No I don’t. Nor have you yet provided a decent argument against it.
To recap though, ******I proposed the following so we don’t get confused with other poster’s ideas.
Creation of a registry.
Creation of licenses of several types that determine the amount and type of weapons.
Creation of last owner liability that may result in a fine and revocation of the license.
In return I proposed that all restrictions on type of weapons be lifted and that you must only apply and pay for the proper license type. In addition all licenses as good for concealed carry.
So I’m saying that I would support being allowed to own whatever and as much as you like. I merely ask that you keep an official record, and secure it properly to avoid easy theft and un- traceable weaponry making its way into the populace.
The only argument I can see against this is either childish, or wanting to be able to trade weapons without a record. Since I allowed that the only limit to possession is just getting the license I can’t see a reason to want to keep this off the books unless you are trying to dodge the law, sell to criminals, or not pay sales tax or something.
Nobody is going to sit back and not do anything, the NRA will pump millions and millions of dollars into the coffers of Republicans and they will destroy on the issue with ease, gun control isn’t as popular amongst the man on the street as it once was and I don’t know if certain sections of the Dem machine really get that. But they will. People went nuts when he was elected and didn’t say a word about guns, if he does things will go full blown air raid siren crazy. This is the kind of issue that attracts a huge number of single issue voters and they will turn out in droves.
Seriously, I feel that even touching the issue will set the party back at least a decade if not more. It’s political suicide.
:rolleyes: This is disingenuous. The OP specifically mentioned modified Kalashnikovs. Why is it important to own something that is in fact built to work as an assault rifle, instead of a gun that’s designed for non-auto use?
And do you really think I’m so stupid as to think the similarities between an AK-47 and another AK-47 are only cosmetic, while the differences are fundamental? C’mon! Or do you want to me to assume that there are no skilled machinists in this country capable of replacing one part on a modified AK-47 with the proper part?
Yes, you could probably make your elk-hunting gun full auto. It’s still not built for it. A Kalashnikov is.
Again, why is owning a gun that could be readily modified into a full-auto long-range spray-&-pray important to the OP?
The more important question is why is it important to keep these rifles banned when they are only used in a tiny, tiny proportion of gun-related crime?
The burden of proof should be on the people who insist on banning these rifles, not the hobbyists who enjoy using them because of many different reasons related to their engineering and ergonomics?
I can point to at least two instances in recent US history where guns were registered and later confiscated. By following through with your plan, you are essentially raising the restrictions of all firearms to those restrictions currently in place for only full auto, and other class 3 guns. There is far too much room for corruption, and too much history to think that it wouldn’t happen again.
Is my concern childish? I am far closer to agreeing with the safe/secure storage discussions than this.
I’ll jump into this hijack for just a sec… I own five AK’s from five different countries in a small part solely because I can, and I know it pisses people like you off. I am not planning on converting any of them to full auto either and I’m pretty sure that they wont convert on their own.
Go search any of the other hundred or so threads where someone else asked this question. You’ll find plenty of reasons. I don’t think that you really care and are just looking to argue.
Really? You’re supporting the law that has the ENTIRE PURPOSE of being disengenuous and lying to the public about what it does? Bringing it into this thread asking why people need to own an “assault rifle” when what the OP proposed had nothing to do with assault rifles.
How about instead of turning this into Assault Weapons Debate #58125, you just read the 8 or so threads I linked to you earlier? Some of them have 400+ posts. You can read the entire arguments there. Why hijack this thread?
Apparently yes, because whatever point you’re trying to make is factually incorrect. See those threads I linked.
Actually, yes. Since the late 80s or early 90s, the ATF put provisions on the manufacture of such rifles that they couldn’t be able to accept a different fire group to be able to fire full auto. They actually carve out the part of the receiver that the full auto parts would attach to. In order to convert a semi-auto AK to full, you’d essentially have to build your own receiver - and if you can do that, you can pretty much build the gun from scratch anyway.
The OP is not talking about owning guns that could be readily modified into full auto. Why it’s important to the OP is also irrelevant to the debate.
These gun debates, even if meant to cover some specific aspect of gun rights, already turn to GENERIC GUN DEBATE #81285182582 very quickly because of people like you. I already linked you to all kinds of threads that answer the sort of thing you’re asking about. Read and learn if you’re genuinely interested. Otherwise you’re just looking to try to make a rhetorical point via hijack to derail the thread.
It depends. I"m fairly ignorant of of the incidents mentioned and the attached politics and circumstances, so I’ll say no more on that unless you care to link me up. In general though, I fail to see how making a simple safety test and relatively low fee are onerous in any way. To ride a motorcycle legally I had to do both. I see no reason why a gun should be any different. Essentially i am enabling any member of the population who is not disqualified by failing the test or having a criminal record full and complete access to the extent of the right to bear. In return I just want to know who has what, and that if they want to be totally safe, that they take steps to keep others safe as well.
A few things, some you asked about and some you didn’t, mostly because I’m not tired and feel like typing:
The BATFE has stringent standards for the construction of firearms. Since the closing of the registry in 1986, they have strictly enforced those standards. An AK-type rifle, or any rifle for that matter manufactured for the civilian market after that date cannot, repeat cannot, be easily modified to fire in a full-automatic mode of operation. They have been sufficiently re-engineered to the point that it would take a skilled gunsmith to properly modify the weapon to where it would be safe for the operator. The BATFE would be all over anybody who did such work in a New York minute.
Specific to the OP: why owning a converted weapon is important to the OP is irrelevant. He wants one, he can afford it, he is interested in the construction of said weapons, it doesn’t matter. Also, as automatic weapons have never been significant instruments of crime in this country even when you could buy a new one for only slightly more than its semi-automatic counterpart, it is an irrelevant objection indeed.
Neither assault rifles nor “assault weapons” are appropriately characterized as long-range weapons. Nor are they “spray-and-pray”, or “designed to be fired from the hip”, what with the attached shoulder stock and all, or whatever other false characterizations that always come up. Those are manufactured talking points designed to appeal to emotion, nothing more.
It makes for stimulating Internet discussion, but as I said earlier the “war” is all but over. The 2nd Amendment is Incorporated. Gun control policy is a loser for the Democrats. The Assault Weapons Ban will never be reinstated nationally, the Vitter Amendment passed forbidding confiscation of firearms in an emergency situation, well over half the states in the union have shall-issue CCW policies, and the Tiahrt Amendment protects gun owners by only allowing law enforcement access to ownership records. Nationwide concealed carry laws are next up, the Thune Amendment failed by a mere 2 votes in the Senate.
Well, for one thing, riding a motorcycle is not protected by the Constitution. But that’s just quibbling. With regard to testing for firearm ownership, you don’t see the potential for abuse? Let me lay out a scenario for you:
You go to register for the test. When you arrive you find that the cost is much more than you can afford. Or maybe not, let’s say you can pay it. Then you find that the test is held 200 miles away on only 2 dates every year. But no matter, you go and take the test. You can read, but the guy 2 desks down cannot. No matter, you continue and pass the 100 question test with only 2 wrong. Wait, what’s that? You can only miss one? And you can’t get your money back? And you’ll have to try again in 6 months?
The problem with your idea, just like villa tried to shove up my ass earlier is that you cannot pass federal law to make states recognize the ability to own a firearm. Perhaps like myself, you are just throwing out ideas and not concerned with constitutionality but more concerned with the discussion. I get that completely.
For example, my state of Iowa does not allow citizens to own class 3 (full auto) guns. Your provision would force me to have my entire collection be registered, force me to take classes, and force me to pay fees just to maintain the same rights that I have today. My state would not allow me to enjoy unlimited access to other weapons that are currently unavailable to me today. I gain nothing except a lot of new pain in the ass regs to adhere to while making a meaningless impact on crime.
Come on, Airman, that’s not really likely, is it? Honestly.
Realistically, it’d be more like “The test to obtain a firearms licence is undertaken at [Reasonably accessible Government Department like the Department of Parks & Wildlife or the Department of Transport] and is held once a week on [Clearly advertised day]. The cost is [Clearly advertised], and the pass mark is [Also clearly stated].” It’d be no different at all to the test required to obtain a Learner’s Licence for a Car or Motorbike in any fundamental way except the subject matter would cover firearms safety and responsible ownership thereof instead of road rules and motor vehicle operation.
Like I said, I can understand why such a test might not be “reasonable” for various US-specific reasons, so I’m not going to address that part of it- just the idea that it’ll be some impossible arbitrary thing that no-one will be eligible to pass.
I find myself skeptical that places that have pointedly denied the exercise of 2nd Amendment rights will not do everything they can to make it difficult to do so. Why? Because at each step it has to go through the courts, which means that someone has to gain standing, bring suit, and see it the whole way through, which may also expose them to criminal charges and prison time. A great tactic, stalling.
Too many people have too much vested in the denial of 2nd Amendment rights to simply shrug at a few Supreme Court decisions and comply. So yes, I think that they will do exactly that if they have half a chance. I’m not often that cynical, but on this I am. Too much dishonesty has bred mistrust.
I did, and whilst it’s a lot more hassle than “Buy Gun, Take It Home” it doesn’t strike me as being especially insurmountable. And DC’s long been known as being anti-handgun. So, assuming you don’t live in DC (and let’s be honest, I can see why the US capital might not be keen on letting every Tom, Dick, and Harry have handguns there), is that scenario likely in somewhere like Tennessee or Arizona or even California? I honestly don’t think it is.
No, it’s not. but that’s not the point. Should someone not be able to exercise their Constitutional rights based upon where they live? The registration system in DC and Chicago are similar, and in addition to nearly doubling the price of the weapon just to have the right to keep it in your own home, everything has to be done in person, which costs something even more expensive: time. You know how long it took me to buy my last gun? 20 minutes. Best guess based on that read in DC? Weeks, with multiple visits to multiple locations.
Based on that I’m supposed to choke down a “inexpensive, easy test” on faith? Not a chance, especially when something like that would be self-imposed as it doesn’t exist now where I live. If I want to beat myself up there are easier ways.
People compare it to licensing cars, but pretty much no one has the goal of eliminating car ownership and driving. There’s no incentive to abuse the licensing process to keep people out.
In the US, a significant portion of the population believes that gun ownership should be banned, or at least extremely restricted and difficult. And there’s a very powerful lobby out there dedicated to that.
And that lobby is absolutely willing to try to nickle and dime us to death. Any law that negatively affects gun owners, no matter how irrational, ineffective, or onerous it is, is something they’ll support and push for. A licensing requirement is exactly the sort of thing that would make them salivate. They would push huge amounts of lobbying effort to change up the requirements exactly as Airman described in order to do anything to burden or prevent gun ownership. They’d probably do it in little chunks that, taken alone, may not seem all that unreasonable or onerous but eventually added up into making it extremely difficult or impossible to obtain the license.
Look at concealed carry in California. They created a law saying that if you’re a good, law abiding citizen, and you feel the need to carry, your local police department (I think - maybe it’s at the state level) can test and license you and issue you a concealed carry license.
But regular people can’t get them. Even if you have a good reason, like you’re being stalked or you work third shift at a gas station in a bad part of town. It is effectively banned for the average person, despite the law intending people to be able to have the permits. The only people who can actually get permits are basically the people who are friends with, or make significant donations to the campaigns of, politicians and higher up police officers. In theory, licensing is open to everyone, but in practice, you can’t get one without a bribe no matter how responsible or law abiding you are.
Look, part of this problem is the complete vagueness of the text itself.
That’s it. Usually I’m all for “spirit of the law” discussions, that’s why I am indeed just suggesting ideas and not worrying about constitutionality or niggling legal nitpicks. In this case I’d LOVE a bit more clarity. It never defines Arms, nor does it prevent states, cities, or private individuals from restricting such activity. It merely seems to prevent the suppression of weapon ownership on the federal level. It makes no mention of registration or licensing, but neither does it prohibit it.
I think we can all agree that the framers never envisioned this country in the highly advanced state it is today. At the time of its drafting, this country was a highly rural land with long time between communication. A great deal of power was held by local authorities. In such a situation, the right to bear was not only important, but could be vital (hunting/ self defense) to the survival of the people. We have added, changed, and revised the constitution when necessary, and I think this issue needs to be solved. As both a gun owner and former member of the military, I find the second to be valuable and vital to preventing massive abuses. However, the vagueness of the current text has allowed for a system where vast quantities of weapons are being held both by responsible citizens and a significant criminal element. It means that crime is not restricted to the up close and personal violence of the past. It means that any idiot with a gun can cause massive damage and misery on a scale unimaginable to framers who were used to cannon, flintlock, and musket. That IS a problem, and merely sticking our heads in the sand won’t make it go away. Nor will just screaming bloody murder about rights until you are blue in the face. Like it or not, This issue WILL be addressed at some point in the close future. I’d like to see the Pro gun side present some logical, reasonable solutions to the issue. If you don’t, what results WILL be something antithetical to your desires. Most people in this country don’t own and have never fired a weapon. You can’t expect them to understand the culture, or see the value in it. There is a certain amount of reasonable fear on their part. While it’s true that people kill people, easy access to sophisticated firearms make it significantly easier to do than in the revolutionary days.
Present some solutions of your own if you don’t like mine. I’ll grant that they leave open holes for abuse, but certainly in any system you have such. I don’t know how to prevent that, but I’m certainly willing to entertain any other suggestions presented other than “Do nothing It’s all good”; because it isn’t.
I know you know this already Doors but for the benefit of those who may not almost any AR rifle can be converted into a full auto in a matter of about 5 minutes by replacing the sear with a drop in auto sear. And a DIAS is not in and of itself illegal to possess, as long as you don’t also own a rifle that it can go in, it’s just a little metal widget. And ones made prior to 1981 don’t have a serial number and it can be nearly impossible to prove that you’re not allowed to have it even when they are restricted.
And despite that there still isn’t a rash of full auto ARs popping up all over the place. So just because you own a semi that could have a giggle switch installed with little hassle NOBODY does it. Full auto is used for suppressive fire, to keep the enemy’s head down while others move. It’s a really expensive noise maker really. I’d even go so far as to say that they’re less dangerous than a semi is, since without a lot of practice it’s hard to hit a damned thing with them.
That’s why the 86 ban should be lifted and the registry re-opened. If you count all NFA items, such as sawn off shotguns and short barreled rifles and suppressors out there there’s likely well in excess of a million such devices legally owned in America right now (for whatever reason the BATFE won’t say how many there are) and almost none of them are ever used illegally.
Congratulations. Now try reading for comprehension. I noted earlier that the ability to own a firearm was a federally protected right under the United States Constitution, and, as such, cannot be restricted by the states. What the federal government cannot do, however, is force states to either permit concealed carry, or recognize concealed carry licenses issued by another state.
