Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 02-19-2018, 05:10 PM
Squirrel Whisperer Squirrel Whisperer is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 6
Idea for compromise on gun restrictions

Hi all. I would like to get some feedback on this idea from people who are knowledgeable on firearms. My idea for a gun control compromise is this:

Place all semiautomatic firearms (long guns and handguns) greater than .22 LR in caliber, with detachable magazines, in a more restricted class of firearms. This would not be a ban. Rather, to obtain a firearm in this category, you would have to jump through some extra hoops. I envision it as similar to the process of obtaining a curio and relic (C&R) license, or maybe, building an SBR (short barrel rifle). You’d have to notify the local sheriff, get fingerprinted, pay $200. The specific details could be changed, obviously. Have the minimum age for ownership be 21. It would be a situation where the authorities would have to take a second look at you, but not an extreme burden.

This would avoid going down the rabbit hole of trying to ban specific models, cosmetic features, or magazine capacities.

Your old SKS rifle with a non-detachable magazine wouldn't be affected. Neither would the family heirloom M1 Garand. Revolvers would of course not be affected either.

A compromise would mean that both sides get something. What I would offer to those concerned with gun ownership rights being eroded:

End all import bans on guns from Russia, etc.
Nationwide concealed-carry reciprocity.
Open up the NFA registry to full-auto firearms made after 1986 (the other requirements would remain for full-auto).
Allow short barrel shotguns. Allow suppressors (silencers).

What do you think? This would not, of course, stop every rampage, and you could game the system, but I think it would be a significant improvement.
  #2  
Old 02-19-2018, 05:38 PM
Quartz Quartz is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Home of the haggis
Posts: 28,415
What's going to stop an authority just saying no every time?
  #3  
Old 02-19-2018, 06:04 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 9,316
Quote:
Originally Posted by Squirrel Whisperer View Post
... Neither would the family heirloom M1 Garand. ...
I'd probably be onboard with that trade (assuming we could get the ATF's processing time down to a reasonable time period), but this line (quoted above) seems wrong. Why would an M1 Garand not be in your new restricted class of firearms? It's semi-auto, >.22LR, and uses en bloc clips (in my eyes functionally the same as a detachable box magazine)? If your answer is that clips are different than magazines then, 1) good on you for knowing the difference, and 2) I see a revitalization of clip-loading firearms hitting the market shortly after this bill passes.
  #4  
Old 02-19-2018, 06:05 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 9,316
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quartz View Post
What's going to stop an authority just saying no every time?
Today they've got criteria for when to say 'no'. It's not an arbitrary judgement call by whatever ATF employee is reviewing your SBR license application. If the background check comes back without issue, and the check clears, you're basically good to go.
  #5  
Old 02-19-2018, 07:57 PM
rat avatar rat avatar is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Seattle, Wa
Posts: 3,672
Post Heller decision, this type of rule wouldn't pass muster because it would impact the "the inherent right of self-defense"

https://www.leagle.com/decision/infdco20100329000t

Quote:
Self-defense, however, remained the "central component" of the Amendment. Id. The Court determined that because "the inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right" and because the District's ban on handgun possession "extend[ed] . . . to the home, where the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute," that ban was invalid.
And it would have to be a far more narrow ban, because Machines guns, SBR's etc... are considered non-firearms under the law, but some categories like the SBR could probably fall under a well funded court case (unlikely to happen). But I would be willing to bet that the ATF hasn't increased the tax on NFA weapons in part to avoid scrutiny of the law.

Remember in Caetano v. Massachusetts SCOTUS decided that:

Quote:
Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding, and that this Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States.
So really I doubt that a NFA style change categorization would work, as there would need to be evidence that the firearms you are restricting are not good for self defense, which would fail with the "greater than .22 LR in caliber" claim above. Really any meaningful action will require a replacement for the 2nd amendment, or a modification to the 14th. These licences would need to be granted, and could only be denied through "Due Process". Without major changes, and due to current case law I think any law will be limited to cosmetic prohibitions like the AWB.

Last edited by rat avatar; 02-19-2018 at 07:58 PM.
  #6  
Old 02-20-2018, 12:28 AM
Flyer Flyer is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,946
Most people generally consider that nothing smaller than .38 Special is really effective for self-defense purposes.
  #7  
Old 02-20-2018, 09:33 AM
Horatius Horatius is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Ottawa, ON
Posts: 704
Quote:
Originally Posted by Squirrel Whisperer View Post
A compromise would mean that both sides get something.


Okay, I've seen this "compromise" point here a few times, always in the context of "Well, what do we gun owners get?"

Well, you get the same benefit that non-gun owners get: a reduction in the number of mass shootings, and other types of shootings, targeting innocent people.

It's telling that they never seem to think of that as being a benefit of their being asked to compromise.
__________________
Where am I going, and why am I in this handbasket?
  #8  
Old 02-20-2018, 10:22 AM
Leo Krupe Leo Krupe is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 685
Quote:
Originally Posted by Squirrel Whisperer View Post
you would have to jump through some extra hoops.
I see this as a major problem. I would imagine that the NRA would fight your proposal on these grounds alone, calling it extra and unnecessary regulations for what is arguably the right of all Americans.

I'm leaving my personal judgement on your suggestion out of it, I'm just saying what, in my opinion, would be the blowback against it.
  #9  
Old 02-20-2018, 11:15 AM
ElvisL1ves ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 46,503
Quote:
Originally Posted by Horatius View Post
Okay, I've seen this "compromise" point here a few times, always in the context of "Well, what do we gun owners get?"

Well, you get the same benefit that non-gun owners get: a reduction in the number of mass shootings, and other types of shootings, targeting innocent people.

It's telling that they never seem to think of that as being a benefit of their being asked to compromise.
It's also telling that they see any discussion as being automatically oppositional rather than collaborative. That can only be because there is no shared goal - the advocates of reasonable regulation want above all to keep people alive, while the NRA absolutists want above all to keep their weapons and acquire more as easily as they like. That's what matters most to them, as their own words and actions demonstrate, not human life itself. That's why any suggestion of a regulation is met with a demand for elimination of another, and that's why they call that "compromise" and "good faith".
  #10  
Old 02-20-2018, 11:42 AM
Crotalus Crotalus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Chillicothe, Ohio
Posts: 5,859
Not all gun owners, Elvis. I would accept quite a few restrictions for greater public safety.

The OP's restriction on semi-auto pistols bigger than .22 wouldn't impact the way I own and use guns (target shooting, concealed carry, home defense), but I would have to buy new guns. I'm not a revolver owner, and I prefer semi-autos, but I could adjust.

What would happen to the semi-autos I and millions of others own? These would become illegal weapons, right? I'm a law-abiding gun owner. I'm not going to jeopardize my right to own and carry legal guns by owning illegal guns. What does the OP envision happening to all of those semi-auto pistols and rifles?

I think Australia had several mass turn-ins, no buybacks.
  #11  
Old 02-20-2018, 11:56 AM
ElvisL1ves ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 46,503
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crotalus View Post
Not all gun owners, Elvis. I would accept quite a few restrictions for greater public safety.
Not all, no, just the loudest and most influential ones, who keep anything from being done while telling us that nothing can be done.

Quote:
What would happen to the semi-autos I and millions of others own?...I think Australia had several mass turn-ins, no buybacks.
No, it was a massive buyback program. Something of the sort would be needed here too, obviously.
  #12  
Old 02-20-2018, 12:16 PM
Batano Batano is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Posts: 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flyer View Post
Most people generally consider that nothing smaller than .38 Special is really effective for self-defense purposes.
Most people are moral and sane enough to not spend a lot of time thinking about what kind of gun they need to kill.another human being.

Last edited by Batano; 02-20-2018 at 12:16 PM.
  #13  
Old 02-20-2018, 03:04 PM
Ashtura Ashtura is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 775
Um, a .22 almost assassinated Reagan. And it's certainly going to give an intruder pause after a warning shot. Might not kill him, but you'd still be able to hear after you took the shot in close quarters at least.

Not that I'm dissing any type of handgun for home use, though I'd prefer one that isn't going to have a round that penetrates the entire house. I'd definitely use a shotgun for home use.
  #14  
Old 02-20-2018, 04:02 PM
Czarcasm Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 55,997
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flyer View Post
Most people generally consider that nothing smaller than .38 Special is really effective for self-defense purposes.
Most people have no experience whatsoever in using a gun for self-defense.
edited to add: In fact most people don't even know someone that has had to use a gun in self-defense.

Last edited by Czarcasm; 02-20-2018 at 04:03 PM.
  #15  
Old 02-20-2018, 04:26 PM
k9bfriender k9bfriender is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 8,023
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crotalus View Post
What would happen to the semi-autos I and millions of others own? These would become illegal weapons, right? I'm a law-abiding gun owner. I'm not going to jeopardize my right to own and carry legal guns by owning illegal guns. What does the OP envision happening to all of those semi-auto pistols and rifles?
I don't know about the OP, but as far as I am concerned, grandfathering works just fine.

If you can't buy another gun to replace it, you are less likely to sell it to someone who may use it in an inappropriate fashion. Even if it is stolen, the supply is cut off.
  #16  
Old 02-21-2018, 12:09 AM
rat avatar rat avatar is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Seattle, Wa
Posts: 3,672
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
Most people have no experience whatsoever in using a gun for self-defense.
edited to add: In fact most people don't even know someone that has had to use a gun in self-defense.
The point is that is a use case SCOTUS mentioned in Heller. The practical matter doesn't matter, it seriously limits what can be done without a constitutional amendment.
  #17  
Old 02-21-2018, 06:07 AM
Ruken Ruken is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: DC
Posts: 6,101
I don't need a compromise. I'm not at any meaningful risk of harm by gun violence. Nor are most people. So no need to "give" a side anything.
  #18  
Old 02-21-2018, 09:14 AM
Corry El Corry El is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 2,896
Quote:
Originally Posted by Horatius View Post
Okay, I've seen this "compromise" point here a few times, always in the context of "Well, what do we gun owners get?"

Well, you get the same benefit that non-gun owners get: a reduction in the number of mass shootings, and other types of shootings, targeting innocent people.

It's telling that they never seem to think of that as being a benefit of their being asked to compromise.
While Ruken said:
"I don't need a compromise. I'm not at any meaningful risk of harm by gun violence. Nor are most people. So no need to "give" a side anything."

I find Ruken's formulation more straight forward and less likely to gratuitously annoy the other side or third parties who don't consider themselves firmly on a side (I don't, though probably 'pro gun' by the standards of a quite left leaning forum, in general, like this).

Ruken just says, "I don't need to compromise with you and I won't". Sometimes that's the situation. Horatius' formulation is more in line for a 'taunting technical' IMO. "The benefit of my proposal as *I* see it should be benefit enough for you not to negotiate for any offset". As in the humorous accompanying thread (I sure hope it's supposed to be) 'I solved gun control'. As the post which should have ended that thread said, one could also 'solve' the abortion issue saying it will simply be illegal and all pregnant women will carry babies to term. The benefit in that of saving millions of (what *they* say are) lives should be enough for no one to oppose it or ask for any compromise.

Not that style points are necessarily so profound in a basically stalemated situation. And that's where US politics is nationally, stalemated at not much in the way of federal gun control compared to some states let alone other countries. I don't see any prospect of a sudden move. It's not like say redefining the traditional concept of marriage where there was a relatively sudden move. That issue is all about intangible beliefs. Tens of millions who have and can buy the guns they want for legitimate purposes* have a very tangible reason not to give up that right, or even have it cut back significantly.

*no reasonable person is debating, I hope, that that's why the vast majority of people who buy guns do so. The pro-gun controllers are just arguing that negative side effects of that right mean it would be best for society if it were curtailed, often pointing to states/countries where it has been and the world or even democracy hasn't ended. Nonetheless, too many in the US as a whole have a very tangible objection to reducing their gun rights used for legitimate and in their view necessary purposes. Slight pluralities in 'all adult' polls supporting the vague idea of 'more gun control' is thin gruel to set against that in real life politics.
  #19  
Old 02-21-2018, 10:41 AM
DrDeth DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 35,870
Quote:
Originally Posted by Horatius View Post
Okay, I've seen this "compromise" point here a few times, always in the context of "Well, what do we gun owners get?"

Well, you get the same benefit that non-gun owners get: a reduction in the number of mass shootings, and other types of shootings, targeting innocent people.

It's telling that they never seem to think of that as being a benefit of their being asked to compromise.
Except that there is no evidence at all we woudl get that. In America, there does not seem to be any correlation between strict gun control and lessened violent crime. In fact, one NEMJ cite used to show guns are more dangerous also concluded "However, there was no significant correlation (P = .10) between guns per capita per country and crime rate".

But let us say there is a reduction in mass shootings. The chance I, or any American will die in one of those is tiny. Assault weapons kill less than 200 Americans a year. No doubt, putting govenors on cars to keep speeds below 60MPH would significantly reduce the 40000 traffic deaths a year. Banning Prescription Opioids would greatly reduce the 15000 who die from Prescription Opioid abuse., Banning Cigs would reduce the 500000 Americans who die each year.
__________________
I am not a real Doctor
  #20  
Old 02-21-2018, 10:44 AM
k9bfriender k9bfriender is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 8,023
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corry El View Post
While Ruken said:
"I don't need a compromise. I'm not at any meaningful risk of harm by gun violence. Nor are most people. So no need to "give" a side anything."

I find Ruken's formulation more straight forward and less likely to gratuitously annoy the other side or third parties who don't consider themselves firmly on a side (I don't, though probably 'pro gun' by the standards of a quite left leaning forum, in general, like this).

Ruken just says, "I don't need to compromise with you and I won't". Sometimes that's the situation. Horatius' formulation is more in line for a 'taunting technical' IMO. "The benefit of my proposal as *I* see it should be benefit enough for you not to negotiate for any offset". As in the humorous accompanying thread (I sure hope it's supposed to be) 'I solved gun control'. As the post which should have ended that thread said, one could also 'solve' the abortion issue saying it will simply be illegal and all pregnant women will carry babies to term. The benefit in that of saving millions of (what *they* say are) lives should be enough for no one to oppose it or ask for any compromise.

Not that style points are necessarily so profound in a basically stalemated situation. And that's where US politics is nationally, stalemated at not much in the way of federal gun control compared to some states let alone other countries. I don't see any prospect of a sudden move. It's not like say redefining the traditional concept of marriage where there was a relatively sudden move. That issue is all about intangible beliefs. Tens of millions who have and can buy the guns they want for legitimate purposes* have a very tangible reason not to give up that right, or even have it cut back significantly.

*no reasonable person is debating, I hope, that that's why the vast majority of people who buy guns do so. The pro-gun controllers are just arguing that negative side effects of that right mean it would be best for society if it were curtailed, often pointing to states/countries where it has been and the world or even democracy hasn't ended. Nonetheless, too many in the US as a whole have a very tangible objection to reducing their gun rights used for legitimate and in their view necessary purposes. Slight pluralities in 'all adult' polls supporting the vague idea of 'more gun control' is thin gruel to set against that in real life politics.
Currents shift. What is a stalemate now can become fluid as the voting demographic changes.

The kids who are in school today that have to take part in an active shooter drill will be voting to get rid of guns, so that their kids don't have to go through the same thing that they did. The youth are not generally all that politically active, because they just don't see how those political change their lives any.

The previous time that the youth got organized and political was during vietnam, when our country was sending them off to die in the jungle halfway around the world. They refused to accept that, and voted accordingly.

Now, that we expect them to go to school while expecting at any time to be gunned down in their classrooms, they are not going to accept that, and they will vote accordingly.

If a compromise is not reached before these kids we are subjecting to having to imagine that there is a person, in their school, who wants to kill them, get enough votes behind them, then the gun advocacy side may not have much voice in negotiating. If nothing is done in the next 10-20 years, you are going to see an entire generation of single issue voters against guns, and the defense of 2A will wilt before them. They will not let their kids go through what we put them through. If they have to strike the second amendment to do that, that is exactly what they will do.

Once 2A is a footnote in history, what negotiating power do you think you will have left?
  #21  
Old 02-21-2018, 10:49 AM
k9bfriender k9bfriender is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 8,023
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Except that there is no evidence at all we woudl get that. In America, there does not seem to be any correlation between strict gun control and lessened violent crime. In fact, one NEMJ cite used to show guns are more dangerous also concluded "However, there was no significant correlation (P = .10) between guns per capita per country and crime rate".

But let us say there is a reduction in mass shootings. The chance I, or any American will die in one of those is tiny. Assault weapons kill less than 200 Americans a year. No doubt, putting govenors on cars to keep speeds below 60MPH would significantly reduce the 40000 traffic deaths a year. Banning Prescription Opioids would greatly reduce the 15000 who die from Prescription Opioid abuse., Banning Cigs would reduce the 500000 Americans who die each year.
But we don't do that. We don't ban, we place reasonable restrictions.

We don't put governors on cars, but we do pull you over if you are going too fast. Banning opioids would cause a great deal of harm, bu we are looking into ways of restricting their distribution in ways that may help, as well as having programs to help to get people off their addiction. We restrict cigs to adults, we restrict where you can smoke (you can take your gun more places than you can smoke these days), and we fund programs to reduce the number of smokers.

If in any of those cases, we find that as a matter of public safety, some regulations should be changed, we change them.

We put none of these types of restrictions on firearms, there are not reasonable discussions about what changes can be made to gun policies that would reduce their harm.
  #22  
Old 02-21-2018, 11:07 AM
DrDeth DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 35,870
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
But we don't do that. We don't ban, we place reasonable restrictions.

We don't put governors on cars, but we do pull you over if you are going too fast. Banning opioids would cause a great deal of harm, bu we are looking into ways of restricting their distribution in ways that may help, as well as having programs to help to get people off their addiction. We restrict cigs to adults, we restrict where you can smoke (you can take your gun more places than you can smoke these days), and we fund programs to reduce the number of smokers.

If in any of those cases, we find that as a matter of public safety, some regulations should be changed, we change them.

We put none of these types of restrictions on firearms, there are not reasonable discussions about what changes can be made to gun policies that would reduce their harm.
Well, we do try to reduce violent crime, do we not? As I said in another thread:"And indeed, we are trying to reduce murders and violence. Just not by putting law abiding citizen gun owners in prison for crimes their guns might possibly commit. Extra police, extra sentencing for gun use during the commission of a crime, better forensics to catch killers, and so forth."


We arrest you if you use a gun in a crime and add extra years to sentencing. We restrict various ages from buying various guns and we fund guy buy back and education programs.


But we DO put those types of restrictions on firearms: when you buy a new gun you register that firearm. There are restrictions, in various states, on magazine size, bump stocks, ownership of "assault weapons", waiting periods, age restrictions, and of course felons, wife beaters and certain mentally ill people can not own firearms at all.

And remember, there is no evidence at all that "assualt weapon bans", waiting periods, magazine restrictions, etc have ANY significant reduction in violent crime.
" "However, there was no significant correlation (P = .10) between guns per capita per country and crime rate".
__________________
I am not a real Doctor
  #23  
Old 02-21-2018, 12:00 PM
k9bfriender k9bfriender is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 8,023
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Well, we do try to reduce violent crime, do we not? As I said in another thread:"And indeed, we are trying to reduce murders and violence. Just not by putting law abiding citizen gun owners in prison for crimes their guns might possibly commit. Extra police, extra sentencing for gun use during the commission of a crime, better forensics to catch killers, and so forth."


We arrest you if you use a gun in a crime and add extra years to sentencing. We restrict various ages from buying various guns and we fund guy buy back and education programs.
I don't know that we do all that much to reduce violent crime. Our justice system is a mess as is, and just increasing penalties for committing crimes doesn't make them stop. You have to address the roots of the crime, not just threaten punishment.
Quote:


But we DO put those types of restrictions on firearms: when you buy a new gun you register that firearm. There are restrictions, in various states, on magazine size, bump stocks, ownership of "assault weapons", waiting periods, age restrictions, and of course felons, wife beaters and certain mentally ill people can not own firearms at all.
I do not need to register a gun if I buy it from my friend, and he can tell anyone that is interested that he thinks he lost it in a boating accident. There are no federal restrictions to most of that, and the state restrictions are constantly being challenged as being too restrictive. I would be very onboard with states and cities being allowed to have their own gun laws, but they are not allowed to. You say that domestic abuse and mental illness disqualifies one from owning guns, but if they don't actually come take them, they don't actually put your name into the database, then that does no good.

Universally, the only things that you list calls out is felons.
Quote:


And remember, there is no evidence at all that "assualt weapon bans", waiting periods, magazine restrictions, etc have ANY significant reduction in violent crime.
" "However, there was no significant correlation (P = .10) between guns per capita per country and crime rate".
That's crime rate. Not violent crime rate, and certainly not gun violence rate. There is much evidence that gun restrictions have a very significant reduction in gun violence.

Last edited by k9bfriender; 02-21-2018 at 12:02 PM.
  #24  
Old 02-21-2018, 01:30 PM
puddleglum puddleglum is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: a van down by the river
Posts: 5,768
Quote:
Originally Posted by Horatius View Post
Okay, I've seen this "compromise" point here a few times, always in the context of "Well, what do we gun owners get?"

Well, you get the same benefit that non-gun owners get: a reduction in the number of mass shootings, and other types of shootings, targeting innocent people.

It's telling that they never seem to think of that as being a benefit of their being asked to compromise.
This is question begging. Since we don't know the future we don't know that gun control with mean a reduction in the number of mass shootings and other shootings. There is a possibility of that if your model of how the world works is correct. On the other hand if gun control is passed we know that gun owners will be impacted. So the trade off is not guns versus few shootings, it is the certainty of fewer gun rights versus the possibility of fewer shootings.
  #25  
Old 02-21-2018, 01:51 PM
Silver lining Silver lining is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 490
I'd like to see a law that says if you threaten ANYONE on social media with guns you get yours taken away.
  #26  
Old 02-21-2018, 02:03 PM
ElvisL1ves ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 46,503
Would that include posting vague warnings about popular insurrections if the Gun Grabbers come for yours? Extra credit for adding "Molon labe" in your signature.
  #27  
Old 02-21-2018, 02:09 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 9,316
Quote:
Originally Posted by Silver lining View Post
I'd like to see a law that says if you threaten ANYONE on social media with guns you get yours taken away.
And you'd get away with it too, if it weren't for that meddlesome First Amendment.

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; 02-21-2018 at 02:09 PM.
  #28  
Old 02-21-2018, 02:15 PM
Airbeck Airbeck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Chicago - South Side
Posts: 2,213
Are death threats protected speech?
__________________
"Sometimes I think that the surest sign of intelligent life in the Universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." - Calvin and Hobbes
  #29  
Old 02-21-2018, 02:17 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 9,316
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airbeck View Post
Are death threats protected speech?
There's a lot of gray area and legalese wrapped up in that answer, but the short version is 'yes, at least in many cases'.

https://www.aclu.org/blog/free-speec...cyber-bullying

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; 02-21-2018 at 02:19 PM.
  #30  
Old 02-21-2018, 02:30 PM
k9bfriender k9bfriender is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 8,023
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
There's a lot of gray area and legalese wrapped up in that answer, but the short version is 'yes, at least in many cases'.

https://www.aclu.org/blog/free-speec...cyber-bullying
Anything that the florida shooter said on social media that should have had his gun rights put in question?

What about the kid in washington, who was making plans, and was foiled by his grandmother reading his journal?

Had a kid locally who posted to snapchat the day after the florida shooting, "17 people. I can do better."

I'm pretty sure I've linked both of those, probably in this thread. Ask if you want links.

Here's one I haven't linked to in quite some time.

A little while back, a student threatened to "hire hitmen" to kill the kids bullying him.

Quote:
The boy appeared before a magistrate in Butler County Juvenile Court, who ordered that he remain housed in the county juvenile detention center until his next court appearance ...

The police immediately investigated the suspected student. At this time, we can assure you there is no threat to the safety of East students. The student responsible for the video is facing charges from the Butler County Sheriff’s department
All of these kids have action taken against them for "death threats", more than just having their access to guns taken away.
  #31  
Old 02-21-2018, 02:43 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 9,316
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
Anything that the florida shooter said on social media that should have had his gun rights put in question?

What about the kid in washington, who was making plans, and was foiled by his grandmother reading his journal?

Had a kid locally who posted to snapchat the day after the florida shooting, "17 people. I can do better."

I'm pretty sure I've linked both of those, probably in this thread. Ask if you want links.

Here's one I haven't linked to in quite some time.

A little while back, a student threatened to "hire hitmen" to kill the kids bullying him.



All of these kids have action taken against them for "death threats", more than just having their access to guns taken away.
Like I said, grey area and legalese. Here is some information on a recent SCOTUS decision on the matter of death threats via social media:

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/30/m...ee-speech.html

https://www.heritage.org/the-constit...ent-protection

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elonis_v._United_States

The result: an 8-1 victory for the guy posting death threats on Facebook.
  #32  
Old 02-21-2018, 03:19 PM
Squirrel Whisperer Squirrel Whisperer is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 6
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quartz View Post
What's going to stop an authority just saying no every time?
Hi. I'm aware that a similar argument is used against mandatory training requirements. A sufficiently anti-gun county sheriff or other local government could use this in "bad faith" as they do in restrictive may-issue localities.

I don't currently have a response to this other than to perhaps build in some sort of appeals process.
  #33  
Old 02-21-2018, 03:19 PM
k9bfriender k9bfriender is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 8,023
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Like I said, grey area and legalese. Here is some information on a recent SCOTUS decision on the matter of death threats via social media:

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/30/m...ee-speech.html

https://www.heritage.org/the-constit...ent-protection

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elonis_v._United_States

The result: an 8-1 victory for the guy posting death threats on Facebook.
And to be honest, especially for that case, which he successfully claimed were not real threats, but just a parody of threats, I don't know that jail is the appropriate way to deal with that sort of thing. But, I would say that he has demonstrated more then enough intent that he should have his access to guns restricted. That is something that the 2A'ers won't let happen.

Is there anything that a person can do, short of actual criminal action, that you would find acceptable to take a look at whether or not he should have as easy access to guns as you and I do?


ETA: Specifically to the recent school shooting, do you think that law enforcement should have been able to restrict his access to guns?

Last edited by k9bfriender; 02-21-2018 at 03:20 PM.
  #34  
Old 02-21-2018, 03:27 PM
Squirrel Whisperer Squirrel Whisperer is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 6
Gun compromise

Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I'd probably be onboard with that trade (assuming we could get the ATF's processing time down to a reasonable time period), but this line (quoted above) seems wrong. Why would an M1 Garand not be in your new restricted class of firearms? It's semi-auto, >.22LR, and uses en bloc clips (in my eyes functionally the same as a detachable box magazine)? If your answer is that clips are different than magazines then, 1) good on you for knowing the difference, and 2) I see a revitalization of clip-loading firearms hitting the market shortly after this bill passes.
Ok, I would revise my original post and say "detachable box magazine". Also, disregard my "heirloom" wording. I would just grandfather-in all currently owned semi-autos and allow transfers to family members.
  #35  
Old 02-21-2018, 03:32 PM
Squirrel Whisperer Squirrel Whisperer is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 6
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I'd probably be onboard with that trade (assuming we could get the ATF's processing time down to a reasonable time period), but this line (quoted above) seems wrong. Why would an M1 Garand not be in your new restricted class of firearms? It's semi-auto, >.22LR, and uses en bloc clips (in my eyes functionally the same as a detachable box magazine)? If your answer is that clips are different than magazines then, 1) good on you for knowing the difference, and 2) I see a revitalization of clip-loading firearms hitting the market shortly after this bill passes.
Forgot to add something. A stripper clip works well with a 10-round capacity. But would it even work with, say, 30 rounds?
  #36  
Old 02-21-2018, 03:35 PM
Ruken Ruken is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: DC
Posts: 6,101
If I'm understanding the terminology correctly, I searched for
30 round stripper clip
in Google and got some results that indicates yes. But we may want someone with more knowledge of this topic to chime in.
  #37  
Old 02-21-2018, 04:34 PM
GaryM GaryM is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: St. Louis, MO 50mi. West
Posts: 4,693
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruken View Post
If I'm understanding the terminology correctly, I searched for
30 round stripper clip
in Google and got some results that indicates yes. But we may want someone with more knowledge of this topic to chime in.
Evil black rifles in California are restricted if the have easily detached magazines. A company makes a device that reloads 30 rounds through the ejection port about as fast as most folks can swap magazines. Probably faster than some others can do so.

https://www.meanarms.com/products/de...oader-for-ar15

GaryM
__________________
GaryM

Last edited by GaryM; 02-21-2018 at 04:35 PM.
  #38  
Old 02-21-2018, 04:37 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 9,316
Quote:
Originally Posted by Squirrel Whisperer View Post
Forgot to add something. A stripper clip works well with a 10-round capacity. But would it even work with, say, 30 rounds?
Yes
  #39  
Old 02-21-2018, 04:42 PM
GaryM GaryM is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: St. Louis, MO 50mi. West
Posts: 4,693
My error the loader does not hold 30 rounds, it holds 10. But still fast.

GaryM
__________________
GaryM
  #40  
Old 02-21-2018, 04:59 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 9,316
Quote:
Originally Posted by GaryM View Post
My error the loader does not hold 30 rounds, it holds 10. But still fast.

GaryM
The idea would be to use three separate stripper clips in succession to load a 30-round magazine (or 2 to load a 20-rounder, or 6 to load a 60-rounder, etc).

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; 02-21-2018 at 04:59 PM.
  #41  
Old 02-21-2018, 05:16 PM
GaryM GaryM is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: St. Louis, MO 50mi. West
Posts: 4,693
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
The idea would be to use three separate stripper clips in succession to load a 30-round magazine (or 2 to load a 20-rounder, or 6 to load a 60-rounder, etc).
That would likely work, but swapping magazines would be quicker in that case, assuming they were available.

GaryM
__________________
GaryM
  #42  
Old 02-21-2018, 05:31 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 9,316
Quote:
Originally Posted by GaryM View Post
That would likely work, but swapping magazines would be quicker in that case, assuming they were available.

GaryM
Yes. The stripper clips are only useful for loading magazines, which then have to be inserted into the firearm. There's no practical way to use a stripper clip to feed an AR-15 directly (quite different from an M-1 Garand, which practically requires its clips to feed the rifle), so if you already had loaded mag, you'd just skip the step of first loading it with either stripper clips or manually, a single round at a time.

As someone noted upthread, a company made a goofy loading device that feeds rounds in through the ejection port and down into the magazine, basically as a way to ease the pain and suffering of California gun owners. That thing uses a version of a stripper clips of sorts too, but in most parts of the country it's not what would come to mind if you asked a gun owner about "stripper clips".
  #43  
Old 02-22-2018, 10:58 AM
Squirrel Whisperer Squirrel Whisperer is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 6
Compromise on gun restriction

Hi. Something I wanted to mention about my original post here.

With gun control policy debates you hear questions to the effect of "Should X type of gun be banned". Seems to me that it's forcing a binary choice when there are actually a lot of stages between "banned" and "an 18 year old who can pass a NICS check can walk out the door with one the same day." If you look at the regulations for Curio and Relic license holders, or for building an SBR, you can see the different possibilities where something is allowed, but with some additional steps.

Here's an additional thing I would give to gun owners in exchange for restrictions on centerfire ammo-firing semi-autos with detachable box magazines: I'd allow purchases through the mail again, without having to go through your local FFL dealer. Sort of like how Curio and Relic license holders can buy C&R eligible firearms directly through the mail/online.
  #44  
Old 03-03-2018, 03:18 AM
foolsguinea foolsguinea is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Tornado Alley
Posts: 15,098
The OP offers one (1) "new" restriction, which doesn't actually change very much; then asks for four (4) sweeteners for the gun collectors, two of which are attempts to get more sawed-offs and Uzis on the streets.

The most obvious appropriate response to this would take this thread straight to the Pit. So instead I will say: As proposed, this is not a compromise, this is a giant liberalization and gift to two constituencies of the NRA, that is, collectors and professional criminals.

Last edited by foolsguinea; 03-03-2018 at 03:19 AM.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:01 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to: sdsubscriptions@chicagoreader.com.

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017