Open discussion about gun laws and proposed bans

First topic message reminder :

Hi all,

I just realized that not only is Obama a good at selling B.S. to the population, he is also a very good gun salesman. I went out to buy an AR type rifle as a Christmas present to myself. Everywhere I looked was sold out of all AR and AK type guns. All of the stores were willing to give a quote but none could commit to a delivery date. So far I didn't run into any price gouging but I am sure that is only a few days away.

So, instead of a new AR, I ended up buying a new washer and dryer - Even though I can't shoot my eye out with those, they sure don't make for a good Christmas present

Chris

I have never agreed that assault type rifles should banned. I have only stated that 30 round mags and bump stocks are not needed. There is nothing wrong with owning and driving a Ferrari but however it is illegal to run that motor without emissions control. Why is this, because it safer for all citizens. There rules in place to keep society under control. I would love to hear an argument in favor of high cap mags besides "I have a right under the second amendment", with that logic we should all be able to own belt fed mini guns. If you need 30 rounds buy 3 10's and as for bump stocks come on "really"?

If I want to shoot prairie dogs with my AR at 300 yards I do not want to be stopping every ten rounds to swap a magazine then reposition
myself again. If my ranch and cattle are being destroyed by a pack of coyotes ten rounds may not be enough. And there may not be time to swap mags.

So what is your argument against higher capacity magazines? Other than you do not think they are needed.

You are not understanding that it is not the fault of the gun, magazine or bullets. It's the person behind the tool. And they could use 3 10 round mags to. So you countered your own statement with a reason why banning high cap mags will not change anything.

I may not need a 685hp Mustang but it sure would be fun to drive, and smog legal!

WVBE Shooter wrote:I have never agreed that assault type rifles should banned. I have only stated that 30 round mags and bump stocks are not needed. There is nothing wrong with owning and driving a Ferrari but however it is illegal to run that motor without emissions control. Why is this, because it safer for all citizens. There rules in place to keep society under control. I would love to hear an argument in favor of high cap mags besides "I have a right under the second amendment", with that logic we should all be able to own belt fed mini guns. If you need 30 rounds buy 3 10's and as for bump stocks come on "really"?

So with this thinking maybe we should put governors on all cars including Ferrari's? While it may be illegal to run any car without emission controls the Ferrari is capable of speeds in excess of 150+ MPH and many other cars too. We all know that in most states the speed limit is a max of 70-75 MPH, going faster than the posted speed limit is illegal too isn't it? By putting governors on all cars with a max speed set at 70-75 MPH just think of how many lifes we could save as a nation. I know in my own state there have been over 800 traffic related deaths just this year. Makes me wonder how many of them would still be alive if only we could have MADE them go the speed limit.

Makes as much sense as banning 30 round mags doesn't it?



The USA is a place of choices and freedom. My heart goes out to those families that endured the tragedy of Sandy Hook and all other murders that happen but I'm not about to give up a part of my freedom because of a couple of high capacity mags were used in crimes by a mentally insane people when Billions of them exist legally and have never ever been used in any crime. Same as I don't care for Ferrari's or high lift pickup trucks but I would never say they should be ban because people are killed by their very use every day. I just choose not to own one and WILL NOT force my feelings on those that do own and use them in a lawful way whether it be owned just to use as a penile extention or any other lawful reason. I just choose NOT to run with those crowds and nobody can force me too, that's my constitutional right same as your's.



Virgil

WVBE Shooter wrote: "I have a right under the second amendment", with that logic we should all be able to own belt fed mini guns.

OK, I am going to step into some dangerous territory now. I believe in some states it is legal to own a mini gun with proper license and registration. Whenever our nation finds itself in this situation due to a senseless act of violence, we have this conversation . I feel that even many of the so called defenders of the second amendment dance around the true intent. Protection is greater when there is parody between the aggressor and the defender. The supreme court has already set precedent in determining citizen owed weaponry based on if it has a military purpose. United States v. Miller (1939) "ordinary military equipment" that could "contribute to the common defense." This argument may seem cold hearted in light of recent events but it has to be said.

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Benjamin Franklin


I have to go now I think the feds areat my door.

sakurama wrote:

As for the gun shows - yes, all FFL's must perform background checks but private sales at shows in 33 of the states don't require background checks. Private sales are where the vast majority of "straw" sales come from. As responsible gun owners I think we would want to reduce the number of guns sold that don't go to responsible owners. Every one of us has had to have a background check to get our guns and we may not like it any more than we like standing in line at the DMV but we accept that. What is the reasoning for wanting sales with no background checks to persist?

G

First personal sales are not STRAW sales. Many people sell guns to other law abiding citizens as they have a right to do. A STRAW sale is where one person buys guns from a dealer or individual for another person who is not legally able to buy one on his/her own. This is a crime, and should be punished by current local and federal laws that have been in place for decades. If a gun owner sells to a known felon then they both should be prosecuted, its called breaking the law and just because it sounds good to say thats where criminals get guns its a very very small percentage. The majority of Criminals get guns mostly from criminal acts, robbery,burglary, and in that regard every gun owner should and im sure most do securely protect their guns.

While I don't ever forsee myself feeling the need for a belt fed mini gun, I have no problem with those that wish to go through the Federal background check and the paperwork/hassle that it entails. Nor do I have any issue with those that want a 30/50/100 rd magazine for their firearms.

While it's not my choice to own such (I'm too cheap/frugal to squander all that ammo & not deliver a precision aimed shot), I do not have the right or interest in forcing my choices on those that want to.

I have aquaintances that do enjoy those activities, they don't enjoy shooting Bullseye. It would be a very boring world if everyone liked exactly the same thing.

Hmm, I posted a big response earlier today and it didn't get through so I must have hit the wrong button. Too lazy now to type up the thesis again but would like to ask this question...

Let's say we ban assault rifles AND 30 round magazines, does anyone here believe that would have stopped the horrific acts at Sandy Hook?

Is there any data that supports the belief that a ban on either or both of these has resulted in reduction of murder?

Chris

Virgil Kane wrote:
So with this thinking maybe we should put governors on all cars including Ferrari's? While it may be illegal to run any car without emission controls the Ferrari is capable of speeds in excess of 150+ MPH and many other cars too. We all know that in most states the speed limit is a max of 70-75 MPH, going faster than the posted speed limit is illegal too isn't it? By putting governors on all cars with a max speed set at 70-75 MPH just think of how many lifes we could save as a nation.

Makes as much sense as banning 30 round mags doesn't it?

Virgil

That's a really good analogy Virgil. In both cases I think you'd be right in saying that neither is directly responsible but both could certainly make it easier. Neither of which is an argument for banning.

DavidR wrote:

sakurama wrote:

As for the gun shows - yes, all FFL's must perform background checks but private sales at shows in 33 of the states don't require background checks. Private sales are where the vast majority of "straw" sales come from. As responsible gun owners I think we would want to reduce the number of guns sold that don't go to responsible owners.

First personal sales are not STRAW sales. Many people sell guns to other law abiding citizens as they have a right to do. A STRAW sale is where one person buys guns from a dealer or individual for another person who is not legally able to buy one on his/her own. This is a crime, and should be punished by current local and federal laws that have been in place for decades. If a gun owner sells to a known felon then they both should be prosecuted, its called breaking the law and just because it sounds good to say thats where criminals get guns its a very very small percentage. The majority of Criminals get guns mostly from criminal acts, robbery,burglary, and in that regard every gun owner should and im sure most do securely protect their guns.

An expert on crime gun patterns, ATF agent Jay Wachtel says that most guns used in crimes are not stolen out of private gun owners' homes and cars. "Stolen guns account for only about 10% to 15% of guns used in crimes," Wachtel said. In fact, there are a number of sources that allow guns to fall into the wrong hands, with gun thefts at the bottom of the list. Wachtel says one of the most common ways criminals get guns is through straw purchase sales. source

But how do you know you are not selling to a known felon or someone who would not pass a background check? I've sold a few guns and generally I trust the person to whom I'm selling it or I trust my gut but in the back of my mind I know that the paper trail stops with me as the last "registered" purchaser.

Rob, I think you're right that the majority of gun sales at shows are through FFL's but I believe that is mandated through the shows management - not legally. It's a fair point though.

G

If I sell a firearm to someone I do not know well I require a copy of their drivers license, signed and dated with a description of make and model of said firearm. Its called CYA!

This was before I had my FFL. Now everything that passes thru my hands is recorded in the A&D log.

I had a guy show up to pickup a handgun and dropped his West Virginia DL on the table. I clearly stated I needed a Wisconsin DL to perform the transfer. He refused to obtain a WI DL and wanted to have his girlfriend buy the gun as she had a WI DL.

I refused the transfer and shipped the gun back to the point of purchase on my dime! That would have been a straw purchase and put my but on the line.

Here is a quote from that same article mentioned above...

What's needed, according to Wachtel, is better monitoring of the activities of legally licensed gun dealers. This means examining FFL paperwork to see where their guns are coming from, and making sure that those guns are being sold legally. But he says, "Let's be honest. If someone wants a gun, it's obvious the person will not have difficulty buying a gun, either legally or through the extensive United States black market."

Perhaps I am simple minded, but it would seem to me that if the BATF knows so much about the "extensive United States Black Market", they are in fault for not dealing with it. Rather, they appear to put the priority on monitoring legal dealers as opposed to investigating and stopping the illegal dealers (black market).

Again, this is proof that even if guns are made illegal in some way shape or form, the BATF (and other governments), already know it won't stop the criminals from obtaining illegal firearms. Furthermore, it also very clearly indicates that many of the firearms used in crimes come from illegal means, so a ban on guns would only stop law abiding citizens from having guns.

Chris

How are we the bad guys? How are we responsible for repeated mass murders in gun free zones?

It's not the rifle. There were 19 times more murders by handguns. More people were murdered by knives and cutting instruments than rifles. More people were murdered by blunt objects. Almost twice as many were murdered by hand, fist, feet, etc. than by a rifle.
reference:FBI Crime Stats by weapon

So what does the rifle really have to do with anything? You could ban all rifles and the impact would be insignificant. So where is the reasoning? Targeting the rifle is just a stepping stone to a bigger agenda. I read somewhere that the average number of shots fired is 2.5, so how can you justify a magazine ban.

What about the mass shootings? All of them in the have occurred in gun free zones, except when Gifford was shot, 6 people were killed (12 injured). Gun free Virginia tech 32 killed (17 injured), gun free Newtown 26 killed, gun free Aurora theater 12 killed (58 injured), gun free Ft. Hood 13 killed (29 injured), etc.

So tell me how is banning rifles or high capacity magazines going to prevent more deaths than removing restrictions on gun free zones? Saving lives is not what there proposed ban is about.

What about the mass shootings? All of them in the have occurred in gun
free zones, except when Gifford was shot,

Political rallies are gun free zones also.

Chris_D wrote:
Here is a quote from that same article mentioned above...

What's needed, according to Wachtel, is better monitoring of the activities of legally licensed gun dealers.
Chris

Evidently, this guy has never had an FFL..The ATF does compliance checks. It's a felony for the dealer to commit illegal transfers... Every gun, since 1968 has a paper trail, and is accountable.. Only a fool would try to circumvent that paper trail.

I read this and it's a pretty good take on what's happening. A good read for everybody and only takes a few minutes.





http://www.forbes.com/sites/harrybinswanger/2013/01/01/with-gun-control-cost-benefit-analysis-is-amoral/



Virgil

If lots of mentally deranged people are the source of shootings, how about the government (state and/or national) provide some sort of mental healthcare benefit that makes office/therapist visits and medication extremely affordable? coupled with some sort of database where mental health providers submit patient name/ids who are not suitable to own firearms?

Not a perfect solution, but better than full firearm bans...

Problem is most people on meds to control the mental problems stop taking their meds once they feel better. They never notice the backslide once they stop the meds or they don't like thefeeling of being on them and when people tell them to get back on their meds the often become violent. My wife works with these very people I'm taking about so I get it first hand from her. When they turn to a legal age nobody can force they to take their meds and the problems begin. It's really sad to see this and not much to do except instututionalizing them and that's hard to do too.



Virgil

Virgil's comment regarding people on meds to control the problem is spot on. The way the current system is, there is very, very little that family members or authorities can do, until that person commits a crime, or shows that they are a blatant danger to others or to themselves.
I have a neighbor who has a sibling that recently came to live with him. The sibling is bipolar are does NOT take her meds regularly and therefore is really erratic. The state police are there on a regular basis. He has awakened to find her standing over his bed with a large knife and last week she flared up and bit him hard on the arm when he tried to stop her from hitting him with a cane. The judge sent her back home with a warning not to "hit, bite or abuse" her 73 year old brother. She laughed and said she didn't remember biting him. He is beside himself with worry and anxiety but with no other relatives, can't bring himself to turn her out. I expect that she will kill him before we are done. Changes in the mental health treatment system will do far more than banning magazines, black rifles or passing additional gun control laws.
Scott

Like Scott said. Bi-Polar people are like this as are Autistic and Asperger's disorder (Like the Sandy Hook shooter). My heart goes out to the families that have to deal with these people. My wife comes home on a regualr basis with bruises from these people with these disorders "freaking out" and it doesn't take much. Something as small as a change in schedule or a bus being late or early will set them off. Things that normal people take in stride like a TV show being late because of a football game going into overtime or the electric going out for a few minutes is a huge disaster to people with these disorders.



Some of these people can only stay on their meds for so long before they start to have problems with the very meds that are suppose to help them. When they change meds the pesron has to get to the old meds out of their system so there is a period of time that the person is on no meds. Under a doctors care this is usually done in a hospital but for those that cannot afford that or think that it's not going to be a problem coming off the old meds are where the problems lie. We had a neighbor living next door that was bi-polar. Was the nicest kid in the world always willing to help out everybody and was real nice to the kids in the neighborhood. One day he had a reaction to the meds he was taking became extremly violent. He was 25 at the time and took a hammer and smashed every window and mirror on his dad's car that was sitting in the driveway including headlights and turn signals. The parents didn't want to call the police because they knew the son would be arrested and then have a record that would follow him around for the rest of his life so they chose to watch the son and keep him contained to their private property. Fortunatly for everybodies sake the son, when done beating the sh*t out of the car realized that something wasn't right and went inside and called his doc to have himself put in the hospital. Other outcomes like Sandy Hook don't have as happy of an ending.



Mental health is a huge problem and I think a tougher one that the gun control issue. It's hard to go after these people without trampling every constatutional right they (and we) have.



Virgil

This now strikes close to home for me. I transferred an AK - 47 locally about a month ago. Nothing out of the ordinary about the transfer or the person. I received a phone call from our local LE a couple nights ago asking about the firearm that was transferred and when it took place.

The police came to my house tonight to collect copies of the paperwork and they answered a couple of my questions. Turns out the buyer has issues with schizophrenia and has been in the "hospital" for treatment in the past. He purchased this firearm with the intention of killing his two best friends and the neighbor that lived above him.

Fortunately he called his family for help before acting and got put back into the hospital for help. This is where I have a problem, here is a person known to have mental health issues that passed a background check and seemed like a perfectly normal person to me. I know a lot of people blame the sellers that they should "know" someone has issues. When you only spend 15 minutes or less doing paperwork it does not give you much of a chance to determine the persons mental state.

This is the part of our "system" that needs attention, we need to identify these individuals and prevent them from getting their hands on firearms. Get them the the help they need to improve their lives and prevent them from hurting themselves or others.

Joe

As an FFL, I worry about this exact situation you mentioned Joe.

There has to be a way for the medical industry to link up directly to the FBI or possibly have the select information fed in through Dept. of Health Human Services to the FBI, those individuals diagnosed with mental disorders. Then when we send in the individuals name for the NICS, at least the electronic records would be found and FBI could give us a red light to stop the transaction from proceeding.

As you have found out, a checkbox on a form and attestation signature will not stop someone from circumventing the law.

Carrying this idea I mentioned above further, it could be an extra security requirement that households bearing the same address as the mentally ill individual would be required to implement additional safety measures (safes, etc.)for firearms they legally own in the household so as to prevent access by the person who is mentally ill.

Enforcement of that safety check would be a challenge to law enforcement but no different than other federal compliance requirements that are dumped on other organizations.

I work at a bank. The volume of customer transaction reporting and monitoring required by the gov't is overwhelming. Yes, it is forced on us by law and we bear the cost burden. If they can make us carry out these requirements, they could pass monitoring on to local law enforcement as well.

Many people will cry fowl about the privacy and reporting of the medical information but again, the banking industry as one example, already is forced to send in customer information (yes non-public) to the government and an individual may not even know they are being reported and/or monitored.

Just my idea above, but there needs to be a better system of real time reporting by the medical industry so we can stop these transactions from proceeding.

As a FFL myself, one deterrent to this is to prosecute the person who bought the gun, if he lied on the 4473, most people with severe mental issues has been in a institution or under doctor care and if so imo lied on the form, also in my state if a person tries to buy a gun and is turned down, i must report it to my LE and they prosecute. But nothing is done on the federal level, as its a felony to lie on a 4473 if more of these people were put in jail and it publicized imo it would help.

I feel a law holding parents responsible for NOT locking up firearms- should be on the books.They should be prosecuted following an accidental shooting by a youngster or following a tradedy because of carelessness in not locking up the firearms.Perhaps then we might see less firearms related incidents.

It already is against the law for for parents to leave their guns unattended for a child to use them. It's negligence, and the cases go to civil court. The mom in the Sandy Hook case isn't able to stand trial for her mistake. Besides, Lanza was an adult.

Lets get serious about this discussion. GUN CONTROLS AND RULES DON'T WORK!!! None of the things Obama proposed would have stopped Sandy Hook or any other mass shooting, or reduced the number of people killed.

Lockable classroom doors might buy enough time for law enforcement to engage the shooter and make it so a shooter only has enough time to bust into 1 classroom full of kids and kill them before law enforcement arrives, but to truly solve this problem is to put armed people in the schools to act immediately.

These attacks have been going on for years. We are wasting our time arguing about larger magazine capacities among ourselves. This is just the latest target in a series of various demonizations that have been used over the past 50 yrs. These targets have been at various times, mail order purchases, registration, saturday night specials, and others I have forgotten.

There is no relationship between the "mass shootings" and "assault" weapons, or magazine capacity, as has been shown by various spokespersons. Divide & conquer. We are much stronger and less likely to lose rights if we stick together. The gentlemen and the good ol boys all have the same risk. As is seen in England they are never done. Sooner or later they will be after each niche.

The NRA has become a little like what they fight, as can be expected. Time was the "Rifleman" was all about guns, hunting, and shooting. All pf our BE matches were listed and even some results if my memory is correct. Now I barely skim over it. The success and value of NRA to shooters might be judged by the amount of vilification it gets from our enemies.

The "Assault Rifle"; when the Bill of Rights was written members of the militia were expected to appear when called upon with, among other things, a weapon such as currently in use by the military, and a certain amount of powder & ball (ammo). Today the discussion might be whether the government should require able bodied citizens to own a military rifle, appropriate magazine, and ammo?

Ron

California, already one of the strictest states regarding firearm control has rolled out some more proposed bills:
As
a disclaimer, I'm non-partisan, but am open-minded socially and getting
more conservative fiscally. I agree with some forms of gun control and
regulation, but not to the current CA extent and obviously not the
increased measures proposed in these bills.

IF you live in
California and oppose some or all of these bills, and want the
opportunity to contact your assemblyman or state senator, here is the
link to find out who they are:
http://findyourrep.legislature.ca.gov/

"

inShare California's state Senate Democrats roll out big gun control package By Josh Richman jrichman@bayareanewsgroup.com Posted: 02/07/2013 05:14:54 PM PST Updated: 02/08/2013 10:47:40 AM PST All semi-automatic rifles with detachable magazines would be banned, all guns would be registered and no ammunition could be bought without a special permit in California under a sweeping list of bills rolled out Thursday by state Senate Democrats. The 10-bill package constitutes the single largest gun control push in decades in the Golden State, which already boasts some of the nation's strictest gun laws. It joins equally controversial proposals from Assembly Democrats that would regulate and tax ammunition sales and consider taking the state's 166,000 registered assault weapons from their owners. This first unified California plan comes less than a month after New York adopted its own sweeping package of new gun controls and President Barack Obama announced a package of executive actions, all in the wake of December's Connecticut schoolhouse massacre. Even as this plan emerged Thursday, House Democrats' gun violence task force was announcing 15 "policy principles," including protecting Second Amendment rights but also instituting universal background checks and reinstating a federal assault weapons ban. "We respect the Second Amendment right of law-abiding citizens to have guns for hunting, for sport, for protecting their homes and families. But loopholes in California's tough gun laws have been exploited long enough," state Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, said Thursday. "We can save lives by curbing the proliferation of guns designed to be fired and reloaded rapidly," he said. "We can save lives by getting guns and ammunition out of the hands of the wrong people. We can save lives if every gun owner knows how to safely handle those guns. And if we can save lives, we must act to do so."Gene Hoffman of Redwood City, co-founder and chairman of the Calguns Foundation gun rights group, countered that "almost every item in the proposal is wildly unconstitutional." He said the only silver lining is that passing such laws might "accelerate the speed at which the Supreme Court takes these ideas off the table." Steinberg unveiled the package in a news conference Thursday at the state Capitol, flanked by Public Safety Committee Chairwoman Loni Hancock, D-Berkeley; Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa; San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee; and police chiefs Chris Magnus of Richmond, Ken James of Emeryville and Sylvia Moir of El Cerrito. A bill by Steinberg would ban future sale, purchase, making, importing or transfer in California of any semi-automatic rifle that takes a detachable magazine, by adding such guns to the state's list of banned assault weapons. Another Steinberg bill would require ownership records for all guns; California now keeps only handgun and assault weapon records. Hancock's bill would ban possession -- not just manufacture and sale -- of large-capacity magazines holding more than 10 rounds. State Sen. Leland Yee, D-San Francisco, has reintroduced a bill to ban "bullet button" kits that let gun owners effectively sidestep the distinction between detachable and fixed magazines for semi-automatic rifles. Another Yee bill would require that guns be properly locked and stored when their owners aren't present, but that bill wasn't included on Steinberg's list Thursday. That list also included bills that would: Require anyone wishing to buy ammunition to first get a permit by passing a background check, as Los Angeles and Sacramento already do. Update the definition of a banned shotgun with a revolving cylinder to include the new technology of a shotgun-rifle combination. Prevent unregulated gun loans, with some exceptions, including hunting, in order to keep weapons from those who haven't passed background checks. Require all handgun owners obtain a safety certificate every year, rather than the every-five-years requirement for purchases of new handguns. Prohibit anyone barred from owning a weapon from living in a home where weapons are kept and to expand the list of crimes for which convictions result in being barred from gun possession. Let the state Justice Department use money from the state's Dealer's Record of Sale system to eliminate the backlog of people identified as no longer allowed to own guns but not yet investigated and contacted by law enforcement.Yih-Chau Chang, spokesman for the gun rights group Responsible Citizens of California, said it's all "par for the course." "The violent criminals are simply not going to be affected by any of these proposals," Chang said. "Following the law is the last thing they're going to do, so it's only going to affect law-abiding citizens."

"