If We Had To Swallow One New Gun Control Law, Which One?

[Pahoo]

Only feel-good, talking points.

A waste if time to even think that any you have listed, are enforceable, truly defined and really nothing more than liberal talking points that eventually, go no where and won't prevent Chicago shootings. ....

There is another one that you have not listed and that is; "Extended-Background checks". This one has it's share many of the short-falls as well.. .....

Mandatory gun safety in every elementary and high school would be very effective along with the 2nd Amendment, I believe. Include auto accident photos like we had to see for Drivers Ed. This will educate Liberal educated youths that move to places like Oregon, Nevada, Idaho, Arizona, and Texas.

This would be a great but, the "Mandatory" part would have to go and teaching firearms safety in the schools, has been defeated, for many years now, especially when parents and school-boards hear the label; NRA

I teach Hunter Safety to mostly young folks and we do our best on teaching firearms safety and respect for life. .... "All Lives"

Be Safe !!!

 

[FITASC]

If I accept any one pf those above choices, what do I get in return?
Every gun law passed recently "for common sense", "for the good of the children", or any other inane liberal idea has not resulted in any compromise on THEIR part. Maybe you should propose the poll in a way by asking what would we be willing to concede IF we got (list the choices) in return?

 

[Aguila Blanca]

If taken literally an AWB would be harmless seeing as none of what they refer to assault weapons in these cases are actually assault weapons.

They'd be banning something that no one actually buys or owns....

...until they change their definitions without risk of repercussion to include anything they missed the first several times around. Like Aguila said: "Nibble Nibble.. gimme all your cake, peasant."

They are already doing that.

Back around 1994, a number of states adopted their own "assault weapons" ban laws, most of which mirrored the federal AWB definition that an "assault weapon" was a rifle that had a detachable magazine and more than one other ["evil"] feature such as a protruding pistol grip, flash suppressor, bayonet lug, collapsible stock, or vertical foregrip. At the time, all AR-15s and AK-47s had protruding pistol grips, so that was all they could have. This led to the so-called "post-ban" configuration rifles, which had fixed stocks (even some that looked like the telescoping variety, but which were pinned or epoxied so they couldn't be adjusted), no flash suppressors, and no bayonet lugs. The federal AWB expired in 2004 but many of these state AWBs remained on the books. And then the states began messing with the definitions. That's where California got the "bullet button" -- California's law didn't allow detachable magazines. Post-Sandy Hook several states, such as New York and Connecticut, tightened up their definitions to change the number of allowable ["evil"] features from two down to one. This meant that all previously legal post-ban AR-15s and AK-47s instantly became assault weapons. [Detachable magazine + pistol grip = 2.]

At this moment, there is no single definition of "assault weapon" that applies everywhere in the United States. The anti-gun forces have succeeded in brainwashing a majority of the population into believing that whatever is called an "assault weapon" is the same as the M16s and M4s that our military uses when, in fact, that is far from the truth.

Here's the definition of "assault weapon" from the New York SAFE Act: https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/PEN/265.00

22. "Assault weapon" means

(a) a semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least one of the following characteristics:

(i) a folding or telescoping stock;

(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;

(iii) a thumbhole stock;

(iv) a second handgrip or a protruding grip that can be held by the non-trigger hand;

(v) a bayonet mount;

(vi) a flash suppressor, muzzle break, muzzle compensator, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor, muzzle break, or muzzle compensator;

(vii) a grenade launcher; or

(b) a semiautomatic shotgun that has at least one of the following characteristics:

(i) a folding or telescoping stock;

(ii) a thumbhole stock;

(iii) a second handgrip or a protruding grip that can be held by the non-trigger hand;

(iv) a fixed magazine capacity in excess of seven rounds;

(v) an ability to accept a detachable magazine; or

(c) a semiautomatic pistol that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least one of the following characteristics:

(i) a folding or telescoping stock;

(ii) a thumbhole stock;

(iii) a second handgrip or a protruding grip that can be held by the non-trigger hand;

(iv) capacity to accept an ammunition magazine that attaches to the pistol outside of the pistol grip;

(v) a threaded barrel capable of accepting a barrel extender, flash suppressor, forward handgrip, or silencer;

(vi) a shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel and that permits the shooter to hold the firearm with the non-trigger hand without being burned;

(vii) a manufactured weight of fifty ounces or more when the pistol is unloaded; or

(viii) a semiautomatic version of an automatic rifle, shotgun or firearm;

(d) a revolving cylinder shotgun;

(e) a semiautomatic rifle, a semiautomatic shotgun or a semiautomatic pistol or weapon defined in subparagraph (v) of paragraph (e) of subdivision twenty-two of section 265.00 of this chapter as added by chapter one hundred eighty-nine of the laws of two thousand and otherwise lawfully possessed pursuant to such chapter of the laws of two thousand prior to September fourteenth, nineteen hundred ninety-four;

(f) a semiautomatic rifle, a semiautomatic shotgun or a semiautomatic pistol or weapon defined in paragraph (a), (b) or (c) of this subdivision, possessed prior to the date of enactment of the chapter of the laws of two thousand thirteen which added this paragraph;

(g) provided, however, that such term does not include:

(i) any rifle, shotgun or pistol that (A) is manually operated by bolt, pump, lever or slide action; (B) has been rendered permanently inoperable; or (C) is an antique firearm as defined in 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(16);

(ii) a semiautomatic rifle that cannot accept a detachable magazine that holds more than five rounds of ammunition;

(iii) a semiautomatic shotgun that cannot hold more than five rounds of ammunition in a fixed or detachable magazine; or

(iv) a rifle, shotgun or pistol, or a replica or a duplicate thereof, specified in Appendix A to 18 U.S.C. 922 as such weapon was manufactured on October first, nineteen hundred ninety-three. The mere fact that a weapon is not listed in Appendix A shall not be construed to mean that such weapon is an assault weapon;

(v) any weapon validly registered pursuant to subdivision sixteen-a of section 400.00 of this chapter. Such weapons shall be subject to the provisions of paragraph (h) of this subdivision;

(vi) any firearm, rifle, or shotgun that was manufactured at least fifty years prior to the current date, but not including replicas thereof that is validly registered pursuant to subdivision sixteen-a of section 400.00 of this chapter;

(h) Any weapon defined in paragraph (e) or (f) of this subdivision and any large capacity ammunition feeding device that was legally possessed by an individual prior to the enactment of the chapter of the laws of two thousand thirteen which added this paragraph, may only be sold to, exchanged with or disposed of to a purchaser authorized to possess such weapons or to an individual or entity outside of the state provided that any such transfer to an individual or entity outside of the state must be reported to the entity wherein the weapon is registered within seventy-two hours of such transfer. An individual who transfers any such weapon or large capacity ammunition device to an individual inside New York state or without complying with the provisions of this paragraph shall be guilty of a class A misdemeanor unless such large capacity ammunition feeding device, the possession of which is made illegal by the chapter of the laws of two thousand thirteen which added this paragraph, is transferred within one year of the effective date of the chapter of the laws of two thousand thirteen which added this paragraph.

 

[Prof Young]

No offense but . . .

This kind of "what if" thinking is one way we can shoot our firearms rights in the foot. If we mentally prepare to tentatively accept more regulations then that's where we wind up . . . with more regulations.

Life is good.
Prof Young

 

[BJung]

I am very very hesitant in compromising with anti-gun groups. Any step closer to their agenda to eventually ban guns is a plus to them.

I also will mention that I don't like background checks. How many of us here have atleast 5 or more guns!

 

[44 AMP]

If taken literally an AWB would be harmless seeing as none of what they refer to assault weapons in these cases are actually assault weapons.

Sorry James, that's not correct, though understandable from your remote viewpoint.

The reason it snot correct is simply our legal system and its ability to define/redefine anything "under the law". In simple terms, if they passed a law that said a goat was a horse, then legally it IS a horse.

In the latter part of WWII German engineers created a SELCT FIRE magazine fed rifle firing an "intermediate" power cartridge, more powerful than regular pistol rounds but less powerful than the standard full size infantry round.

Adolph Hitler named it the Sturmgewehr, which is usually translated into English as "Assault Rifle" (it could also be translated as "Storm Rifle", assault/storm in the military context, as in "storming and objective").

For the next 50 years the gun community used the term "assault rifle" to refer to weapons in that class, the defining features were select fire (semi AND full auto) magazine fed and firing an intemdiate power round. Other features common to many designs, such as straight line stocks and pistol grips were NOT the defining features.

In the later 80s several mass murders were done with semi auto rifles that were EXTERNALLY identical to their assault rifle counterparts. The media said they were assault rifles, we said "no, they're not they are only semi auto". (the truth)

The media came back with the term "semiautomatic assault rifles". This proved to be too cumbersome a term to make a good sound byte for the talking heads, so they created the term "assault weapon".

They created the term, and they defined it, and only certain semi auto rifles, shotguns and pistols were on their list. Not one single actual "assault rifle" was on the list. In 1994 they got their list codified in law (94 AWB) and at that point, "assault weapons" as defined in that law, legally existed.

(FYI under US law, select fire weapons are machine guns. There is no category for "assault rifles" as such.)

Remove the excise tax on guns?? Bad idea, if you're referring to the Pittman-Robertson Act tax. That tax (passed in 1937) is figured into the price of the gun before it leaves the factory. The money from that tax goes to fund game management and habitat preservation, etc. And that tax has been expanded over the years to include archery and fishing gear as well. Its NOT a bad thing.

IQ tests! If we prohibited stupid people from owning / obtaining guns (or posting online ), the world would be a far safer place.

The world would be a better place if we stopped stupid people from breeding more stupid people. Good luck with that!

Also, a high IQ does nothing to prevent stupid behavior. Some of the dumbest people I've ever met scored high on the IQ tests, myself included!

 

[corneileous]

I am very very hesitant in compromising with anti-gun groups. Any step closer to their agenda to eventually ban guns is a plus to them.

I also will mention that I don't like background checks. How many of us here have atleast 5 or more guns!

I guess I myself don’t mind background checks because I’ve never done anything wrong that’s ever kept me from buying the gun that I want but then again on the other hand, what good are background checks if the people who truly shouldn’t be allowed to have guns, don’t even go to the trouble to buy guns legally? All it does is create more problems for the people who should have every right to have a gun. Just like in the last election when they had the presidential debate between ole Trump and Hillary when she was whining about the gun show loophole… People ought to be able to have private gun sales which is pretty much what gun shows are. But even if you wanna call that a loophole, all you’re doing is just making more of a burden for some guy to sell his guns because if there would be a possible criminal in there trying to buy a gun without a background check that’s just gonna be one less place that he’ll go to. It’s not gonna keep the gun out of his hands.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Tom Servo]

I guess I myself don’t mind background checks because I’ve never done anything wrong

There are two problems with that idea. The first is that I shouldn't have to PROVE I'm innocent. It's the government's job to prove that I'm unfit for whatever reason. It's a bit like saying I don't mind having my house searched because I have nothing to hide.

Second, the VAST majority of denials are issued to people who've done nothing wrong. This is a database run by the federal government, and it's a mess. Well over 85% of denials are successfully overturned, but the burden of proof (and the legwork) falls to the person who received the denial.

Furthermore, there is NO firm evidence showing that the background-check system does anything to reduce violent crime. If it causes harm and doesn't do a lick of good, why would we be open to expanding it?

 

[corneileous]

There are two problems with that idea. The first is that I shouldn't have to PROVE I'm innocent. It's the government's job to prove that I'm unfit for whatever reason. It's a bit like saying I don't mind having my house searched because I have nothing to hide.

You’re right, we shouldn’t have to prove our innocence.

And when I said I guess.... I didn’t necessarily mean that I was ok with it, I was just merely saying that since I have nothing to hide, nor have I done nothing wrong to deny my right to purchase a gun, why worry too much about it? Maybe it’s because I live in a state that there has to be anything significant on your record that would make them raise an eyebrow.

And no, even though I don’t have nothing to hide, I’m not gonna let someone search my house unless they got a warrant because having my house searched just outta the blue is hardly the same thing as filling out a piece of paper and waiting usually a few minutes before I can hand the clerk my money for my gun.

Second, the VAST majority of denials are issued to people who've done nothing wrong. This is a database run by the federal government, and it's a mess. Well over 85% of denials are successfully overturned, but the burden of proof (and the legwork) falls to the person who received the denial.

If they’ve done nothing wrong then what flagged for the gun salesman to say he can’t sell you your gun? I’m sure the database probably is some sort of a mess but still.

Furthermore, there is NO firm evidence showing that the background-check system does anything to reduce violent crime. If it causes harm and doesn't do a lick of good, why would we be open to expanding it?

Of course it doesn’t. I’ve already pretty much said that a criminal with half a brain ain’t gonna go to a store or if they live in a state that regulates private gun sales, he won’t be going to no gun show to get his gun. He’ll either steal it or buy it off someone on the street or off another criminal.

But I will say this; you abolish background checks and then what? They will be buying guns legally and then the next thing you know, it’ll come up in a trial somewhere more than likely that the guy had a criminal history.... if only we had background checks, he wouldn’t have been able to buy that gun.................. legally, that is. [emoji41]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[TXAZ]

I don't have a problem with a universal background check for gun owners.
I just wish politicians had to go through them.

 

[corneileous]

I don't have a problem with a universal background check for gun owners.
I just wish politicians had to go through them.

I dunno, if it would only filter out the true bad people who shouldn’t have a gun, that would be worlds better but I just don’t like how easily it restricts other people. So what if I guy got a felony drug charge ten years ago for gettin caught with a joint while he was still young and stupid, and that was all he had on his record- or somebody who got a domestic abuse charge years ago for smackin’ his ole lady because she was coming at him with a chair to bust over his head- or somebody who was wrongfully deemed mentally unstable because they lost a loved one that really messed them up? Should those people be restricted of their rights?

Hell, in this day if age where this country’s headed especially if ole sleepy Joe weasels into the White House, buying your guns at a gun show if your state allows private gun sales might not be a bad idea for keeping off the grid for the guns you own if there is no Form 4473 that ties that gun’s serial number to you if the ATF actually does keep a “database” of all those legal gun purchases that not even be actually registered to you.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Tom Servo]

If they’ve done nothing wrong then what flagged for the gun salesman to say he can’t sell you your gun?

Faulty information in the database, for the most part. The data is collected from state and local law-enforcement agencies, and the reporting standards are really inconsistent. For all I know, there's a Tom Q. Servo somewhere out there who has a warrant, and I'll get denied for that.

But I will say this; you abolish background checks and then what?

Then we go back to the way things were for the two centuries we didn't have the checks. The whole system was never meant to be just background checks; it was a sneaky backdoor for registration.

 

[shurshot]

"So what if I guy got a felony drug charge ten years ago for gettin caught with a joint while he was still young and stupid, and that was all he had on his record- or somebody who got a domestic abuse charge years ago for smackin’ his ole lady because she was coming at him with a chair to bust over his head- or somebody who was wrongfully deemed mentally unstable because they lost a loved one that really messed them up? Should those people be restricted of their rights?" (Corneilous)
Those hypothetical cases you mentioned (all 3)... already ARE restricted by Federal law from owning / possessing firearms. Felony convictions and DV assault convictions mean one is a prohibited person. Not a matter of if we agree, disagree or dispute it... it's already Federal law. Some States have more severe laws.
In Hawaii, ANY misdemeanor assault charge, DV or otherwise, means you are a prohibited person and cannot own or possess firearms... lifetime ban. A simple pushing contest in a bar 30 years ago, resulting in an assault conviction... and you are a prohibited person in Hawaii... FOREVER.

 

[Warhammer]

None of the above. Period.

 

[jmr40]

I'd trade Universal background checks in order to get universal acceptance of my carry permit AND making suppressors legal for everyone.

 

[TXAZ]

I'd trade Universal background checks in order to get universal acceptance of my carry permit AND making suppressors legal for everyone.

This^^^^^^.

(And that gentleman, is how DC horse trades.)

 

[corneileous]

Those hypothetical cases you mentioned (all 3)... already ARE restricted by Federal law from owning / possessing firearms. Felony convictions and DV assault convictions mean one is a prohibited person. Not a matter of if we agree, disagree or dispute it... it's already Federal law. Some States have more severe laws.
In Hawaii, ANY misdemeanor assault charge, DV or otherwise, means you are a prohibited person and cannot own or possess firearms... lifetime ban. A simple pushing contest in a bar 30 years ago, resulting in an assault conviction... and you are a prohibited person in Hawaii... FOREVER.

I know they are and I’m aware of all that, I was just using those as examples to describe what I meant between those who should be kept far away from guns and which ones really shouldn’t, and how background checks screw the wrong people because the ones we want a background check to restrict, those are the ones who don’t even bother going the legal route to get a gun.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[corneileous]

....to get universal acceptance of my carry permit.....

Yeah, good luck with that. Sure, I’d love to be able to carry in any state I choose to travel to but that national reciprocity stuff ain’t gonna happen. You’d literally be taking power away from the states to dictate their own laws and at the same time you’d be giving Papa Federal more control over what states can and can’t do.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[zxcvbob]

It's already there in the Full Faith and Credit clause, the states and the feds just won't acknowledge it.

 

[rc]

Universal Back ground Checks will be passed and I suspect used for backdoor registration for the future end game.