magazine capacity restrictions would help.Any semi-automatic rifle can do this, not just the ones that look similar to weapons of war.
magazine capacity restrictions would help.Any semi-automatic rifle can do this, not just the ones that look similar to weapons of war.
When I bought mine, I received a long, closely-reasoned letter from the ATF as to why it wasn't an automatic weapon. (I no longer have it.) Now, a detailed letter explains why it is. Can they have it both ways and how quickly? BTW, that link led to an article on the Orthodox Church...I am possibly lost. If I understand you correctly you are saying there is a question of whether or not the DoJ has the right to ban the bump stocks in the first place. Correct?
I found and interesting link explaining Gorsuch's opinion:
The roots and limits of Gorsuch's views on Chevron deference
https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2019...s-to-end-abortions-to-boost-population-a65647
Sorry ... somedays.When I bought mine, I received a long, closely-reasoned letter from the ATF as to why it wasn't an automatic weapon. (I no longer have it.) Now, a detailed letter explains why it is. Can they have it both ways and how quickly? BTW, that link led to an article on the Orthodox Church...
Well, again, we're talking about banning something that really shouldn't be banned, and this discussion arose over the fact that despite the incredible number of fully automatic firearms in private hands of US citizens, one has never been used in a mass shooting.magazine capacity restrictions would help.
that is a very subjective take on the matter.Well, again, we're talking about banning something that really shouldn't be banned, and this discussion arose over the fact that despite the incredible number of fully automatic firearms in private hands of US citizens, one has never been used in a mass shooting.
Whether magazine restrictions help or not is actually a pretty interesting debate.
Yes, that was the original point.and i think it is likely that none (fully auto) have been used in part because of the strict requirements for obtaining one.
that usually happens in these threads. :cool2:Yes, that was the original point.
I understand, just sharing my POV. I think it's silly because it's an unnecessary device to accomplish a barely-controlled simulation of an automatic weapon.that is a very subjective take on the matter.
That's a fair point, though it's only more difficult to get one due to the tax stamp and time you have to wait for approval. The background check is no different than that for any firearm purchase via 4473.and i think it is likely that none (fully auto) have been used in part because of the strict requirements for obtaining one.
I believe one must also submit photo ID and fingerprints in addition to the standard background check. Then, if approved by the ATF, the owner is added to a registry alongside the corresponding serial number for the weapon. If the individual ever moves or plans to transport the weapon across state lines, the ATF must be notified.The background check is no different than that for any firearm purchase via 4473.
Yep.I believe one must also submit photo ID and fingerprints in addition to the standard background check. Then, if approved by the ATF, the owner is added to a registry alongside the corresponding serial number for the weapon. If the individual ever moves or plans to transport the weapon across state lines, the ATF must be notified.
Got it.Yep.
But my point is there's no extra background check. All that would do is make an investigation easier after the fact, should the owner snap and do something crazy.
And of course this ignores the fact one can easily purchase threaded devices from Amazon and the like to make your own suppressor with commonly found filters. But no one does that to commit a crime, since it's basically pointless.
It's more about the cost. A fully automatic M16 will fetch $25k now - 50x what a semiautomatic AR15 sells for.I would argue that the additional steps (and penalties for failing to properly adhere to the rules) might discourage more casual gun users, and the association of one's fingerprints with purchased guns might discourage those interested in illicit activities.
Yup, zero argument from me on that. The facts are clear.I agree with you that the built-in waiting period (which has been shown to reduce gun homicide and suicide rates, LINK), almost certainly succeeds in reducing impulse gun usage. So there's that, at minimum.
Again, it's the cost. The fact that there's a finite supply and no more can be added to it drives the value up dramatically, even if they're not very useful.But I still find it interesting that these guns are so rarely (if ever?) used in crime nowadays, despite there being more than half a million in circulation. The National Firearms Act was passed in response to frequent mafia-related shootings, and it was quite successful in stopping the violent crime that plagued that era.
I don't think taxing someone for an enumerated right would pass the sniff test.I don't think it's unreasonable to think we can again find a compromise solution that addresses the frequent use of AR-style weapons in violent crime without wholesale scrapping the 2nd Amendment. We've already done it once, and we have a blueprint (basically a tax and registration scheme) that has worked extremely well.
I think that's a good start. I'd also like to see a fair yet quick-acting way to get LEO attention when someone reasonably suspects someone is dangerous.As for the background check, what additional things do you think we might/should screen for? Psychiatric history? Domestic abuse?
Those bills are starting to appear in legislatures...It's more about the cost. A fully automatic M16 will fetch $25k now - 50x what a semiautomatic AR15 sells for.
Yup, zero argument from me on that. The facts are clear.
Again, it's the cost. The fact that there's a finite supply and no more can be added to it drives the value up dramatically, even if they're not very useful.
I don't think taxing someone for an enumerated right would pass the sniff test.
And of course we have dramatically more semiautomatic rifles in the wild than we ever had fully automatic - probably somewhere in the neighborhood of 50-100x as many. And many (most) of those owners would refuse to ever register their firearms.
I think that's a good start. I'd also like to see a fair yet quick-acting way to get LEO attention when someone reasonably suspects someone is dangerous.
Very true, I should have mentioned that.It's more about the cost. A fully automatic M16 will fetch $25k now - 50x what a semiautomatic AR15 sells for.
Well we've already been doing that for almost a century, so I think it passes the smell test just fine. Not every gun, of course, same as the NFA. I know that gun advocates tend to get hung up on how one would precisely define which rifles would be subject to additional regulation, but I think absolute precision is unnecessary. Treat it is a rolling list. AR-style rifles keep being used in mass shootings, so slap additional requirements/registration on gun substantially similar to these. When the next gun model becomes a problem, do the same, but don't overreach beforehand. I think that's a decent compromise. A more universal approach is far more difficult with semi-automatics rifles. Segregating these guns on appearance isn't a great solution. I suppose you could mandate certain engineering requirements to try and slow rate of fire around the trigger design or magazine swapping/capacity, but I'm honestly not sure how feasible that would be. I do give rare props to the Trump administration for banning bump stocks, which is one small step toward regulating rate of fire (which is probably the metric any proposed regulation would try to target).I don't think taxing someone for an enumerated right would pass the sniff test.
And of course we have dramatically more semiautomatic rifles in the wild than we ever had fully automatic - probably somewhere in the neighborhood of 50-100x as many. And many (most) of those owners would refuse to ever register their firearms.
So I've got you down for reinstating mandatory waiting periods nationwide, expanding background checks to include psychiatric and domestic abuse history, as well as expanding red flag laws. I think that's a great start.I think that's a good start. I'd also like to see a fair yet quick-acting way to get LEO attention when someone reasonably suspects someone is dangerous.
Yah, i've said for some time that these things would potentially help.So I've got you down for reinstating mandatory waiting periods nationwide, expanding background checks to include psychiatric and domestic abuse history, as well as expanding red flag laws. I think that's a great start.
I would support psych history. Domestic abuse is a bit dodgier, because lots of crazy ex-wives try to punish their ex-husbands by calling and alleging domestic abuse (and yes, some ex-husbands do abuse their ex-wives). A disability from owning guns or "high rate of fire" guns would have to depend on a conviction for domestic abuse, not the allegation/indictment.As for the background check, what additional things do you think we might/should screen for? Psychiatric history? Domestic abuse?
the words "lots" and "some" are doing an awful lot of work in that sentence. domestic abuse in the u.s is a serious issue and is not something to be hand-waved away as being crazy women getting back at men by falsely accusing them out of spite.I would support psych history. Domestic abuse is a bit dodgier, because lots of crazy ex-wives try to punish their ex-husbands by calling and alleging domestic abuse (and yes, some ex-husbands do abuse their ex-wives). A disability from owning guns or "high rate of fire" guns would have to depend on a conviction for domestic abuse, not the allegation/indictment.
I'll buy that, but I saw the Army interpret Lautenburg to include never issuing a firearm to any soldier accused of domestic violence. I had a great soldier separated from the service because his drug-addled wife wanted to get even with him by calling the cops and alleging he had physically abused her.the words "lots" and "some" are doing an awful lot of work in that sentence. domestic abuse in the u.s is a serious issue and is not something to be hand-waved away as being crazy women getting back at men by falsely accusing them out of spite.
national coalition against domestic violence
the military is a whole other beast.I'll buy that, but I saw the Army interpret Lautenburg to include never issuing a firearm to any soldier accused of domestic violence. I had a great soldier separated from the service because his drug-addled wife wanted to get even with him by calling the cops and alleging he had physically abused her.
Before the cops even got there, she remembered she had several outstanding arrest warrants on herself, so she ran off, leaving him with their one-year old son. Colorado was a "must apprehend" state at the time. If somebody calls the cops and alleges spousal abuse, somebody is going to the station. Cops have no discretion in the matter.
Convicted is one thing. Accused is too low a standard in my view. We have made it easy to accuse, to ensure women alleging abuse are taken seriously and protected from harm.
To the point here, if any expansion of background checks/gun ownership restriction to include those accused (but not convicted) of domestic violence, you'll be giving lots of top cover to those who end up voting not to such a provision.
Yeah, I'm with you. I don't want abused spouses getting harmed either.the military is a whole other beast.
in theory, i agree with you wrt to convictions vs. accusations. the big issue i can see is that there are a lot of victims of domestic abuse who for various reasons are not able to get their attacker convicted. a fairly common theme in domestic abuse stories is an abusive spouse who keeps coming back and the authorities can't/won't do anything to stop it and the victim ends up severely harmed or killed. i'm not sure how to square that circle.