So let's discuss the six gun violence proposals the Biden Administration has put forth

[TitanTiger 20,472]

I'd be interested in some sane discussion of the pros/cons of each of these new executive actions Biden is proposing as some ways to stem gun violence in this country.  I think we all want that regardless of what side of the 2nd Amendment debates we all on (full disclosure:  I'm in favor of gun rights and own firearms myself).  So let's run through these and then have some hopefully good, productive conversation.  Try to take the ideas on their own merits regardless of who proposed them.  I'll explain them briefly (feel free to correct me if any of my facts are off) and then give my take on it.

 

"Ghost guns"

For those unfamiliar, so-called "ghost guns" are basically guns that are made by buying parts or a "kit."  The various components are shipped to the customer who once they have all the pieces, within about 30 minutes or so, can have put together a fully functioning firearm.  These are becoming more and more prevalent in gun crimes and what makes them worrisome is that because the person isn't buying a completed, fully manufactured firearm, they can skirt various regulations.  Often none of the parts have serial numbers like various components of regular guns are required to have, making them harder to trace. This action would regulate these parts/kits just like if the person was buying a completely put together firearm and require background checks to purchase, just like purchasing a pistol or other regular firearm does now.

My verdict:  Favor.  It doesn't outlaw guns purchased this way or restrict their use in any way that doesn't already exist for whatever type of firearm it is.  It simply gives law enforcement the same ability to trace firearms used in crimes that they have with regular guns and same background checks as regular gun purchases.

 

Regulations on stabilizing braces for pistols

So, a stabilizing brace is a part that is used on a pistol that helps improve its accuracy by controlling recoil or kickback.  It attaches to the pistol and effectively turns it into a short barreled rifle. This action would put these braces under the same regulations as short barreled rifles, which are stricter than traditional pistols or regular rifles.  These are also increasingly being used in gun crimes. The shooter in Colorado who killed 10 people in a supermarket used a brace like this to improve his stability and accuracy, effectively making him a more deadly shooter.  

My verdict:  Favor.  Again, it doesn't outlaw the sale of them or prevent law abiding citizens from obtaining them, but it does put them under more strict regulation and they have to be registered in the same way short barreled rifles do, which to me makes sense.

 

"Red flag" laws

So, red flag laws permit police or family members to petition a state court to order the temporary removal of firearms from a person who may present a danger to others or themselves.  Basically if a person is exhibiting violent tendencies, issuing threats of violence, threatening or suggesting they may commit suicide, or perhaps showing signs of mental illness, a petition could be brought forth and that person's guns could be removed from while the concerns are looked into.  

My verdict:  On the fence but could be persuaded.  I'm loathe to take away a person's civil rights under the 2nd Amendment when they haven't done anything wrong.  At the same time, if we're going to talk about how mental illness plays into mass shootings so much, we have to have means to pre-empt these shootings when warning signs are present.  The bar for removing someone's firearms should be fairly high and plenty of due process involved before it happens.  And the investigation into whether the concerns are credible should happen quickly and not delay or keep someone in limbo indefinitely.  I'd also have some provisions for stiff penalties if false 'red flag' accusations are presented.

 

Annual Firearm Trafficking Report

I'll mostly pull from the White House press release here:  We haven't had one of these since 2000.  That year the ATF issued a report summarizing information regarding its investigations into firearms trafficking, which is one way firearms are diverted into the illegal market where they can easily end up in the hands of dangerous individuals. Since the report’s publication, states, local, and federal policymakers have relied on its data to better thwart the common channels of firearms trafficking. But there is good reason to believe that firearms trafficking channels have changed since 2000, for example due to the emergence of online sales and proliferation of “ghost guns.” The Justice Department will issue a new, comprehensive report on firearms trafficking and annual updates necessary to give policymakers the information they need to help address firearms trafficking today.

My verdict:  Favor.  More data and information helps make better informed decisions with regard to laws and regulations and helps law enforcement as well.  To me this is a no-brainer and infringes on no one's rights.

 

Increased funding for community-based violence prevention programs

It would take too much time and space to explain all the various community intervention and violence prevention programs out there but suffice it to say that many across the country are credited with helping reduce gun violence in their cities areas the last several years.  I think there's one in Oakland, CA that's been particularly effective and helpful.  This would just direct some federal funding over the next 8-10 years to help them better fulfill their missions.  I think the price tag is between $5-10 billion over 10 years or something like that.

My verdict:  Favor.  I'm almost always in favor of doing things at as much of the local level as possible.  The people living there are usually best equipped with the knowledge and understanding of their communities to do effective work like this.  And again, it restricts no one's rights.

 

Nominating David Chipman to be the Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms

Chipman is a 25 year veteran of the ATF and the agency has been without a confirmed director for six years.  

My verdict:  ????  He certainly seems qualified in terms of experience.  I've heard some concerns that he's too much in favor of increased gun regulations and restrictions.  On the other hand he has expressed support for gun ownership for self-defense, hunting and sporting purposes and is a gun owner himself.  I'd probably want to hear him answer some questions from the Senate in a confirmation process before deciding.

 

So those are the six proposals Biden has laid out.  What are your thoughts?

 

[aubaseball 2,592]

#1.   A “ghost gun” is currently illegal to sale.   I’m not saying that people don’t currently illegally sell them.   The way that you stated how they are put together is incorrect.   Only some of the components are bought that are currently not required by law to be registered (upper receiver, butt stock and pistol grip).   The lower receiver has to be made by the individual which requires some skill and tools.  There are machines  out there that can be programmed to make the lower receiver but they cost money.    

#2.  Not sure why “stabilizers are a problem because I’ve never heard of one being used in shooting.  

#3.  Red flag is a slippery slope.   where a disgruntled family member can make claims that are not true against someone.   

#4.  Not sure why this hasn’t been happening anyway 

#5.   Not sure how throwing more money at this fixes the overwhelming majority of gun cases.  

#6.  No.  This guy is a joke.   I don’t care how long he was with the “AFT”.   He is against the ownership of AR’s

[TitanTiger 20,472]

18 minutes ago, aubaseball said:

#1.   A “ghost gun” is currently illegal to sale.   I’m not saying that people don’t currently illegally sell them.   The way that you stated how they are put together is incorrect.   Only some of the components are bought that are currently not required by law to be registered (upper receiver, butt stock and pistol grip).   The lower receiver has to be made by the individual which requires some skill and tools.  There are machines  out there that can be programmed to make the lower receiver but they cost money.    

I don't think this is true nationwide.

https://science.howstuffworks.com/ghost-guns.htm

And your reply doesn't address the issue of background checks being skirted.

 

18 minutes ago, aubaseball said:

#2.  Not sure why “stabilizers are a problem because I’ve never heard of one being used in shooting.

The shooter in the Colorado supermarket a couple of weeks back used one.  And what's being proposed wouldn't make them illegal, just would make them subject to the same regulations as the type of gun that they can turn a pistol into.

 

18 minutes ago, aubaseball said:

#3.  Red flag is a slippery slope.   where a disgruntled family member can make claims that are not true against someone.   

It could be a slippery slope without strict parameters and due process and stiff penalties for making false accusations.

But also, I hear all the time from those opposing stricter gun regulation that the real problem is mental health issues and guns getting into the hands of someone who shouldn't be allowed to own them.  How would we propose to do that without some mechanism like this where those who know the person could report a problem?

 

18 minutes ago, aubaseball said:

#4.  Not sure why this hasn’t been happening anyway 

Ditto.  Baffling why we wouldn't want to have more and better data.

 

18 minutes ago, aubaseball said:

#5.   Not sure how throwing more money at this fixes the overwhelming majority of gun cases.  

I think the idea is that many of these community based intervention programs are showing good results in reducing gun violence in their communities, so why not support them and help them do more of what seems to be working?

 

18 minutes ago, aubaseball said:

#6.  No.  This guy is a joke.   I don’t care how long he was with the “AFT”.   He is against the ownership of AR’s

To be clear, he is not against the ownership of AR-15's but he is in favor of more heavily regulating it and guns like it.  His statement on the matter is from about 3 years ago, but this is what he had to say:

"What I support is treating them just like machine guns. To me, if you want to have a weapon of war, the same gun that was issued to me as a member of [the] ATF SWAT team, it makes sense that you would have to pass a background check, the gun would have to be in your name, and there would be a picture and fingerprints on file.  To me, I don't mind doing it if I want to buy a gun. These [current] policies just protect the criminal. Like, I don't think you should be able to anonymously purchase 20 AR-15s at one time, and the government shouldn't know. I don't think it's unreasonable at all that you have to pass a background check to own a weapon of war." 

We can debate whether that is a good idea or not, but I just wanted to clarify what his actual stated position is on weapons like the AR-15. 

[I_M4_AU 7,793]

#1, When I put together my AR15 I had to have a background check to purchase the lower receiver here in NC.  That was 6 years ago, so things might have changed.  With Biden’s proposal law enforcement have the same ability to trace these firearms used in a crime.  I was unaware that law enforcement couldn’t trace these firearms.  Wouldn’t law enforcement confiscate a gun that was used in a crime (or suspected) and run a ballistic test?  

Joe has also stated he would fight to end the gun manufactures immunity from prosecution in gun crimes.  So, how would this effect the *manufacturer* of these weapons?  Would the manufacturer be the assembler or the kit manufacturer?  🤔. I think I would not be for a bill that has that big of a question unless it was answered by Joe.  

#2, The *stabilizer* was designed for a disabled vet to steady this hand so he could fire a pistol.  The law of unintended consequences rises it’s ugly head again.  I am a hard NO on this one as it just seems like a feel good virtue signal like the bump stock was after the LAS shooting.

#3, The *red flag* law is interesting as it could have stopped the Boulder shooting if the family members would have said something.  Industries have had *if you see something, say something* policies for a long time and still find it difficult for employees to say something.  It would be a cultural change that may not happen unless there would be some kind of penalty for knowing and not coming forward.  Hard to prove.

It also would be easy to abuse and puts a lot of pressure on law enforcement to get it right.  We will have to see how this law is written.

#4, No problem here.

#5, Throwing money at the problem feels good, but does little to cure it.  

#6,  No, the man is pro gun confiscation.  He recently deleted 1000 of his tweet history, I wonder why.

ETA:  There will be more Gun Sanctuary states in the near future.

[CoffeeTiger 5,099]

They aren't bad, but are mostly useless when talking about how to solve rampant gun deaths. They are just token orders to make it look like action is being taken. Real, impactful action will have to come from congress.

 

My suggestions?

 

1) National database where all weapons/owners have the be registered and also a database of people barred from owning a weapon.

2) Mandatory weapons safety/use training before being granted a gun permit. 

3) I don't understand why AR-15's are legal to own nor really believe they should be. (I know that's going to be a popular take on here).

 

[TitanTiger 20,472]

15 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

#1, When I put together my AR15 I had to have a background check to purchase the lower receiver here in NC.  That was 6 years ago, so things might have changed.  With Biden’s proposal law enforcement have the same ability to trace these firearms used in a crime.  I was unaware that law enforcement couldn’t trace these firearms.  Wouldn’t law enforcement confiscate a gun that was used in a crime (or suspected) and run a ballistic test?  

I think right now it largely depends on various state laws.

And while they certainly would confiscate the gun, being able to trace it can help in solving crimes where the don't apprehend the perp at the scene.

 

15 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Joe has also stated he would fight to end the gun manufactures immunity from prosecution in gun crimes.  So, how would this effect the *manufacturer* of these weapons?  Would the manufacturer be the assembler or the kit manufacturer?  🤔. I think I would not be for a bill that has that big of a question unless it was answered by Joe.  

I'm not sure about this one.

 

15 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

#2, The *stabilizer* was designed for a disabled vet to steady this hand so he could fire a pistol.  The law of unintended consequences rises it’s ugly head again.  I am a hard NO on this one as it just seems like a feel good virtue signal like the bump stock was after the LAS shooting.

But again, the proposal wouldn't make stabilizers like this illegal or unobtainable.  It would simply mean that if you purchase one you are subject to the same regulations you would be if you were purchasing a short-barreled rifle.  So, background check, registration of the weapon basically.

 

15 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

#3, The *red flag* law is interesting as it could have stopped the Boulder shooting if the family members would have said something.  Industries have had *if you see something, say something* policies for a long time and still find it difficult for employees to say something.  It would be a cultural change that may not happen unless there would be some kind of penalty for knowing and not coming forward.  Hard to prove.

It also would be easy to abuse and puts a lot of pressure on law enforcement to get it right.  We will have to see how this law is written.

Agreed.

 

15 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

#5, Throwing money at the problem feels good, but does little to cure it.  

See I don't see it as "throwing money" at the problem.  I see it as identifying programs and initiatives that are already working in various places and giving more support to them.

 

15 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

#6,  No, the man is pro gun confiscation.  He recently deleted 1000 of his tweet history, I wonder why.

ETA:  There will be more Gun Sanctuary states in the near future.

I haven't see where he's expressed views like that.  Do you have a link to something about it?

[TitanTiger 20,472]

1 hour ago, CoffeeTiger said:

They aren't bad, but are mostly useless when talking about how to solve rampant gun deaths. They are just token orders to make it look like action is being taken. Real, impactful action will have to come from congress.

To me for the most part, it's just common sense, low-hanging fruit type stuff.  You're right that it hits at the limits of what can be done through executive order, but I don't think that makes it meaningless.

[aubaseball 2,592]

"What I support is treating them just like machine guns. To me, if you want tohave a weapon of war, the same gun that was issued to me as a member of [the] ATF SWAT team, it makes sense that you would have to pass a background check, the gun would have to be in your name, and there would bea picture and fingerprints on file.  To me, I don't mind doing it if I want to buy a gun. These [current] policies just protect the criminal. Like, I don't think you should be able to anonymously purchase 20 AR-15s at one time, and the government shouldn't know. I don't think it's unreasonable at all that you have to pass a background check to own a weapon of war." 

this statement is flat out false.   Weapons that the federal government carry are capable of fully automatic weapons and semi-automatic firing.   An AR 15 bought by you or I are only semi-automatic unless someone illegally makes changes.    I don’t trust a guy that was employed by the Agency that’s responsible for firearms and makes misleading statements like this.  

[McLoofus 35,182]

3 hours ago, CoffeeTiger said:

1) National database where all weapons/owners have the be registered and also a database of people barred from owning a weapon.

2) Mandatory weapons safety/use training before being granted a gun permit. 

3) I don't understand why AR-15's are legal to own nor really believe they should be. (I know that's going to be a popular take on here).

 

1 hour ago, TitanTiger said:

To me for the most part, it's just common sense, low-hanging fruit type stuff.  You're right that it hits at the limits of what can be done through executive order, but I don't think that makes it meaningless.

All steps forward that I can get behind.

Take the community initiatives. I think that's where you could see a lot of success with buy-back programs. I mean, yeah, the "bad" guns are already on the streets. So we should at least *try* to get them off the streets. Just a thought.

The real fixes will be cultural in nature. I think Biden is already doing the most important thing which is investing in the well being of underprivileged children. One real fix is to have more kids who grow into adults who don't want or need guns for bad reasons in the first place. Another real fix is, yes, destigmatizing the treatment of mental health issues. 

But it's not an either or thing. It's ludicrous that these weapons are so easily obtained and unregulated and it's clearly not the spirit of 2A. Measures of this nature are needed in addition to the hearts and minds stuff. 

Good thread, Titan. 

[I_M4_AU 7,793]

2 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

But again, the proposal wouldn't make stabilizers like this illegal or unobtainable.  It would simply mean that if you purchase one you are subject to the same regulations you would be if you were purchasing a short-barreled rifle.  So, background check, registration of the weapon basically.

Those regulations include a $200 tax stamp to use the stabilizer if it is categorized as a SBR.  That would instantly put the onus on current owners of these stabilizers to make a decision as to pay the $200, give up the stabilizer (how would they trace that?) or go against the law.  It seems like another hit to the law abiding to stop the criminal who would work around the problem if they were not available.

 

2 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

Do you have a link to something about it?

Listen to this guy in a recent interview, he doesn’t trust the average American.  He talks down to the new gun owner and seems to have no respect for Americans owning guns.

https://cheddar.com/media/as-firearm-sales-spike-giffords-advocate-says-lock-those-guns-away

And to the Sanctuary State:

 

 

[ShocksMyBrain 9,362]

I do think safety/knowledge classes should be a requirement to own a firearm. I had to take an 8 hour class for my concealed carry permit...which the Governor of Tennessee just lifted. Any resident of the state of Tennessee will be able to carry open or concealed without permit. This is an incredibly stupid decision because you’re going to have a bunch of people (“good guys” or bad) walking around with a weapon they have no idea how to use or when it’s legal to use it. Unbelievable. 
 

The amount of legal information I received in that class was easily worth the price of admission. 
 

Also, you can walk into an Academy and walk out with a gun in about 30 minutes including the background check. 
 

(I am also fine with all the above regulations)

[TitanTiger 20,472]

This Wall St. Journal article has a good breakdown, as well as some info on other possible gun control measures that Congress might debate.

Inside President Biden’s New Gun-Control Actions

The White House is seeking ways to act without Congress, after gun legislation for years has been tied up in partisan and ideological fights

President Biden has introduced a series of measures aimed at curbing gun violence, including efforts to crack down on untraceable weapons known as ghost guns and on arm braces that critics say allow AR-style pistols to function like rifles.

Gun legislation for years has been tied up in partisan and ideological fights, so the White House is seeking ways to act without Congress. Some Republicans and the National Rifle Association were critical of Mr. Biden’s moves.

Here is a look at what the president has proposed and what other gun-control measures are being debated in Washington.

What will Mr. Biden’s executive actions on gun control look like?

Mr. Biden directed the Justice Department to issue a proposed rule aimed at stopping the proliferation of homemade ghost guns, which have grown in popularity in recent years. They can’t be traced in criminal investigations because they lack serial numbers. Law-enforcement officials say they appeal to criminals because all the parts can be purchased online and assembled without a background check. Gun-rights advocates say that such concerns are overblown and that homemade firearms are largely owned by hobbyists.

Mr. Biden said he wanted to see ghost-gun kits treated as firearms so that manufacturers would have to make key parts with serial numbers and buyers would have to undergo background checks.

Officials with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives met with gun manufacturers last month to discuss a possible expansion of the definition of what counts as a firearm to account for ghost guns, people who participated in the meeting said.

The president also asked the Justice Department to propose a new rule that would restrict arm braces that are often used with AR-15-style pistols—smaller versions of AR-15-style rifles. The braces are designed to stabilize these pistols while firing. They can also be used like shoulder stocks, effectively transforming the guns into short-barreled rifles, Attorney General Merrick Garland said.

---

The federal government heavily restricted short-barreled rifles in 1934, when gangsters and bank robbers would conceal them under their coats. Owners must register them with the federal government and pay a tax. The new rule will clarify that when a brace effectively turns a pistol into a short-barreled rifle it will be subject to those same regulations, Mr. Garland said.

A gunman who killed 10 people in Boulder, Colo., last month and the gunman in a 2019 Dayton, Ohio, attack that left nine people dead both used AR-15-style pistols with arm braces.

The Justice Department also plans to issue a report on firearms trafficking, make $1 billion in grants available to community violence intervention programs and create model legislation for states that want to adopt so-called red-flag laws, which can be used to remove guns from people deemed by a court as dangerous to themselves or others.

What else is Mr. Biden doing on guns?

Mr. Biden plans to nominate David Chipman, a top policy adviser to the gun-control organization Giffords, to head the ATF. Mr. Chipman spent 25 years as an ATF agent and oversaw the bureau’s firearms programs, among other roles. His nomination will likely attract criticism from some Republicans given his support for tougher gun-control measures. Only one ATF director, President Barack Obama’s nominee B. Todd Jones, has been confirmed in the past 15 years. But Mr. Chipman only needs to secure the support of 50 senators, with Vice President Kamala Harris able to cast a tiebreaking vote.

Mr. Biden also called for Congress to pass more sweeping gun laws, including to expand background checks for people seeking to buy guns, to ban semiautomatic weapons with high-capacity magazines like AR-15-style rifles, and to eliminate gun makers’ immunity from liability claims over gun violence.

What do gun-rights supporters say about his proposals?

The National Rifle Association has already opposed some of the actions Mr. Biden proposed on Thursday, including regulations on ghost guns and arm braces. Spokeswoman Amy Hunter said the president “has made clear his sights are set on restricting the rights of law-abiding gun owners while ignoring criminals and foregoing substantive measures that will actually keep Americans safe.”

Some congressional Republicans also objected to the administration taking steps to restrict certain guns, saying the president shouldn’t sidestep Congress.

What other restrictions do gun-control supporters want?

Gun-control advocates and Democratic lawmakers had been urging Mr. Biden to take action on ghost guns and to increase funding for anti-violence efforts. Groups such as Everytown for Gun Safety have also been pushing Congress to pass new gun laws, with much of that effort focused on a bill that would expand background checks to nearly all gun sales. Currently, the checks are needed only for sales by federally licensed dealers, though some states have additional requirements.

That legislation has passed the House, but it has yet to secure the 60 votes needed to advance in the Senate, where negotiations are continuing. Mr. Biden has also called to reinstate the 1994 federal assault weapons ban. That has been a lower priority for many gun-control groups recently because previous efforts to renew the ban haven’t come close to passing. Expanding background checks, on the other hand, has gotten support from some Republicans in the past, and some GOP senators this year have said they are open to discussion on the issue.

What, if anything, could get bipartisan support?

Any push for new gun laws faces a challenge in Congress, but there have been small areas of agreement. Both Republicans and Democrats have backed a measure that would provide a tax incentive to retailers each time they sell a device meant to securely store a firearm, such as a gun safe or lock.

Democrats and some Republicans also support red-flag laws, which allow courts to temporarily remove guns from people deemed dangerous through extreme-risk protection orders. However, some Republicans, and the National Rifle Association, have expressed concern about due-process protections for individuals whose access to guns could be blocked.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/inside-president-bidens-new-gun-control-actions-11617911343

[CoffeeTiger 5,099]

Just now being reported that there are multiple victims  in a Knoxville High School shooting.

Now that Covid 19 is easing up America’s ‘well regulated militia’ is getting feisty again. 

[TexasTiger 12,829]

On 4/9/2021 at 4:45 PM, I_M4_AU said:

Those regulations include a $200 tax stamp to use the stabilizer if it is categorized as a SBR.  That would instantly put the onus on current owners of these stabilizers to make a decision as to pay the $200, give up the stabilizer (how would they trace that?) or go against the law.  It seems like another hit to the law abiding to stop the criminal who would work around the problem if they were not available.

 

Listen to this guy in a recent interview, he doesn’t trust the average American.  He talks down to the new gun owner and seems to have no respect for Americans owning guns.

https://cheddar.com/media/as-firearm-sales-spike-giffords-advocate-says-lock-those-guns-away

And to the Sanctuary State:

 

 

Texas is a sanctuary state for lame politicians.

[aubiefifty 16,755]

in alabama as far back as the seventies i have a friend who bought a real thompson sub machine gun.he paid huge money for that privilege. he also had a special license that had to clipped on him where everyone could see it. for some reason he had to carry it in a case on the backseat and the best i remember he could not carry it in the trunk for some reason. i do believe he could fire full auto as well so that probably made a huge difference from some of the rules and laws they have now.

[I_M4_AU 7,793]

18 hours ago, CoffeeTiger said:

Just now being reported that there are multiple victims  in a Knoxville High School shooting.

Now that Covid 19 is easing up America’s ‘well regulated militia’ is getting feisty again. 

Any more details on this?  It seems really quiet for a school shooting.

[CoffeeTiger 5,099]

1 hour ago, I_M4_AU said:

Any more details on this?  It seems really quiet for a school shooting.

Apparently a teen student was holed up in a school bathroom with a gun, police entered the bathroom and the student shot one of the cops in the hip and police returned fire and killed him. 

That's pretty much all they've released as of now. 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

I do not have an immediate response to any of the regulations that contrasts substantially from the OP, but I am hesitant to conclude that any of the six (with a possible exception to no. 5) would meaningfully "stem gun violence in this country," particularly in cities most saturated with gun violence on a daily basis.  

[autigeremt 6,598]

It's a human problem.....people, being evil or sick for thousands of years....will do horrible things. Most of us won't, but a small % of people will. 

 

Improve overall morale, promote a "family" atmosphere and stop using politics to divide a nation and you might see some things turn around. It will take time, and people willing to work together for a common goal. Until then.............

[The Freak 2,526]

If anyone pays attention to my posts, I'm obviously pro-gun.  I rarely buy/sell/shoot/carry/tinker/etc. but still want to maintain my right to do so when I get the fancy.  I am pro having these kinds of discussions, though because there has to be something that can be done to stem this issue.  Not sure focusing on legislation is the best way.  Also, I am and always will be skeptical of politicians driving the legislation - especially from the left who generally know dick all about guns.

Ghost guns

I like the new scary name added to these home built guns.  It has always been legal to make/build your own gun, the caveat is you can't ever sell it or transfer ownership.  So, these businesses make the part considered a firearm to 80 - 90% complete.  It is then finished by the end purchaser and as previously stated can never be sold or transferred.  That's hard to police, but has not really been an issue until recently.  I would like to see actual stats on these used in crimes or some discover of criminals making mini ghost factories.  Heck, they can just get complete guns already easy enough - why would they be motivated to add work?  They would also be leaving a trail if they order 100 kits from one of these companies.  So, I see the concern but to my knowledge, zero of the mass shootings involved a ghost gun and I highly doubt this will effect the change we all want.

 

Regulations on stabilizing braces for pistols

The shooter in Colorado reportedly had an AR style pistol with a brace, which is basically like having an AR with a shorter barrel and an arm brace instead of a stock.  I say po-tay-to / po-tah-to.  Either weapon would be basically interchangeable in the Colorado shooting.  I don't see a benefit here as you can buy either one fairly easily, so the brace doesn't add some layer of lethality beyond a standard AR that say the bump stock would.  Not seeing an actual benefit, I will say I'm against it based on my general dislike for regulations on items that are not actually firearms (like silencers).

"Red flag" laws
 

Quote

 

Titan said:

On the fence but could be persuaded.  I'm loathe to take away a person's civil rights under the 2nd Amendment when they haven't done anything wrong.  At the same time, if we're going to talk about how mental illness plays into mass shootings so much, we have to have means to pre-empt these shootings when warning signs are present.  The bar for removing someone's firearms should be fairly high and plenty of due process involved before it happens.  And the investigation into whether the concerns are credible should happen quickly and not delay or keep someone in limbo indefinitely.  I'd also have some provisions for stiff penalties if false 'red flag' accusations are presented.

 

Basically agree with Titan.  For the most part, the guns would need to be removed after the due process.  Any immediate removals would really need to have some very structured criteria with penalties involved in not meeting that criteria.
 

Annual Firearm Trafficking Report

No concerns here.  Would really help me understand the facts on ghost guns as well as the loopholes and the insistence from some folks that Chicago residents waltz in and buy all their guns from the Kmart right across the state line in Indiana.

 

Increased funding for community-based violence prevention programs

I'm in favor of this and the exploration into the mental health side of the equation. 

 

Nominating David Chipman to be the Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms

I don't know anything about this guy.  That doesn't matter though.  There is a guy named Michael Knight that works at the ATF.  Why in the holy hell is he not hired right now on the friggen spot!?

 

Biggest fix for this and many other issues in this country is solid parenting.  Least likely though, cause it's hard and the government will happily do it for you.

[The Freak 2,526]

A thumbs down from @icanthearyou is like the point of my post:

 

[AUGunsmith 666]

Gun engineer, free market anarchist here. 

 

1) ******* stupid. Its 2021, making a functional firearm is as simple as a 3d printer and downloading code. Code is free speech. If 80% lowers and frames are bad, then a 79% will be legal and just as easy. These numbers are all arbitrary and unless you say you must do every single bit yourself, then there is no stopping this. The market provides and the market, both legal and otherwise want firearms without state interference. 

 

2) yes the brace is being shoulders and used other than intended. However, using a product wrong isn't illegal. Hell the entire NFA is based on bad, feel good policy and the SCOTUS ruling upholding it has had all of its core arguments invalidated. 

3) want to get cops shot at for no reason beyond the state not minding its own business? This is how you do it. These laws have already been abused in every state. 

 

4) waste of money. Policy will always be partisan with trend toward further subjugation. 

 

5) pointless. Want to stop poor mostly black people from killing each other? End failed state policies which target the poor and black neighborhoods. End the drug war, end the economic incentive for drug crime and stop regulating the s*** out of everything so these people can go out and get a job. 

 

6) if you support the waco child murdering scum that is Chipman, it explains a lot abiut how ****** up of a human you are. 

[AUGunsmith 666]

Also to clarify for many of you, you 100% can sell a home built gun. You just cannot build with the intention to sell. 

[CoffeeTiger 5,099]

https://apnews.com/article/fedex-indianapolis-mass-shooting-e92ad3117c56357b3b2c71a2903e68a8

8 killed multiple injuries in another mass shooting at a Fed Ex facility as America's well regulated militia took a detour to Indy yesterday. 

 

 

[TexasTiger 12,829]

On 4/14/2021 at 7:59 PM, AUGunsmith said:

Gun engineer, free market anarchist here. 

 

1) ******* stupid. Its 2021, making a functional firearm is as simple as a 3d printer and downloading code. Code is free speech. If 80% lowers and frames are bad, then a 79% will be legal and just as easy. These numbers are all arbitrary and unless you say you must do every single bit yourself, then there is no stopping this. The market provides and the market, both legal and otherwise want firearms without state interference. 

 

2) yes the brace is being shoulders and used other than intended. However, using a product wrong isn't illegal. Hell the entire NFA is based on bad, feel good policy and the SCOTUS ruling upholding it has had all of its core arguments invalidated. 

3) want to get cops shot at for no reason beyond the state not minding its own business? This is how you do it. These laws have already been abused in every state. 

 

4) waste of money. Policy will always be partisan with trend toward further subjugation. 

 

5) pointless. Want to stop poor mostly black people from killing each other? End failed state policies which target the poor and black neighborhoods. End the drug war, end the economic incentive for drug crime and stop regulating the s*** out of everything so these people can go out and get a job. 

 

6) if you support the waco child murdering scum that is Chipman, it explains a lot abiut how ****** up of a human you are. 

Have any examples of anarchical societies that worked well?