Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Military style weapons, AR's, barrels are already threaded for swapping flash suppressors

 Ouze wrote:
I find it pretty hard to swallow that it's only ever the second amendment that's under attack.

That's because it isn't. Not by a long shot.

I guess everyone loves to forget the complete gak the USA PATRIOT Act took on our Fourth Amendment rights... but hey, it made us all safer!

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
I find it pretty hard to swallow that it's only ever the second amendment that's under attack.

That's because it isn't. Not by a long shot.

I guess everyone loves to forget the complete gak the USA PATRIOT Act took on our Fourth Amendment rights... but hey, it made us all safer!

That was/is a terrible infringement.

As are the proposals Trump is putting forth about Muslims.

The right are very much capable of making imbecilic, Constitution-infringing decisions as well.

 Ouze wrote:
As every year more and more states successfully grind away at abortion - a right protected by the 14th amendment - I find it pretty hard to swallow that it's only ever the second amendment that's under attack.

Even the 1st amendment has been under attack... Remember a few years back where they made it illegal to hold up signs and heckle the president or anybody else under SS protection. Didn't get much press but it was an attack on the 1st amendment

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Without bothering to read through three pages of gun/PC arguments, does the proposed law ban semi-automatic pistols, or just semi-auto pistols that are tricked out with military type features like a threaded barrel for a silencer, etc?

What do you mean by "military type" feature? Suppressors have many civilian applications

I mean military type features like a threaded barrel for a silencer, etc.

What makes that a military as opposed to a civilian feature?

 Ouze wrote:
What is the hardon for barrel shrouds, man?

Well clearly if people are able to not burn their hands on a firearm then the terrorists win

I'd argue that unless you are a licensed hunter or whatever, then a firearm should be a military feature.

But that is my different POV, and it is very, very different.

That said, the ban list here is... odd. I won't complain on gun restrictions, but why this list specifically? It doesn't make sense in either direction.

 Ouze wrote:
I'm not sure what point is being presented by the "if you arbitrarily eliminate most categories of gun violence, you somehow prove there isn't much gun violence" chart.

Because most of those categories have zero business being classified together, and especially not to be used as figures claiming that there is a gun problem. Suicides and accidents should not be lumped in with murders just for starters. Suicides are a mental health issue, not a problem with guns. Unless we suggest that bridges and businesses which sell rope are a problem, along with people just being stupid.

Gang Violence as well is its own category. The issue here isn't guns, its what causes Gang violence. Take these people's guns away and they'll switch to another weapon(and lots of gang violence doesn't use firearms, there are plenty of stabbings and beatings)

 Ashiraya wrote:
I'd argue that unless you are a licensed hunter or whatever, then a firearm should be a military feature.

But that is my different POV, and it is very, very different.

That said, the ban list here is... odd. I won't complain on gun restrictions, but why this list specifically? It doesn't make sense in either direction.

That's a big part of the issue. Even for the people that really don't like guns, these bans are just...odd, yet they're the standard pattern for such legislation that doesn't seem to really attack anything except how something looks, or that bans specific guns by name but not others of the same design that go by a different name. As I think someone else noted, it's very similar to the repeated efforts to repeal the ACA where they don't really accomplish anything or offer any meaningful alternative solution to the issue.

 djones520 wrote:
While I get your point of view Stanman, protection for the police/military/etc should not at all enter the equation when discussing the 2nd Amendment.

The primary purpose the 2nd Amendment was put into the Constitution was to ensure that the populace had a means to combat those people should it come down to it.

When we allow the government to restrict that, we are just giving the government that much more power over us.

Do you really think this 2nd amendment will make any difference in the case of civil war or revolution in the US? There have been plenty of peoples who brought down their governments without a right to bear arms. The key in such a situation is military support. If the rebels can get a significant part of the military on their side, they have a good chance of succes. We see this in Ukraine, Syria and Lybia, where the core of the rebel forces are defected military. Civilians simply are no match for an organised military force, those light weapons won't help you. To fight a government requires heavy weapons: tanks, aircraft, artillery and such. The 2nd amendment comes from a time when the heaviest weapons were muskets and 12lb cannons. It is meaningless in the modern era.

Let's not go into just how effective/ineffective the 2nd amendment is in relation to civil war/revolution.

 Ashiraya wrote:
That said, the ban list here is... odd. I won't complain on gun restrictions, but why this list specifically? It doesn't make sense in either direction.

Do you mean why are we going to criminalize millions of law abiding Americans because of less than 300 deaths a year (and steadily declining)? Moral panic and the need to be seen to be doing something.

 Ouze wrote:

“(D) A semiautomatic pistol that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any 1 of the following:

“(iii) A barrel shroud.

Isn't the pistol's slide essentially a shroud?

 Ashiraya wrote:
That said, the ban list here is... odd. I won't complain on gun restrictions, but why this list specifically? It doesn't make sense in either direction.

Because scary looking guns are scary?

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
While I get your point of view Stanman, protection for the police/military/etc should not at all enter the equation when discussing the 2nd Amendment.

The primary purpose the 2nd Amendment was put into the Constitution was to ensure that the populace had a means to combat those people should it come down to it.

When we allow the government to restrict that, we are just giving the government that much more power over us.

Do you really think this 2nd amendment will make any difference in the case of civil war or revolution in the US? There have been plenty of peoples who brought down their governments without a right to bear arms. The key in such a situation is military support. If the rebels can get a significant part of the military on their side, they have a good chance of succes. We see this in Ukraine, Syria and Lybia, where the core of the rebel forces are defected military. Civilians simply are no match for an organised military force, those light weapons won't help you. To fight a government requires heavy weapons: tanks, aircraft, artillery and such. The 2nd amendment comes from a time when the heaviest weapons were muskets and 12lb cannons. It is meaningless in the modern era.

Well, the 2nd amendment was assuming there wouldn't be a disparity in armament. So technically we should be allowed to have any weaponry we want, up to and including armed aircraft and tanks.

Of course, those weapons are not necessary at all to fight an occupier. Look at how well this technological superiority serves us against insurgents, not very well at all. Tanks and artillery are only useful against entrenched positions and conventional opponents. They become liabilities if you are fighting someone hiding among the populace, and you can't just indiscriminately shell your civilians.

To say it wouldn't help is completely wrong. An armed civilian population is a significant threat. Hence why most dictatorships don't like their subjects having weaponry of any kind.

So I just read that Obama may be executive ordering something for background checks? Does anyone have anything that isn't a clickbait site for this?

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/12/31/politics/obama-to-announce-new-executive-action-on-guns/

 motyak wrote:
So I just read that Obama may be executive ordering something for background checks? Does anyone have anything that isn't a clickbait site for this?

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/12/31/politics/obama-to-announce-new-executive-action-on-guns/

It's been on the radar for weeks. He met with Bloomberg (who spent $50 million on gun control) before he went to Hawaii. Current guesses are that;
- redefine who is in the business of selling firearms, and therefore who has to complete a background check
- closing of the so called "gunshow loophole" (it is a vilified provision that allows private parties not in the business of selling firearms to do so without submitting a 4473)
- closing the so called "internet sale loophole" (does not exist - all internet sales require the firearm to go to a licensed dealer who will perform a background check. Something even the FBI Director was ignorant of)
- closing the so called "Charlestown loophole". Previously the FBI has 3 days to approve or decline a sale through the NICS. If it was not done the seller had the discretion to carry out the sale anyway. It was designed to prevent de facto bans on purchasing firearms. Even if the sale did go through because the FBI made no determination the check would still be completed and if the person who bought the gun was a prohibited person then the ATF would be dispatched to arrest the suspect.
- closing the "No Fly Loophole". That citizens should be stripped of their rights without due process or an effective means of appeal should be abhorrent to all.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Well, the 2nd amendment was assuming there wouldn't be a disparity in armament.

*Citation needed*

The "gun show loophole" is a real thing and I'm always amazed at how many people are willing to pretend it isn't.

 d-usa wrote:
The "gun show loophole" is a real thing and I'm always amazed at how many people are willing to pretend it isn't.

What is your understanding of the term "gunshow loophole"?

 d-usa wrote:
The "gun show loophole" is a real thing and I'm always amazed at how many people are willing to pretend it isn't.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
The "gun show loophole" is a real thing and I'm always amazed at how many people are willing to pretend it isn't.

What is your understanding of the term "gunshow loophole"?

The way it works at all the gun shows I have been to in Oklahoma is like this:

- the gun show sets up the show
- anybody can rent space
- anyone can bring their large "collection" of guns and sell their large inventory
- no background checks are needed from these "private" sellers because they are not a business selling guns, they are just private collectors buying and selling

So for all practical purposes the gun show functions as a giant store where you can buy whatever you want without any background check. And here in Oklahoma City we always have Oklahoma City PD running around undercover because folks who can't own guns know that and use these shows to buy weapons.

It's such an easy fix that it's stupid to deny it exists.

 Breotan wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Well, the 2nd amendment was assuming there wouldn't be a disparity in armament.

*Citation needed*

I see where Grey going. I can see the same thing to. The Founders though were highly educated of their time. I cannot believe they did not see weapon advancement of their time going into our time to be a factor being how our government works with 2nd Amendment. Better yet how the government would evolve over time evolving with the 2nd Amendment. Yet those who support NRA are ridiculed and blame yet it has the support of the people who are concern with that aspect of the 2nd Amendment.

Yet no one here can give a clear concise answer in regards on why I myself, a law abiding citizen who owns military style weapons of WWII and current generation of rifles use by the military, along with pistols, who own 30 rounds mags and high capacity magazines for a assortment of weapons should not be allowed to own my weapons. Including others like myself

That's a problem with enforcement of existing statutes then, because if they're showing up with huge, well stocked collections with a wide variety of arms, they clearly are in the business of selling and should thus be operating as an FFL, and that's something for the ATF to investigate and prosecute.

Most gun shows that I've been to don't have anything like that, they've got a couple guys selling a handful of stuff, usually vastly overpriced, some dude with a bajillion mosin-nagants, random Nazi stuff, tons of Beef Jerky, and lots of Knives. They're really generally rather depressing and unimpressive affairs in my experience.

 Vaktathi wrote:
That's a problem with enforcement of existing statutes then, because if they're showing up with huge, well stocked collections with a wide variety of arms, they clearly are in the business of selling and should thus be operating as an FFL, and that's something for the ATF to investigate and prosecute.

Most gun shows that I've been to don't have anything like that, they've got a couple guys selling a handful of stuff, usually vastly overpriced, some dude with a bajillion mosin-nagants, random Nazi stuff, tons of Beef Jerky, and lots of Knives. They're really generally rather depressing and unimpressive affairs in my experience.

What's the statute of "# of guns owned" or "# of guns sold and purchased" that makes you a dealer?

 Jihadin wrote:
I see where Grey going. I can see the same thing to. The Founders though were highly educated of their time. I cannot believe they did not see weapon advancement of their time going into our time to be a factor being how our government works with 2nd Amendment. Better yet how the government would evolve over time evolving with the 2nd Amendment. Yet those who support NRA are ridiculed and blame yet it has the support of the people who are concern with that aspect of the 2nd Amendment.

Even someone who was very educated for their time would have struggled to have anything remotely resembling an accurate prediction of just how destructive weapons have become 200+ years later.

 d-usa wrote:
The way it works at all the gun shows I have been to in Oklahoma is like this:

- the gun show sets up the show
- anybody can rent space
- anyone can bring their large "collection" of guns and sell their large inventory
- no background checks are needed from these "private" sellers because they are not a business selling guns, they are just private collectors buying and selling

So for all practical purposes the gun show functions as a giant store where you can buy whatever you want without any background check. And here in Oklahoma City we always have Oklahoma City PD running around undercover because folks who can't own guns know that and use these shows to buy weapons.

It's such an easy fix that it's stupid to deny it exists.

For starters that is not a loophole. It is a feature of the law to enable private sellers not ordinarily engaged in the business of selling firearms to do so without being obliged to complete a Form 4473. Whether or not these private sellers who are not in the business of selling firearms choose to sell their firearm through a private ad, a gun auction website, or at a gunshow this does not mean that they are exploiting a loophole in the law any more than driving 30mph in a 30mph zone is exploiting a loophole to avoid a ticket.

The number of number of private individuals not ordinarily involved in the business of selling guns in close proximity under one roof does not negate the ability of these individuals to sell firearms without conducting a background check.

Any FFL or other individual involved in the business of selling firearms must complete a 4473, and conduct a background check.

My comments added inline

 d-usa wrote:
The way it works at all the gun shows I have been to in Oklahoma is like this: (Can't speak about Oklahoma but I can about Washington State.)

- the gun show sets up the show (Okay.)
- anybody can rent space (Only gun show members can rent space. Membership requires a background check identical to the one you get when you want to purchase a firearm from a FFL.)
- anyone can bring their large "collection" of guns and sell their large inventory (Again, membership is required and you cannot sell to a non-member. If you're caught selling off-book to anyone your membership will be revoked.)
- no background checks are needed from these "private" sellers because they are not a business selling guns, they are just private collectors buying and selling (Background check has already been done on both the seller and buyer before they even meet.)

So for all practical purposes the gun show functions as a giant store where you can buy whatever you want without any background check. (Not in Washington State.) And here in Oklahoma City we always have Oklahoma City PD running around undercover because folks who can't own guns know that and use these shows to buy weapons. (Not very effective if you know about him. Also, I'm more interested in the arrest and conviction rate of this "undercover officer" than the fact that he is there.)

It's such an easy fix that it's stupid to deny it exists. (Because it doesn't?)

I see mostly pawn shop types at gun shows. Occasionally, one of our actual FFL types will set up a booth and bring his more popular stuff but like other people have said, a lot of stuff is overpriced or cheap trinkets like you find in cigarette shops and knife catalogs.

 d-usa wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
That's a problem with enforcement of existing statutes then, because if they're showing up with huge, well stocked collections with a wide variety of arms, they clearly are in the business of selling and should thus be operating as an FFL, and that's something for the ATF to investigate and prosecute.

Most gun shows that I've been to don't have anything like that, they've got a couple guys selling a handful of stuff, usually vastly overpriced, some dude with a bajillion mosin-nagants, random Nazi stuff, tons of Beef Jerky, and lots of Knives. They're really generally rather depressing and unimpressive affairs in my experience.

What's the statute of "# of guns owned" or "# of guns sold and purchased" that makes you a dealer?

There is no set limit
http://www.nssf.org/factsheets/PDF/Engagedinthebusiness.pdf

"Currently, the term “dealer” is defined at 18 U.S.C. §
921(a)(11)(A) to include any person “engaged in the
business” of selling firearms at wholesale or retail.
According to the ATF:
The term “engaged in the business,” as applicable to
a firearms dealer, is defined as a person who devotes
time, attention, and labor to dealing in firearms as a
regular course of trade or business with the principal
objective of livelihood and profit through the repetitive
purchase and resale of firearms, but such term
shall not include a person who makes occasional
sales, exchanges, or purchases of firearms for the
enhancement of a personal collection or for a hobby,
or who sells all or part of his personal collection of
firearms. 27 CFR 478.11"

 d-usa wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
That's a problem with enforcement of existing statutes then, because if they're showing up with huge, well stocked collections with a wide variety of arms, they clearly are in the business of selling and should thus be operating as an FFL, and that's something for the ATF to investigate and prosecute.

Most gun shows that I've been to don't have anything like that, they've got a couple guys selling a handful of stuff, usually vastly overpriced, some dude with a bajillion mosin-nagants, random Nazi stuff, tons of Beef Jerky, and lots of Knives. They're really generally rather depressing and unimpressive affairs in my experience.

What's the statue of "# of guns owned" or "# of guns sold and purchased" that makes you a dealer?

There isn't any particular hard or fast limit, it's at the judgement and discretion of the ATF. Generally, if someone is holding and maintaining an inventory of firearms for the purposes of sale & trade, and is routinely engaged in the sale and trade of that inventory, then they would require an FFL, and if they're operating without one, and if the ATF becomes aware of it, they'll come down like a ton of bricks.

However, ultimately there are existing mechanisms, laws, and enforcement for such purposes, it's an issue for the ATF to pursue if such is occurring.

The big issue with the background checks is that for people engaged in small scale trading or personal sales, they simply don't have access to the background check system, and would have to go to an FFL (on a day they're open and during business hours), pay both the FFL for doing the check and the state (since the state charges a fee each time), in order to conduct a transaction, which, in many places, can be both very time consuming and expensive. If you're Yokel Farmer Bob and want to sell your old .22 to your neighbor Jimbo to give to his son Billy-Bob, having to drive two counties over to the nearest gun store for an $80 transaction, pay the state $10 and the FFL their cut (usually something like $25), that gets...well...quite irritating. Likewise, if you're at the gun show buying an old Mosin or a K-98 from the WW2 collectibles booth and the guy sells like 12 guns a year, the firearms are really a side niche in view of the larger gig the guy is engaged in. That's why the "loophole" was specifically written into the law in the first place, it was intentional, for stuff like that.

It's a loophole because it allow people who cannot legally purchase firearms from walking into a single place, pick from an inventory of hundreds of weapons, and purchase them without a background check.

And it's an easy fix, that's why it's stupid not to address it.

A loophole is something unintended, there was a very intended reason for the requirement only applying to FFL's and inter-state transfers.

As far as it allowing people who cannot legally purchase firearms to do so, well, closing that "loophole" isn't going to change much for them, they're probably going to meet the same people in the same alley to buy the same guns they were before, they'll just be breaking one *more* law in the process to add on post-facto to the other felonies they're already committing.