Is it time for a serious conversation about Gun Control?

[stoic-one 1,543]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

I understand that.  The precise definition of the type of gun proposed for regulation/banning has to be inclusive of all of the guns that possess those characteristics.  I would think a master list of every qualified model - existent and future - would be possible.

The basic point I propose is that such a thing as "regulating" assault rifles is possible.  Yes, as always, the devil is in the details, but it's not an impossible proposition.   It's not unprecedented, even in this country.

Most certainly it is not impossible, nor unprecedented.  They are trying to do it in CA.

I am curious if people are familiar with just how many details are involved though. At the link I posted, 32 rifles, 8 pistols (yes pistols), 4 shotguns (yeah them too), the AK and AR series, a separate category for identifying "assault weapons", and a section for "large capacity magazines". This is but one applicable document. Then there is the actual citations of law, it's rather verbose but can be found online. In addition, CA also has a "roster" of firearms certified for sale in the state. Manufacturers submit new models as they are produced, so they can "request" they be added to the roster, which is amended annually. As of 2016 there are 307 pistols (210 duplicates), 182 revolvers (41 duplicates), 31 Derringers (11 duplicates), legal to sell in CA. Those numbers have been, and will continue to drop. Manufacturers are required to ask permission from the state to sell their product there. Seems reasonable, sure, why not. This is Merica.

So, following the CA model since it already exists, you have a template, such as it is. Did I mention the roster is amended annually? Recon why that is? Any minor change to a weapon (yes even different material for handgun grips) requires the weapon be re-certified. Because the roster is a living document, just like our Constitution... Like I said, Merica.

I haven't even addressed micro-stamping and the new ammunition requirements... Micro-stamping has basically made it impossible to add new guns to the roster because the technology literally doesn't exist. Thanks Kamala Harris

They're trying, it's for the chirren.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

2 hours ago, homersapien said:

Sorry but you will need to restate that.

As far as my main point, regarding that part of the amendment, define "Arms".   See my point?

And caselaw can be reversed - and often has been - in major cultural issues.   In principle, nothing about the extent of second amendment rights is immutable. 

SCOTUS precedent is rarely reversed. 

What tenth amendment issues might arise re a federal ban of assault rifles? Does the commerce clause even cover all guns? How about rights, as they pertain to gun laws, that have traditionally be left to the states? How many votes would a ban require and can such a number realistically be achieved? How would the ban be worded and what would it’s scope be? Would it affect private transactions?

I’d highly recommend familiarizing yourself with the Legislative Process before shouting “ban.” It would allow you to make more educated proposals. 

 

[homersapien 11,373]

2 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Would the buyback be mandatory (like Australia) or voluntary? What makes you believe the program would be effective against the slim percentage of psychos willing to shoot up crowds? Would the government pay fair market value or an excess fee? Would the tax apply to transfers of gun ownership between family members or just in public transactions? 

Also, how would the feds carry this out? They can’t commandeer the states at whim to carry out their regs.

Again, I envision a buy back program as voluntary for those who decide ownership under the new conditions is not worth it and don't want to break the law by keeping a weapon illegally. It's not a solution in itself.

I wouldn't expect a buy back program to be of interest to anyone willing to keep an illegal weapon, regardless of their intent to use it.  

The price paid is not really relevent to discussing the concept.  That's one of those "detail devils".

I would propose that all such regulated weapons be registered to the owner who is ultimately responsible for the legality of any subsequent transfer.

The state/federal issue is a valid point.  There are any number of what could be prohibitive reasons why such a policy wouldn't work, but the point of this discussion - at least IMO - is to brainstorm ways the status quo can be changed.  Any such gun control measure is hypothetical in that regard.

An excellent case can be made that it's practically impossible for us to change a gun culture which has evolved to the point where military weapons are mass merchandized to virtually anyone who needs to merely scrape up the modest amount of money required.  Again, it's the easy money to be made that drives gun regulations - or more accurately the lack thereof.  The second amendment is being used like the proverbial flag a war profiteer wraps himself in.  It's really about the money, not about protecting "freedom".   

[homersapien 11,373]

On 2/24/2018 at 2:38 PM, NolaAuTiger said:

1) SCOTUS precedent is rarely reversed. 

2)  What tenth amendment issues might arise re a federal ban of assault rifles?

3) Does the commerce clause even cover all guns? How about rights, as they pertain to gun laws, that have traditionally be left to the states

4) How many votes would a ban require and can such a number realistically be achieved?

5) How would the ban be worded and what would it’s scope be?

6) Would it affect private transactions?

7) I’d highly recommend familiarizing yourself with the Legislative Process before shouting “ban.” It would allow you to make more educated proposals. 

 

1) SCOTUS precedent has been overturned in the past.  Thank God.

2) Depends on the effectiveness of the opposition.  But it's not an insurmountable barrier.  After all, we have federal regulations on many things - including firearms - that supercede state authority.

3) I don't know.  You're the one who fancies themself a legal expert. You tell me.

4) I am not a political expert either.

5) Again, I am speaking conceptually.  I am not interested in taking on the (monumental) task of writing such legislation.  

6) Seems to me any effective regulation would apply to a specific qualified gun  regardless of the circumstances of the owner transfer.

7) And I recommend you turn the arrogance knob way back.  It's inappropriate and counter-productive, especially for someone as young as yourself. 

Regarding other's ideas seriously might allow you to expand your thinking (getting out of the box).  That can lead to creative breakthroughs.

[stoic-one 1,543]

6 minutes ago, homersapien said:

An excellent case can be made that it's practically impossible for us to change a gun culture which has evolved to the point where military weapons are mass merchandized to virtually anyone who needs to merely scrape up the modest amount of money required.  Again, it's the easy money to be made that drives gun regulations - or more accurately the lack thereof.  The second amendment is being used like the proverbial flag a war profiteer wraps himself in.  It's really about the money, not about protecting "freedom".   

Since I'm working off the presumption that words do in fact matter, I'd sure like you to show me evidence that an AR-15 has ever been used by our military in any battle. Not only has it never been used for such a purpose, the fact people regularly espouse it rather grates me. Is it similar in design? Most certainly, but it's still hyperbolic to make that statement.

As to your 2nd amendment comment. I'm not waving a flag, I'm waving a historical document you're going to have to amend to accomplish your desires if you choose to do it on the federal level. By all means get your ball rolling.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

20 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Again, I envision a buy back program as voluntary for those who decide ownership under the new conditions is not worth it and don't want to break the law by keeping a weapon illegally. It's not a solution in itself.

I wouldn't expect a buy back program to be of interest to anyone willing to keep an illegal weapon, regardless of their intent to use it.  

The price paid is not really relevent to discussing the concept.  That's one of those "detail devils".

I would propose that all such regulated weapons be registered to the owner who is ultimately responsible for the legality of any subsequent transfer.

The state/federal issue is a valid point.  There are any number of what could be prohibitive reasons why such a policy wouldn't work, but the point of this discussion - at least IMO - is to brainstorm ways the status quo can be changed.  Any such gun control measure is hypothetical in that regard.

An excellent case can be made that it's practically impossible for us to change a gun culture which has evolved to the point where military weapons are mass merchandized to virtually anyone who needs to merely scrape up the modest amount of money required.  Again, it's the easy money to be made that drives gun regulations - or more accurately the lack thereof.  The second amendment is being used like the proverbial flag a war profiteer wraps himself in.  It's really about the money, not about protecting "freedom".   

I think the price paid is very pertinent becuase the appropriated funds would be tax dollars I’m assuming. 

[homersapien 11,373]

2 hours ago, stoic-one said:

Most certainly it is not impossible, nor unprecedented.  They are trying to do it in CA.

I am curious if people are familiar with just how many details are involved though. At the link I posted, 32 rifles, 8 pistols (yes pistols), 4 shotguns (yeah them too), the AK and AR series, a separate category for identifying "assault weapons", and a section for "large capacity magazines". This is but one applicable document. Then there is the actual citations of law, it's rather verbose but can be found online. In addition, CA also has a "roster" of firearms certified for sale in the state. Manufacturers submit new models as they are produced, so they can "request" they be added to the roster, which is amended annually. As of 2016 there are 307 pistols (210 duplicates), 182 revolvers (41 duplicates), 31 Derringers (11 duplicates), legal to sell in CA. Those numbers have been, and will continue to drop. Manufacturers are required to ask permission from the state to sell their product there. Seems reasonable, sure, why not. This is Merica.

So, following the CA model since it already exists, you have a template, such as it is. Did I mention the roster is amended annually? Recon why that is? Any minor change to a weapon (yes even different material for handgun grips) requires the weapon be re-certified. Because the roster is a living document, just like our Constitution... Like I said, Merica.

I haven't even addressed micro-stamping and the new ammunition requirements... Micro-stamping has basically made it impossible to add new guns to the roster because the technology literally doesn't exist. Thanks Kamala Harris

They're trying, it's for the chirren.

Complexity does not necessarily define feasibility.  Our culture abounds with examples of the management - and regulation - of complex problems.   Air travel and nuclear power plants come to mind. 

I think we can handle the complexity of regulating firearms.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

6 minutes ago, homersapien said:

1) SCOTUS precedent has been overturned in the past.  Thank God.

2) Depends on the effectiveness of the opposition.  But it's not an insurmountable barrier.  After all, we have federal regulations on many things - including firearms - that supercede state authority.

3) I don't know.  You're the one who fancies themself a legal expert. You tell me.

4) I am not a political expert either.

5) Again, I am speaking conceptually.  I am not interested in taking on the (monumental) task of writing such legislation.  

6) Seems to me any effective regulation would apply to a specific qualified gun  regardless of the circumstances of the owner transfer.

7) And I recommend you turn the arrogance knob way back.  It's inappropriate and counter-productive, especially for someone as young as yourself. 

Regarding other's ideas seriously might allow you to expand your thinking (getting out of the box).  That can lead to creative breakthroughs.

On point 7... don’t act like you don’t constantly throw jabs also (especially when you and I engage). But then again, maybe you came to the light. In that case, I’ll only throw dirt when thrown at me.

[stoic-one 1,543]

1 minute ago, homersapien said:

Complexity does not necessarily define feasibility.  Our culture abounds with examples of the management - and regulation - of complex problems.   Air travel and nuclear power plants come to mind. 

I think we can handle the complexity of regulating firearms.

I think you're missing my point, and I do get what you're saying.

I am still of the opinion that to accomplish what you're stating will require an amendment to the constitution. Not simply regulation.

[homersapien 11,373]

5 minutes ago, stoic-one said:

Since I'm working off the presumption that words do in fact matter, I'd sure like you to show me evidence that an AR-15 has ever been used by our military in any battle. Not only has it never been used for such a purpose, the fact people regularly espouse it rather grates me. Is it similar in design? Most certainly, but it's still hyperbolic to make that statement.

As to your 2nd amendment comment. I'm not waving a flag, I'm waving a historical document you're going to have to amend to accomplish your desires if you choose to do it on the federal level. By all means get your ball rolling.

This is what makes gun discussions so tedious.  I can't just say "military rifles" - even when my intent should be obvious.  

An AR-15 has the same basic design elements and function as it's military counterpart - whatever it is.  Again, my intent is to make an argument in principle, not to litigate a specific proposal.

As for the amendment, it says what it says.  And IMO, there's plenty of room in interpretation for restricting defined classes of firearms, just as we already do.  But I have no issue with going through the amendment process if my opinion doesn't carry the day.

And to be honest, having sincere discussion on the matter is perhaps a way to "get the ball rolling".  Screaming and insulting each other doesn't seem to help.

[homersapien 11,373]

6 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

On point 7... don’t act like you don’t constantly throw jabs also (especially when you and I engage). But then again, maybe you came to the light. In that case, I’ll only throw dirt when thrown at me.

I do.  But that's no reason why I - or you - cannot change that.

Ironically, I use the same excuse as you do when I do it.

[stoic-one 1,543]

15 minutes ago, homersapien said:

This is what makes gun discussions so tedious.  I can't just say "military rifles" - even when my intent should be obvious.  

An AR-15 has the same basic design elements and function as it's military counterpart - whatever it is.  Again, my intent is to make an argument in principle, not to litigate a specific proposal.

Here's the thing though. The specific elements that make an AR-15 different from, say, an actual military grade M4, are already addressed by the 1934 NFA. What you're looking for is far more specific, and hardly generic. Take a look at page 70 of the document I linked above the "Assault Weapons Guide", and all the referenced statutes, if you have that kind of time. I've done it, trust me it will take you a while.

I'm not even sure you can get a consensus on what an actual assault weapon actually is, I'm sure you think you know, but by all means, you're free to try.

[homersapien 11,373]

On 2/24/2018 at 5:14 PM, stoic-one said:

Here's the thing though. The specific elements that make an AR-15 different from, say, an actual military grade M4, are already addressed by the 1934 NFA. What you're looking for is far more specific, and hardly generic. Take a look at page 70 of the document I linked above the "Assault Weapons Guide", and all the referenced statutes, if you have that kind of time. I've done it, trust me it will take you a while.

I'm not even sure you can get a consensus on what an actual assault weapon actually is, I'm sure you think you know, but by all means, you're free to try.

If you are referring to true auto capability, I have stated many times I consider that a moot point. 

It's high capacity, quick replaceable magazines that define the critical design element.  For example, is a M-14 an assault rifle?  Most would probably say no, but it would certainly qualify for the class of weapons I am referring to.

 

[stoic-one 1,543]

1 minute ago, homersapien said:

If you are referring to true auto capability, I have stated many times I consider that a moot point. 

It's high capacity, quick replaceable magazines that are the defining design element.

 

And yet that's the primary difference between an AR and an M4. I guess asking you to actually read the document was a bridge too far.

Your definition is so generic that it includes 90% of the handguns on the market, let alone rifles.

[homersapien 11,373]

On 2/24/2018 at 4:51 PM, NolaAuTiger said:

I think the price paid is very pertinent becuase the appropriated funds would be tax dollars I’m assuming. 

Well, considered in the context of what we already spend on the military funding foreign operations - presumably to 'protect our security' - I don't see cost as an big issue.

Look at it as a economic stimulus.  

[homersapien 11,373]

16 hours ago, stoic-one said:

1) And yet that's the primary difference between an AR and an M4.

2) I guess asking you to actually read the document was a bridge too far.

3) Your definition is so generic that it includes 90% of the handguns on the market, let alone rifles.

1) I agree. 

2) If I understand correctly, don't think the point you are trying to make is relevant, so if you have personally invested the time to read it, can you please summarize your point in a few sentences?  I cannot tell where you are going with this, but I am pretty sure it can be explained without me having to read what you yourself described as a cumbersome text.

3) Well that depends on the regulation, but I don't have a problem with restricting pistol magazines. 

Again, I am talking in principle, not making a specific proposal.

 

[DKW 86 7,423]

Background on NRA change over the years.

[DKW 86 7,423]

15 hours ago, stoic-one said:

And yet that's the primary difference between an AR and an M4. I guess asking you to actually read the document was a bridge too far.

Your definition is so generic that it includes 90% of the handguns on the market, let alone rifles.

This is the problem a lot on the Left dont want to talk about. When the "Assault Weapons Ban: was in place in the 90s, it included a hunting rifle Clinton used on a hunting trip. Many on the right want assurances that the definition wont be so broad again as to mistakenly identify simple hunting rifles as assault rifles. An AR has never been used by any military I know of. The kit that makes them fully auto is illegal in many many areas now. It isnt stopping anyone from getting the kit either it would seem.

[DKW 86 7,423]

Pat Robertson calling for Gun Control

 

[AUDub 11,148]

On 2/25/2018 at 5:24 PM, DKW 86 said:

Pat Robertson calling for Gun Control

 

I'll do you one better. Donald Trump calling for gun control. 

 

[AUDub 11,148]

 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

1 hour ago, AUDub said:

 

So apparently, per federal law, one must be at least 21 to buy a pistol - but only 18 to buy a rifle (like an AR-15). Which to me, seems outrageous. At minimum, take the easiest legislative route and re-classify ARs and the like as "pistols" for purposes of purchasing (while we're at it, let's change the voting age too). I've somewhat glossed over federal guns laws and it seems to me that common sense legislation wouldn't necessarily even require the enactment of sweeping law, but rather simple amendments to laws already in place. 

Also, can't forget the other "but-for" causes that play a role in these incidents as well - one being mental health. I wish republicans would immediately stop cutting funding. 

[Strychnine 1,802]

13 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

So apparently, per federal law, one must be at least 21 to buy a pistol - but only 18 to buy a rifle (like an AR-15). Which to me, seems outrageous. At minimum, take the easiest legislative route and re-classify ARs and the like as "pistols" for purposes of purchasing (while we're at it, let's change the voting age too). I've somewhat glossed over federal guns laws and it seems to me that common sense legislation wouldn't necessarily even require the enactment of sweeping law, but rather simple amendments to laws already in place. 

Also, can't forget the other "but-for" causes that play a role in these incidents as well - one being mental health. I wish republicans would immediately stop cutting funding. 

 

Some AR variants are already classified as handguns.  Short-barreled AR variants sold without a stock and with or without a stabilizing brace are sold as handguns.  They are a popular way of getting around the NFA process for registering a legal short-barreled rifle.  As for common sense legislation, the easiest and most obvious place to start is mandatory reporting of all relevant information to NICS.  There is no valid excuse for that database being incomplete in 2018.

Personally, I think a registration and licensing system like I proposed earlier is a win-win for everyone, and could be easily accomplished as an update to the NFA.  It makes law enforcement's job easier, as illegal possession becomes much easier to identify.  It makes gun dealers' and ATF's job easier, as there is less paperwork.  It introduces a more exhaustive background check requirement before one can obtain the license to purchase a Class 2 firearm (handguns and assault weapons), so the crowd that wants greater restrictions gets some concessions to them.  It streamlines the process for purchasing current NFA items, so it even appeases the crowd that have dealt with the NFA process more than once, and find it highly annoying.

I think it would be more effective than any ban I have ever seen proposed, but I think it would suffer from a lack of support on both sides.  The left would dislike the fact that it is not a ban, and they may or may not like the streamlining of the existing process that it proposes.  The right would dislike the fact that it includes licensing and registration, probably more so the registration.  The current climate might be the best time to attempt it though.

[McLoofus 35,182]

14 minutes ago, Strychnine said:

Some AR variants are already classified as handguns.  Short-barreled AR variants sold without a stock and with or without a stabilizing brace are sold as handguns.  They are a popular way of getting around the NFA process for registering a legal short-barreled rifle.  As for common sense legislation, the easiest and most obvious place to start is mandatory reporting of all relevant information to NICS.  There is no valid excuse for that database being incomplete in 2018.

Personally, I think a registration and licensing system like I proposed earlier is a win-win for everyone, and could be easily accomplished as an update to the NFA.  It makes law enforcement's job easier, as illegal possession becomes much easier to identify.  It makes gun dealers' and ATF's job easier, as there is less paperwork.  It introduces a more exhaustive background check requirement before one can obtain the license to purchase a Class 2 firearm (handguns and assault weapons), so the crowd that wants greater restrictions gets some concessions to them.  It streamlines the process for purchasing current NFA items, so it even appeases the crowd that have dealt with the NFA process more than once, and find it highly annoying.

I think it would be more effective than any ban I have ever seen proposed, but I think it would suffer from a lack of support on both sides.  The left would dislike the fact that it is not a ban, and they may or may not like the streamlining of the existing process that it proposes.  The right would dislike the fact that it includes licensing and registration, probably more so the registration.  The current climate might be the best time to attempt it though.

I doubt anyone cares, but for all my talk of bans, I never intend for one to be implemented at the expense of any other regulation such as what you are proposing that is sensible and productive. 

[aubearcat 2,137]

I haven’t read the last few pages to know if this has been posted but, here it is anyway. 

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2018/03/02/589921130/science-provides-few-facts-on-effects-of-gun-policies-report-finds