Arms, And The Regulation Thereof: Let's Come To A Consensus.

Great Debates
21

I fail to see how this logic:

[QUOTE=Bobotheoptimist]
I adamantly oppose firearms registration, competency requirements for purchase, and government interference in personal transfers.
[/quote]

Can live in peace and harmony with this:

A gun show is not a mythical place of commerce. It is just a bunch of folks selling guns in one place, like a strip mall. Typically, the overwhelming number of whom are FFL dealers that have to abide by the exact same laws as they do if they were to sell a gun inside their brick and mortar shops. The so called “gun show loophole” is a sham and nonexistent. If private sales are not required to be regulated, than a sale a between two non FFL holding individuals is no more dangerous if it takes place in one’s home or at the local gun show at the convention center.

Closing the “gun show loophole” is the first step in limiting the transfer of weapons between individuals. I fail to see how that can jive with your first statement quoted.

22

I should point out that the ‘register’ then ‘confiscate’ trick was pulled in Jersey not too long ago.

23

[QUOTE=JXJohns]
Regarding full-auto fun guns, the states should have no restrictions greater than the Feds in the licensing/ownership of said guns. To that end, all state must allow ownership. (Including the Tall Corn State…)
[/QUOTE]

Yes, I can get behind this. Here in Washington, full-autos are completely illegal even if federally registered. I can only imagine that this law is intended to relieve pressure on my checkbook by preventing me from expending truly awe-inspiring amounts of money on ammunition in a very short period of time.

Another peculiar thing about Washington is the regulation regarding suppressors (also commonly and somewhat erroneously known as silencers). Here, it’s legal to buy and own a suppressor (so long as you properly register it as required federally), but it’s a misdemeanor to actually have the gall to shoot through one. :dubious:

Can anybody salvage any kind of logic from this legal tidbit? If you’re worried about criminals using silencers to carry out clandestine murders, wouldn’t it make more sense to make it illegal to possess a silencer? (As if a covert assassin is really going to file all the federal registration papers anyway…) Really, though, it’s one of those laws that is for all practical purposes never enforced. (If it were enforced, it might also be problematic, since there’s no exception for police use.) Most gun stores have a wide selection of suppressors, with sales being strictly on a “yep, just promise not to actually use it, wink wink nudge nudge ;)” basis.

I’d reaaally like to get a neat little silenced Walther P22 for plinking without the necessity of cumbersome ear protection, but I’d rather not become a scofflaw just by firing it in my own backyard, so I guess that’s one more thing I’ll add to my list. :stuck_out_tongue:

24

[QUOTE=Erasmus Darwin]

This comparison makes no sense at all. If you toss a hundred dogs in a secure, climate-controlled room and leave them for a month, you end up with a hundred dead dogs (or ninety-nine dead dogs and one fat dog). If you toss a hundred guns in a secure, climate-controlled room and leave them for a month, you end up with a nice collection.

Some people collect guns, just like any other item. Some guns have historical or sentimental value. Some guns are just for looking at rather than firing. Some guns have hard-to-obtain or expensive ammo. I’m really not sure why you want to impose an undue burden on gun collectors who aren’t hurting anyone.
[/QUOTE]

100 guns isn’t a collection, it’s an armory. And yes, I think you should have to take out a special license to run an armory, one which includes proof that special safeguards are taken (like making sure that that secure, climate controlled room really is secure).

25

Eh, I would disagree. I don’t think the real risks are anywhere near anything that would warrant such a level of government intrusion into private affairs.

26

To each his own. The prospect of someone breaking into a house and looting enough weapons to arm an infantry company worries me. Added paperwork doesn’t.

Some hobbies are more expensive than others. If laws intended to ensure public safety make a gun collecting a bit more costly, then so be it. Things are tough all over.

27

[QUOTE=Erasmus Darwin]

If you toss a hundred dogs in a secure, climate-controlled room and leave them for a month, you end up with a hundred dead dogs (or ninety-nine dead dogs and one fat dog).
[/QUOTE]

This made me laugh. A lot. Thanks for the delightful image.

[QUOTE=Alessan]
100 guns isn’t a collection, it’s an armory. And yes, I think you should have to take out a special license to run an armory, one which includes proof that special safeguards are taken (like making sure that that secure, climate controlled room really is secure).
[/QUOTE]

Well, maybe, but if I have 100 Brown Bess rifles because I really grooved on Daniel Boon when I was a kid, is that an armory? How about if all 100 guns are mounted on displays in a room in my house, with annotated notes describing their historical significance and unique characteristics? Is that an armory? How about if I have 100 .357 magnums that I take out and polish and coddle when the moon is full because it makes me feel big? Is that an armory? How about if I have 100 Saturday Night Specials in a big pile, and on my birthday I take off all my clothes and roll around naked on top of them, shouting “WHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!” at the top of my lungs? Is that an armory? Limiting collections by size, for whatever reason, makes no sense. As a practical matter, A gun is as deadly as 1000 guns, one person can’t effectively use more than one (or two, if you believe the movies) gun at a time.

[QUOTE=Stealth Potato]
I don’t think the real risks are anywhere near anything that would warrant such a level of government intrusion into private affairs.
[/quote]

This is all that really needs to be said. Real risks are all that gun control legislation should be concerned with. Unfortunately, they are often the last thing considered.

28

[QUOTE=Alessan]
To each his own. The prospect of someone breaking into a house and looting enough weapons to arm an infantry company worries me. Added paperwork doesn’t.

Some hobbies are more expensive than others. If laws intended to ensure public safety make a gun collecting a bit more costly, then so be it. Things are tough all over.
[/QUOTE]

When was the last time that happened? Considering that criminals steal or otherwise illegally obtain firearms at alarming rates all the time, I would think that the risk of a large collection being looted is notable more for its singularity rather than any enhanced danger to society.

Besides, I very much doubt that anyone with enough money to buy that many guns is going to just leave them lying about unsecured. But I also doubt that even a very well-secured home armory would stand up to an invasion by anybody who actually has an infantry company to arm… :stuck_out_tongue:

29

[QUOTE=E-Sabbath]
I should point out that the ‘register’ then ‘confiscate’ trick was pulled in Jersey not too long ago.
[/QUOTE]

…And in California a while back.

30

ExTank. get the Mods to add Assault Rifle and Assault Weapon to your glossery.

Ok, my 2¢:

In principle, I would support registration to the extent that every legal gun in the nation had a legal owner of record. IF this could be done without abuse, which I don’t know if that’s possible.

Definitely open the automatic weapons registry. And lift restrictions on “military” shotguns while you’re at it.

ExTank, I largely agree with your distinction of arms from ordinance. However I believe that the dividing line should be whether it uses explosive warheads, or a charge of propellent large enough to constitute an explosive device. By that standard, a hobbyist with an insane amount of money to spend could legally own an M2 .50 caliber machine gun. I doubt this would be a pressing issue of public safety, if the following was done…

Modify Presser v Illinois to incorporate the Second Amendment, while leaving the states the legitimate authority to ban private armies. I’m pro-gun but I do NOT want to see armed anarchy like Lebanon in the 1980s.

Banning guns from high security areas like courtrooms and airports is legitimate. But set some line somewhere so that a patchwork quilt of restricted areas doesn’t end up covering half a city.

I’m ok with outlawing disguised guns, such as the cell phone gun.

31

For what its worth, Vermont has NO regulations on concealed carry at all. Any legal gun owner may carry concealed, with the exception of schools and other regulated locations.

32

[QUOTE=JXJohns]
I fail to see how this logic:

Can live in peace and harmony with this:

A gun show is not a mythical place of commerce. It is just a bunch of folks selling guns in one place, like a strip mall. Typically, the overwhelming number of whom are FFL dealers that have to abide by the exact same laws as they do if they were to sell a gun inside their brick and mortar shops. The so called “gun show loophole” is a sham and nonexistent. If private sales are not required to be regulated, than a sale a between two non FFL holding individuals is no more dangerous if it takes place in one’s home or at the local gun show at the convention center.

Closing the “gun show loophole” is the first step in limiting the transfer of weapons between individuals. I fail to see how that can jive with your first statement quoted.
[/QUOTE]

Well, mostly because gunshows are vastly overpriced and mostly dealers anyway (at least the ones around here). I’m not GOA, so I understand there’s a little give and take in drafting regulations. I don’t like gun shows, so I don’t mind if they’re overregulated.
Libtards will never get over the fact that there are hundreds of guns for sale all in one place, so I suspect they’d be willing to give quite a bit in order to get the background check in there. They won here in Colorado, and I’ve not noticed any change in the two big shows. Well, fewer Beanie Babies, but I don’t know that it’s a direct cause & effect there.

33

[QUOTE=Bobotheoptimist]
libtards
[/QUOTE]

What an attractive fucking term.
.

34

[QUOTE=Bobotheoptimist]
Well, mostly because gunshows are vastly overpriced and mostly dealers anyway (at least the ones around here). I’m not GOA, so I understand there’s a little give and take in drafting regulations. I don’t like gun shows, so I don’t mind if they’re overregulated.
Libtards will never get over the fact that there are hundreds of guns for sale all in one place, so I suspect they’d be willing to give quite a bit in order to get the background check in there. They won here in Colorado, and I’ve not noticed any change in the two big shows. Well, fewer Beanie Babies, but I don’t know that it’s a direct cause & effect there.
[/QUOTE]

I guess my point is that the background check was always there in the first place. Colorado just took the first step in regulating private sales and you are ok with it because you don’t like gun shows. You are against the regulation of private sales as long as they don’t take place at the fairgrounds or convention center. If that is the locale then it is ok to regulate them because the prices are too high for you?

I’m in no mood to be giving any more rights away these days. As far as I am concerned, too much has been compromised by gun owners under the guise of giving just a little and they will leave the rest alone. Now it is time to get some things back.

35

[QUOTE=Stealth Potato]
Another peculiar thing about Washington is the regulation regarding suppressors (also commonly and somewhat erroneously known as silencers). Here, it’s legal to buy and own a suppressor (so long as you properly register it as required federally), but it’s a misdemeanor to actually have the gall to shoot through one. :dubious:

Can anybody salvage any kind of logic from this legal tidbit?
[/QUOTE]

Federal suppressor-related laws don’t make any sense to begin with, much less Washington’s half-ban. In some European countries, suppressors are actually required when hunting, as a courtesy to others. Somehow, over here, we got stuck with the irrational belief that suppressors are the tool of Hollywood-esque assassins (much like Assault Weapons are supposedly designed to be deadly accurate when spraying bullets from the hip at a number of innocent bystanders).

(I realize I’m certainly preaching to the choir here, especially with your comment about wanting the silenced P22, but you gave me a good opportunity to make a point that I wanted to make.)

Also, that reminds me of two other issues I have with the NFA that I forgot to address:

  1. The regulation of SBRs and SBSes is a bit of an accident that should be removed. The NFA was originally going to cover handguns. That bit was taken out when the drafters came to their senses. However, they also included SBRs and SBSes in order to avoid them from being used as surrogate handguns to evade the handgun restrictions. Since handguns weren’t restricted, it seems silly to keep the SBR and SBS restrictions. It seems even sillier when you look at some of the weird loopholes where two functionally identical firearms can have different classifications (SBR versus handgun) depending on how they were built.

  2. I touched on this in my factual clarification before but didn’t go into detail: The Chief Law Enforcement Officer (CLEO) sign-off is intended to indicate that the CLEO knows of no reason why you’d be disqualified from owning such an item. That’s pretty much unnecessary now that we have NICS. Rather than burden the CLEO with extra paperwork (and burden the potential purchaser in cases where the CLEO refuses to sign off on the basis of anti-gun political beliefs), they should just switch over to using NICS.

[QUOTE=Alessan]
100 guns isn’t a collection, it’s an armory.
[/QUOTE]

Weirddave made some good points, but I also feel the need to chime in: Armory implies a lot more military usefulness than the average collection has. If I tried to arm a make-shift army with what’s typically on-hand in such an “armory”, many would be without ammo for their particular firearm, many would have guns that haven’t been fired in decades (and shouldn’t be fired without a thorough inspection), and there’d be no easy way to give mass instructions due to the wide variation in firearms. If anything, a rag-tag army would be better off with members using whatever personal firearms they own, since they’d already be familiar with them and would presumably have kept them in better working order (especially given your yearly firing requirement).

Still, I do get a funny mental image imaging a ragtag group of revolutionaries running around with the guns from my grandfather’s collection. Sure you might get a few effective soldiers using some of the better working rifles, but the poor guy who gets the Nambu will have to settle for yelling “BANG!” given the price of ammo for it, and the guy who got the hundred-plus-year-old Colt SAA is going to be too busy getting his fingers sewn back on to do much fighting.

36

I diggin’ on the responses; good points and thoughts to mull over, when I get the time.

Between full-time+ job and full-time school, I’m trying to cram about 6 work-days worth of work into a 4-day week.

Bobo: I’m not a mod, and can’t tell you what to post and what not to, but I’d really, reaallly like to keep this civil for as long as possible. As a favor to me, I’d appreciate it if you could refrain from inflammatory remarks. Johnny L.A. is a self-professed liberal, as well as being one of us “gun nuts,” and has staunchly defended the 2nd Ad. here on the SDMB for a good long time.

37

Rather be yelling ‘BANG’ with a Nambu than firing it. THAT, my friend, is a ‘dangerous weapon’.

38

[QUOTE=Stealth Potato]
Any form of gun registration or licensing is always unreasonable and intolerable. This includes registrations of gun owners and individual firearms.
[/QUOTE]

You didn’t explain why gun registration is automatically “unreasonable and intolerable”. I’m opposed to licensing requirements since that implies that it’s not a right but a priviledge temporarily bestowed bu the government. But if you have to register a frggin canoe, I don’t see wow it’s unreasonable to have to register a gun.

39

[QUOTE=ExTank]
Bobo: I’m not a mod, and can’t tell you what to post and what not to, but I’d really, reaallly like to keep this civil for as long as possible. As a favor to me, I’d appreciate it if you could refrain from inflammatory remarks. Johnny L.A. is a self-professed liberal, as well as being one of us “gun nuts,” and has staunchly defended the 2nd Ad. here on the SDMB for a good long time.
[/QUOTE]

Sorry ExTank, bad habit. I didn’t even notice doing it.

I apologize to any and all gun-rights supporting liberals in this thread.
Gun shows are organized events with (usually) rented space and a body of some type that’s making money off of the show. Not exactly the same as a FTF… On the other hand, perhaps our idiotic laws are why gun shows seem to be such a waste of time.
Colorado did manage to weasel the words “gun show” to the point where I would be defined as one if I invited someone to my house to buy or sell a gun, which I object to. And I’m pretty sure it was passed because of Columbine, even though (IIRC) the gun purchased at a show was bought legally by someone else. I could be wrong, it’s been a while.

40

Sorry for the double post

[QUOTE=sqweels]
You didn’t explain why gun registration is automatically “unreasonable and intolerable”. I’m opposed to licensing requirements since that implies that it’s not a right but a priviledge temporarily bestowed bu the government. But if you have to register a frggin canoe, I don’t see wow it’s unreasonable to have to register a gun.
[/QUOTE]

One of the many and (I would think) obvious problems with that reasoning is that you don’t have to register a frggin canoe, a non-frggin canoe, nor any other type of canoe. You don’t have to register cars, trucks, motorcycles, boats, etc. I’ve owned several of the above without registering them over the years and never once did not registering violate any laws. I went to Sportsman’s Warehouse just a couple of years ago, gave a nice lady a handful of cash, strapped my new canoe to the roof of my car, and drove home. Whether or not I need register before it floats on a public body of water is neither here nor there.