Gun Control and Regulations

I apologize if that was over the top. If you wanted to bring up something else please do otherwise this thread is looking it will trend towards dry spells until something in the news sparks new discussion.

Well, I did ask a question last page:

Meanwhile, I have a question regarding "Red Flag" laws currently being considered by many states (the ones that allow police to temporarily confsicate firearms from people who are considered a threat to themselves or the community. How do you feel about expanding these things to be a little more proactive? Do we have to wait until someone actually commits an act of violence before preventing them from owning firearms?

I am in favor of some red flag laws.

Examples that have a judge making the call on if a person represents a danger to themselves or others I am fine with as it has to go before a judge. I am ok with the police petitioning a judge for the same thing provided they bring evidence of some sort to support their claims. The ones with family members making the petition I am a bit iffy on because nothing stops a family from being less than honest or abusive. I would say those need the judge and ample evidence from some sort of expert outside of the family to corroborate.

For cases where some sort of crime has already occurred, yes for violent crimes and yes for domestic abuse just because there seems to be a persistent statistical occurrence of violence after the fact involving firearms in those instances.

In cases where someone appears mentally and/or emotionally disturbed, something akin to the police petition but also requiring the input of a mental health expert. This one is kind of tricky and I think it might be the most open to abuse by others and could use some carefully thought out checks and balances.

For all of them at least certain minimum time frame or so some sort of limit on how long the firearms can be kept if the person is not found to be dangerous. Basically, buy enough time for them to examine the individual and their problematic behavior if any and enough time to deal with it inside the legal system. It would need an upward max time frame to keep courts from dragging things out on purpose. If the individual is found to be without issue or fault their firearms are returned without comment.

Tuefel: You seem to be confused on the basic mechanic of a bump stock. Bump firing a gun by bracing it against your arm is the exact same mechanism, the bump stock just allows you to perform that technique with a more normal hold on the weapon. And again, they are not controllable and do not give you anything resembling normal control over your weapon. The looseness in the stock and the way it allows the entire weapon to bounce almost an inch means that your shots will be flying free. It’s no coincidence that the only shooting involving a bump stock had the shooter essentially spraying in the air at long range.

And you can’t disagree with the basic facts that bump stocks simply are not used in crime. In the time since bump stocks were made available for sale there have been over a thousand mass shootings in the US, of which only one has involved a bump stock. In fact, there has only been one gun crime period involving a bump stock. If they were so efficient at altering the function of the weapon, as you claim, you think you’d see them more often. You’d have more of an impact on gun crime by banning weapon lights which at least feature in multiple gun crimes each year.

As the facts stand, this is quite literally the absolute minimum this admin could have done on gun control. It’s almost insultingly little. And as far as this conversation, we’re not even in disagreement.

To change the topic a little, though, I wonder what the impact of the new classification of machine guns is going to be. It seems like the new determining factor is not manipulation of the trigger but rather an “automatic firing sequence”. If a weapon can be made to fire quickly in any way (and no speed limit is specified) it becomes a machine gun. This would seem to make the alternatives to a bump stock they suggest later in the text (bump firing, rubber bands) illegal as well, and potentially allow any firearm to be classified as a machine gun.

You know, it doesnt help when they misuse common military terminology. If they want to ban mechanisms that provide firearms with rapid fire capability, then just say that. A machine gun is something else entirely.

De Marquis: That part always bothers me. Select fire or continuous fire work just fine, it isn't like there is a lack of access to technical terms or anything.

Archon: I am not confused at all. It is not the same mechanic as trying to use some awkward weapon hold that is quite likely to fail vs a device that makes it almost a certainty work and allows you to operate the weapon pretty much normally. We have ample videos, write-ups, diagrams, and short lectures demonstrating or describing how they work in detail. It is not factually the same thing by any measure. This is a device that again overtly alters how the firearm normally functions by adding a part not normally present on the firearm.

It has been used in a crime and a pretty major one. The other point you are missing is they only have to be shown to be a viable option once for someone else to pick up on them. Most of the gun stores and even the manufactures reflexively tightened up who they would sell to, but that is a temporary state at best. It will be a matter of time before someone remembers the Vegas shooting and puts two and two together. Banning before it becomes a trend is both a smart move and frankly correcting the overt end run around the law. Again devices that did the same thing are already banned. This isn't a cosmetic or comfort part. It is a device that changes how the firearm works.

That is it. There is no way you will ever convince me that some hackneyed hand hold and awkward feathering hoping you can get it to bump right off your body will ever be the same as a purpose-built device added to a firearm that changes how it normally operates and requires nothing more complex than a trigger pull to work.

As for the Machine Parts.

I seem to recall the ATFE already ruled on other modifications as already being illegal if they modify a gun to operate like a machine gun. It was already included in the NFA under the definition of machine gun and had something to do with parts or combination of parts or something like that. Though depending on how the new document is worded when the final copy goes live it could be up for some interesting interpretations or possibly require further clarification. They don't use the complexity of the parts or how reliable it is in practice for their definition at all either. IIRC they consider any firearm a machine gun if it can fire continuously with a single trigger pull.

There was that smartass who thought they were being clever and submitted the string machine gun for consideration and got told in pretty plain language why it was illegal. The materials alone weren't illegal but how they were used in combination with the weapon was. So alone the rubber bands would be fine but from the earlier example it is when they are applied to the firearm to alter its rate of fire to continuous fire is when it becomes an issue.

Edited by TuefelHundenIV on Dec 20th 2018 at 8:22:05 AM

You don’t need to be convinced. The mechanism remains identical. All a bump stock does is substitute a channel in the stock for your arm. The technique and the stock have the same fire rate because they have the same mechanism exactly. Hell, that’s why it’s called a bump stock to begin with, it’s named after the bump firing technique because it’s the same damn thing.

And you can’t reason your way around these devices not being used in crime. They’re not new. They’ve been around in in their present form for a decade, and the invention more broadly for even longer. There is no “starting a trend”, these devices have been available to the public for quite a long time and simply aren’t used in crimes.

At this point you’re just disagreeing to be disagreeable.

Edited by archonspeaks on Dec 20th 2018 at 6:32:23 AM

Archon: That is the pot calling the kettle black especially coming from someone who has constantly insisted to the contrary despite hard facts and you actually having active demonstrations of how the mechanisms alter how the firearms work and how they modify the weapons function. Especially how it is not the same thing as trying to due it manually. Repeating it doesn't make it true.

Actually yes that is how trends get started especially when we keep getting reminders and shown that yes it is effective. But hey who bothers with paying attention to things like copycat trends especially with violence. Not like they happen all the time in the US. Oh, wait.

At this point, you're about as disingenuous as it is possible to be. Because you are pretty much trying your damndest to be dishonest and contrarian from the outset we have nothing more discuss on this.

Edited by TuefelHundenIV on Dec 20th 2018 at 9:34:16 AM

You can be disagreeable all you want, but you can’t dispute facts.

I’ll say it again: in the decade and then some that these devices have been available to the public, they have been used in exactly one gun crime out of thousands. They feature so little in gun crime that they’re not even a footnote of a footnote. You may as well be banning tan-colored firearms for all the good this will do.

It’s nice to get them banned, but coming from this admin it’s almost insultingly little progress.

I’ll let someone more informed than myself do the talking though. Here’s a quote (from this article [1] ) from a gun crime policy expert from the Center for American Progress: “A bump stock ban is not at all responsive to the the more common problem of gun violence”.

The article I just linked has some relevant quotes. There aren’t any statistics, because the Vegas shooting is quite literally the first recorded use of a bump stock in a crime.

Edited by archonspeaks on Dec 20th 2018 at 8:03:46 AM

Okay, neither of you are getting anywhere, and this argument is one based on a fundamental disagreement/misunderstanding on someone's part about the cold, hard, facts of reality.

One of you claims the bump-stocks can be simulated well enough just by manually bracing the gun against your shoulder, the other claims that doing that doesn't have the same effects as a bump-stock. One of you is right, one of you is wrong, this is a call for someone to post those facts and figures again, to end this infinite loop of "I'm right, and you're wrong" that's currently coming from both sides.

Edited by PushoverMediaCritic on Dec 20th 2018 at 9:05:47 AM

Regarding Red Flag laws: I think they are interesting. However, they do raise some due process considerations. I agree that rights can be taken away if someone is convicted of a crime. This creates a problem for due process if the guns are confiscated before someone is convicted of a crime. I doubt that red-flag laws will pass constitutional muster for that reason. That is even before the possibility of abuse comes into play.

Archon: Again, pot calling the kettle black. I already told you we are done with this.

If you want to discuss different parts of it like who has to juggle the changes to policy or any other changes that will likely show up like the rubber band mod you mentioned, or what they may lean on to justify it that is another matter.

Soban: They already exist in several states and there was already a constitutional challenge to the Gun Control Act of 1968 and the modifications made to it by the 1986 law whose name I can't recall at the moment. Which until today I did not realize already contains red flag clauses. Though the key there is that they all require something having to be brought before a judge or someone being convicted of a crime. It covers individuals with mental health issues, individuals who are users or found to be addicted to unlawful substances(I am a bit iffy on this one because of the war on drugs bad track record), court orders for abusers and stalkers, and a separate clause for those convicted of domestic violence that is at least a misdemeanor. It survived a legal challenge in the Court of Appeals Fifth circuit which is Texas, Mississippi and one or two other states. Which is kind of surprising.

Edited by TuefelHundenIV on Dec 20th 2018 at 10:50:42 AM

The court can legally take pre-emtive action before a crime has actually been committed provided that there is material reason to believe that a crime is about to be committed, and public safety is at stake. Thats how terrorist conspiracies are prevented.

However, its important to note that under red flag laws, no one is convicted of anything. Your weapons are temporarily taken away, until you take the requisite counceling and are no longer considered a threat to yourself or the public. Its similar to a suicide watch.

I think that call needs to be made by a judge unless there is some sort of provable emergency action needed to be taken. Even then I would use some sort of minimum/maximum time frames allowed for the situation to be addressed and reviewed and no other requirements without a proper hearing. Especially for long-term seizures.

I believe judges can preside over a case even if no one is being charged with a crime. Something like court ordered counceling, where the individual whose weapons have been confiscated is required to meet with an officer of the court at regular intervals until the councelor reports that they have fulfilled their theraputic plan.

I mean the judge needs to order the seizure first before they are taken and everything flows from that point. They can handle emergency warrants they could also handle emergency decisions from judges to seize firearms.

I saw this on my feed

Edited by megaeliz on Jan 2nd 2019 at 11:18:54 AM

Congressional Republicans are trying again on the “Hearing Protection Act”, a piece of legislation that would remove suppressors from the NFA, making them purchasable with only an NICS background check like a normal firearm. [1]

The laws against silencers are generally dumb, but goddamn does that site rub me the wrong way when its tagline is "firearms not politics" and then two of its featured articles are "I Joined the American Suppressor Association (And You Should Too)" and "Never Go Full ATF" (referencing the "never go full retard" meme, regarding the ban on bump stocks).

I get that some level of political discussion is inevitable when covering the topic, but if you're going to be so proud of being apolitical that you put it in the tag line for your organization, then you should at least pretend that you're covering the political aspect from an objective "just the facts, ma'am" standpoint, rather than explicitly advocating for certain positions.

That’s pretty much par for the course with firearms blogs. I’ll have you know that one was the most savory of the bunch I could find when looking for a source to link to, most of the other ones ran more to the insane side of things.

Oh yeah, I didn't mean it as a criticism of the specific post you linked (which is pretty much just a short factual summary of the situation, though it does include comments by advocates of the bill but nothing from anyone who opposes it), sorry it came off that way. Was mostly just venting frustration because an actual firearms-not-politics blog would be a super nice thing to have.

Oh yeah, that’s a sentiment I share. Finding actual news on what’s going on with firearms inevitably means picking through mountains of threeper bullshit.

Moving suppressors off the NFA isn’t a terrible idea, though the company you keep if you support this bill probably isn’t great. It’s really too bad, there are basically no reasonable people advocating for NFA reform.

Edited by archonspeaks on Jan 5th 2019 at 10:16:26 AM

A Gun Nut’s Guide to Gun Control That Works: "A federal license for possession of semi-automatic firearms could make Americans safer—and more free."

Later in the article: "...The framework I’m proposing is essentially a grand bargain: The gun control side gives up the possibility of a federal gun registry, specific states abandon their weapon bans and long gun registries, and in exchange the gun rights side accepts a brand new federal licensing scheme with real teeth."

Edited by DeMarquis on Jan 5th 2019 at 10:09:03 AM

First: If you're sticking a gun in your waistband instead of a proper holster, you're a gun nut in the sense that that's a bad thing.

Anyway, I like the idea of the FFL, but not abandoning gun registration - because guns can get from the hands of licensed users to unlicensed users, and to criminals. Each gun needs to have someone who is legally responsible for it.