the BATF for their trafficking of guns) :rolleyes: .

Biden also is supporting bans on "assault rifles" and high capacity magazines and also supports closing the "gun show loophole."

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-guns-remarks-executive-actions
 
1) Not sure most bad guys build guns in their garages. I'd love to see the data showing this is a real issues, but I doubt Papa Joe will do so. However, I suspect it plays well on Twitter.

2) Again, not sure how many violent crimes are being committed with AR Pistols, but again, you have to admit it is an easy "target" based on appearance.

3) Maybe this means more Social Workers riding with Cops. Somehow I doubt it means stricter enforcement and penalties for violent criminals.

4) This is concerning because I've seen people treated negatively in Family Court just because they own a gun not because they are actually violent. Might this make gun owners more susceptible to penalties just for being a gun owner.

5) I fear this will be targeted at Second Amendment friendly States and call for harsher restrictions in those States. After all we know that gun violence in Chicago is a result of Georgia's gun laws and not Chicago's failed policies.


I guess one question is - Why? I may disagree with Biden on almost everything, but you don't become President by being dumb. So, why is he attacking the Second Amendment? Is this designed to draw more and more young urban/suburban voters who know little about guns to his Party? At the end of the day it seems to have little to do with violence and everything to do with maintaining and increasing Political Power.
 
BarryLee said:
I guess one question is - Why? I may disagree with Biden on almost everything, but you don't become President by being dumb. So, why is he attacking the Second Amendment?
Click to expand...
Because many people (Biden included) although smart, know very little about guns. And they have no interest in their use.

So when a complex topic such as violence comes across, they reach for the easiest most apparent conclusion, which is that "guns foster violence". They reason that "no guns, no gun violence". Which we all know is not true. Besides, they ignore the OTHER kinds of violence: knives, clubs, fists, etc. that takes place in the absence of guns. They don't seem to remember that the 9/11 hijackers brought down those planes and landed a blow to the heart of the USA by using box cutter knives, for crying out loud!

So what happens with most anti-gunners in my opinion is not that they have an evil intent, but just that they are ignorant. They would abolish 2A if they could, convinced that it would be great for society and democracy at large.

They are just ignorant about the topic.

Their thinking is akin to the thinking that "eating fat makes you fat", or "eating cholesterol raises your cholesterol". It seems like it would be common sense, but it is not true!

The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.
 
I'm pretty sure there is a bit of histrionics in this. THere is no language about 'banning' anything.
Here is the actual language used:

  • The Justice Department, within 30 days, will issue a proposed rule to help stop the proliferation of “ghost guns.”
  • The Justice Department, within 60 days, will issue a proposed rule to make clear when a device marketed as a stabilizing brace effectively turns a pistol into a short-barreled rifle subject to the requirements of the National Firearms Act.
  • The Justice Department, within 60 days, will publish model “red flag” legislation for states.
  • The Administration is investing in evidence-based community violence interventions.
  • The Justice Department will issue an annual report on firearms trafficking
  • The President will nominate David Chipman to serve as Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms.
 
For the most part, these are reminiscent of the "executive actions" President Obama issued in the wake of the Sandy Hook shooting. They seem like nice gestures, but gestures are all they are.

Real changes on things like homemade firearms or red-flag laws require actual laws to be changed. That's the province of the legislature, not the executive branch. So, why do this? Because he knows these things don't stand a chance in the legislature. That's actually a good thing.

Now, his appointment of Chipman to the ATF is very disturbing. Chipman doesn't just support gun control, he's been an open advocate for it working for Giffords' group. He's gone on record as supporting full bans on "assault weapons," and he's an apologist for the bureau's actions in the Waco tragedy.
 
Aside from wanting to appoint a proven pro-guncontrol to head the ATF (he does need to be approved by the Senate, right?) the rest is mostly "direcing the DOJ to come up with plans to implement what he wants (if possible), and there is an amount of wiggle room between what they can do (and get away with) and needing to actually have the law changed.

Congratulations to the idiots on the Internet /U tube bragging about their "ghost guns" and pistol "braces". Hope you got what you wanted, because now that you've made the point, the rest of us are looking at having legal pistols reclassified as SBRs and possibly the banning or restricting of ALL spare parts.

The Antis would be quite happy (temporarily) if we all had to go through a dealer and pass a background check (and of course, pay for it) to get a firing pin or a spring because its a gun part and somebody might make a gun from it.

We'll fight it, of course, but if it does come to pass, I'm going to hold you responsible. :rolleyes:
 
ghbucky said:
Is it law that 80% guns are not considered firearms, or is that an ATF determination?
Click to expand...
It's a BATFE interpretation of the law.

The law says that we are allowed to make (or "manufacture," I don't have the law in fron of me) our own firearms for our own personal use. The question was: how much of the work does the owner have to perform in order to claim that he (or she) made it? The BATFE decided (I don't know on what basis) that if the owner does at least 20% of the work, it qualifies as a home-built firearm.
 
politicians just like to make noise, that's their job. Todays "announcements " make liberals feel like their guys are working to keep them safe and vote for liberal politicians and enrage the conservatives so they will vote for the conservative politicians. My gut feeling is this is a whole lot of nothing. Politicians really don't want to enact meaningful laws, they just want to be reelected. If they ever accomplished anything, there would be no need to re elect them
 
How are they going to address the millions of AR pistols already out there?

What about the millions of 80% receivers out there? I mean a lot of them are now completed and firearms.
 
There is no language about 'banning' anything.
Click to expand...
You are correct regarding the ghost guns. That word was not explicitly used. That is my interpretation of what they plan on trying to do through executive orders and rule-making.
 
Real changes on things like homemade firearms or red-flag laws require actual laws to be changed.
Click to expand...

There is no language about 'banning' anything.
Click to expand...

Hmm you guys must have missed it . No Biden didn't say it , the federal government will give out incentives for states to do it for them . Like tax brakes , grants and who knows what else .
 
The 2A says "The right of the People to Keep and Bear...." Not "The Right of the Militia" The Right of THE PEOPLE.

It says nothing about the right to find a gun in stock to purchase. Dicks can stop selling guns.

Any of the manufacturers,like Remington, can get out of the business.

Litigation,regulation,taxes,etc can make that happen.

It may be difficult. It may be beyond the capability of all but a few,

But ultimately,the RTKBA is rooted in the idea the individual can make his own gun.

Its important.

"If I can't buy one,I can make one" That is a most fundamental freedom.

Without that....we could not have made it to the stone age.
 
The Justice Department, within 30 days, will issue a proposed rule to help stop the proliferation of “ghost guns.”
Click to expand...

I’ll bet if you asked one of us and a liberal, you would get 2 polar opposite meaning for this phrase. A liberal believes this means stop the practice of ordering AR15 parts kits online and stop building mass quantities of untraceable ghost guns that must be the cause of all these shootings.

We hear, change the 80% rule to something like 75% rule with no impact to AR15 building, except as related to using 80% lowers as a starting point which is relatively rare case anyways.
 
We hear, change the 80% rule to something like 75% rule with no impact to AR15 building, except as related to using 80% lowers as a starting point which is relatively rare case anyways.
Click to expand...

Given this administration, I wouldn't expect a shift of 80 to 75, I'd more expect a shift to 0%. I expect they will try to kill that entire industry.

What I find ironic is that they put immediate deadlines on actions that have no connection or only anecdotal connection to crime, and then say that the DOJ must publish annual gun trafficking reports.

In a sane world, shouldn't they want to find out how criminals are getting guns before taking action? I know, the answer is obvious.
 
Right now, we are going to have to wait 30 days / 60 days for "the other shoe to drop".

Doesn't make squat that the Pres has ordered DOJ to come up with PROPOSALS for rule changes.

What matters is what those proposals will be, and what gets done about them, and for that, we have to wait until they actually propose the changes.

A couple of points to consider, first about "ghost guns". Ok, so various agencies are reporting more and more of them showing up in crimes (or more often, seized at crime scenes). If those guns are not being seized from their original owners/makers, then various existing Federal laws have already been broken. Anyone who is making guns and selling them WITHOUT following federal law (which means having the required licenses) is already breaking multiple laws.

NO "new" law or change to regulation will affect this.

Next point is about pistol braces. The ATF has reclassified what is, and isn't a legal pistol stock several times over the years. It is established precedent that they have the authority to do that "in house" without needing a change to the law to do so.

So it is plausible that the ATF could, under executive order and within its already established authority, reclassify pistol braces as stocks.

Until they come out with their proposed plans, all we can do is speculate, and wait.
 
Anyone who is making guns and selling them WITHOUT following federal law (which means having the required licenses) is already breaking multiple laws.

NO "new" law or change to regulation will affect this.
Click to expand...

I fully disagree , because there are many people that are selling "ghost" guns that would not if they were registered in there name . The ease of selling them is the fact you can mil it out and sell it and NOBODY knows you did that . People are more willing to break the law if they know they have very little chance of getting caught . Not only will it effect things in that way , the government will now have a place to start back tracking where the "ghost" gun came from .

We've had many threads recently about the braces . No way they don't become and NFA item . The one thing that may stop it is people just taking them off . In that regard a pistol is a pistol so maybe they ban the braces but why they look and can be used as a stock which are legal . This one IMHO will be interesting to see what they come up with .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top