If I want to purse something that is legal for me do do so, and the only reason I cant is because your actions are preventing me, then ipso facto, you are preventing me from purchasing that item. Do YOU see the difference?
As g.r.a. are so fond of saying, if you dont like the law change it! Currently it is my legal right to purchase a smart gun and the only reason I can’t is because of the strong arm, gangster like tactics of the gun rights advocacy community.
I was under the impression that fingerprint or other forms of safety interlocks that ensure only the authorized user can fire could not be purchased in NJ, is this not still the case?
I understand the conclusion you are drawing but it is not accurate. If you want to own a smartgun, nothing that I or the NRA can do can prevent that. Feel free to create one (be sure to follow state and federal laws about firearm manufacture). I can try to persuade you that this is a foolish endeavor but in no way does that prevent you from doing what you want.
The reason you can’t is because there are no willing sellers.
This was never the case. There is no legal prohibition on the sale of personalized firearms.
Well, by some people sure. There are definitely people who want to completely outlaw and prevent both abortion and gun ownership (and who are 100% opposed on other wedge issues)
But it’s unfortunate (and a sign of political divisiveness) that their goals are apparently the only ones considered. There are a lot of people in the middle who really do favor reasonable compromises. I’m pro-choice, but I’d like there to be fewer abortions. If something as simple as handing out some pamphlets might reduce the number of abortions, that seems like a reasonable choice to me. I’m anti-gun (in the sense that I’d like there to be a lot less private gun ownership), but I’m not in favor of draconian methods to reduce gun ownership.
If you look at surveys on wedge issues, there are a lot more people in the middle than there are at the extremes.
Fair enough. Didn’t convince me to vote for him, but I do think a not insignificant number of people, especially in states like PA and WI, did the same as you almost solely because of Clinton’s position (no, I don’t consider Trump’s position anything more than pandering but hopefully his SCOTUS will help some things). Also maybe while MT is a red state for the last several Presidential elections, but is more purple in local elections. It may have not been enough alone to change the results of the election (I don’t know of any data), but gun control is becoming an vote-losing position for Democrats. Someone who is hardcore for gun control isn’t going to start voting Republican, but will have to grin and bear it or at “worst” vote third party. Sure it can make individual candidates vulnerable to primary challenges, but as a party whole is a losing position. Similarly, I think Republicans would do better to chill on abortion, among other things.
Because NJ and CA jumped the gun (sorry) and mandated technologies that barely exist. As mentioned, they have provisions for implementing it when technology does become available.
For your previous question, I don’t think I still understand it, but some companies (I am unaware of any NRA involvement) have begun to refuse to sell to certain states, e.g. Barrett won’t sell to California police because a law made .50 BMG illegal for civilians but not law enforcement. Individual sellers often refuse to ship to California not because it is illegal but because they don’t have the wherewithal to research whether something is legal or are not even willing to try.
California has incredibly arbitrary laws, including a handgun roster that makes a pistol in paint job A legal but paint job B illegal even though the internals are identical.
Long guns are one type of gun, but as I said it’s misleading to use the much more general category of ‘gun’ when the statement isn’t actually true for a large portion of the category of ‘gun’ that people would attempt to buy. And in general, the “I can do X” statement isn’t very useful. If you meant to imply that people in general across the US can do what you do, the implication isn’t true. If instead you literally mean just that you personally can do it, the statement doesn’t really mean much; there are people in the UK that can make the same statement (substituting a UK gun store) even though the UK’s firearms laws are much, much more restrictive than US laws.
So, let’s do this point by point, since I don’t have anything else to do at the moment and don’t mind wasting my time.
The NRA was instrumental in getting background checks passed. The NICS was designed with assistance by the NRA. Every new firearm sold, regardless of type, requires a background check to be legally transferred. In virtually every state ALL transfers of handguns require a background check for the transfer to be legal. There is a small area, the so-called “gun show loophole” (that is neither a loophole or exclusive to gun shows), that allows long arms to be transferred without a background check. It was statutorily designed that way when it was written to allow gifts and transfers among family and friends, and long arms are not significantly implicated as weapons of crime (it is overwhelmingly handguns involved in crime) so they were exempted. Perhaps it’s time to require all transfers of all firearms to have a background check, but that’s a legislative issue. It is illegal in all cases to transfer a firearm under any circumstances to a knowingly ineligible person, which leaves a lot of wiggle room but precludes obvious criminals, who somehow manage to get them anyway.
If a person passes the check today they’re good to pick it up 3 days from now, so what’s the point? Heat of the moment crimes? Well, what about the person who determines that they are in danger and needs one for personal protection? Should they just hope for the best while they wait? It’s a tradeoff. I’m pretty agnostic about it, as are most gun owners.
The fact that you called them “assault rifles” demonstrates why we have this same damn argument over and over again. Fact: Assault rifles have been severely proscribed since the passage of the National Firearms Act of 1934 and since May of 1986 no new ones have been legal to transfer to civilians. An “assault rifle” is defined as a rifle that fires multiple times for each single pull of the trigger. In other words, an automatic weapon.
What you are thinking of is specifically called an “assault weapon”. That particular name was specifically chosen and promoted by the head of the Violence Policy Center, Josh Sugarmann, who wrote:
An “assault weapon” is further defined by the California-based Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act of 1989, which also formed the basis of the sunsetted Assault Weapons Ban of 1994. The characteristics of an “assault weapon” are purely cosmetic, involving pistol grips, bayonet lugs, flash hiders, rifle grenade launchers (to be differentiated from underbarrel grenade launchers, which nobody has anyway), and do not affect the functionality of the firearm. Take an AR-15, for instance. It looks like a M-16/M-4, the action is largely the same, but in the end it is NOT an automatic weapon, which means that no matter what it looks like it behaves the same as any other semi-automatic rifle that fires 5.56 NATO/.223 Remington. So what’s the point? I take an AR-15, remove the pistol grip and put a nice wooden stock on it and I’ve changed nothing functional BUT it can no longer be termed an “assault weapon”. Ludicrous, is it not? Yet that’s the actual, no shit basis for legislation.
Fingerprint trigger locks? Even in states where trigger locks are mandated those are not. I don’t know that I’ve ever seen one. In any event, every gun manufacturer includes a trigger, cable, or cylinder lock with every new firearm. It is up to the user to use them properly. It is not universally mandated in the US, and in any event some gun owners resist because what good is a self-protection firearm you can’t fire because you’re digging out the keys and fumbling with the lock?
In conclusion, there are perfectly valid reasons to oppose policy on all of your questions individually, and collectively there is opposition because gun owners perceive, rightly or wrongly, that losing something to legislation is something that is gone forever. Historically they have largely been correct, and what has been regained (see 1994 Assault Weapons Ban above) is constantly under threat of being lost again. It is in all respects the same as abortion rights advocates fighting each and every restriction, real or proposed.
Well, when people go through all the trouble to show how much gun rights have been eroded through the years as a way to show how onerous it is for people who want to buy a gun to actually buy a gun, it seems like a simple example can show how wrong they are.
For example (hypothetically), if in 49 states anyone could go to the local store and just get a gun for free, right then, no questions asked, but there was one state where no one could get a concealed carry permit, would you be complaining about how tough it is to get a gun in America?
Another example, true this time, of people complaining that no new models of handgun can be purchased in California. And then they fail to mention that there are over 700 models (the last time I checked) of handgun that CAN be purchased. Doesn’t seem like that much of a problem to me.
If people only mean “handguns” when they complain about eroding gun rights, then they should say that. They should also mention what state they are in. Instead I hear an awful lot of “Gun rights are being eroded in America” when they mean “I can’t get a concealed carry permit for a handgun in my state” Two different levels of problems it seems to me.
Good post, but I don’t think this part is true. In the majority of states that allow private party transfers, it doesn’t matter if it is a long gun or a hand gun. Here’s a list of state laws, though I think it’s suspect or out of date, as NV has no such law (it was passed last year, but the AG and FBI said that it can’t be enforced due to a law peculiarity).
Additionally, if the point is to promote a “cooling down period,” then it doesn’t make any sense to require a waiting period of someone who already owns a gun. One CA judge agreed, although the 9th struck it down “for reasons,” so you have to wait 10 days for every purchase.
He’s a guy who actually has an FFL. I had thought that the ATF required you to be in the active business of firearms sales, but I guess not?
I don’t think this is a requirement in most states, at least I am pretty sure that not every one came with one, though I could be wrong.
I have all my locks sitting in a closet somewhere, not sure exactly.
The approved list is shrinking every day. Did you know that an application has to be submitted and approved simply to change the color of the frame on a polymer handgun? there is literally nothing different between the approved black one and the desert-colored one except the color of the polymer put in the mold.
Did you know that, thanks to the adoption of microstamping technology, when a firearm falls off the list it falls off forever because the manufacturers cannot make firearms that comply with the law?
So? Can you still buy a gun or not? I don’t care if there was only 1 model available that was able to be purchased (I may have changed my stance on this from the past). If it were available for purchase, you can’t say you cannot by a gun.
If you went to a gun store, and you could buy as many guns as you wanted right then and there, but they only had one model of handgun, and one model of rifle, would you consider your rights eroded somehow?
But why are there no willing sellers? I seem to remember a bit back when there was a gun store that was going to start selling them, but then got a little pressure from the gun community not to sell them.
This is a new one to me. I was under the impression that handguns could be transferred as private sales as well.
So, are you saying that a background check has to be run before a handgun can be transferred from one private party to another?
Of course not, but how much of a problem you personally think it is or is not really isn’t the issue. This type of thinking, that unless it’s a total ban then it’s nothing to worry about, unless the number of available models is at least X then it’s okay - this is exactly they type of incrementalism that drives gun control opposition. You think because the number of models available for sale has decreased by 50% in 10 years that that should be okay and nothing to be concerned about. Not only has it dropped, but zero new models have been added. In other words, there is only one direction to go, without exception.
In any event,here is some information from the group that is pursuing the lawsuit against CA for it’s roster.
517 models total for semi autos of which 210 were duplicates.
This isn’t about some obscure firearms either. Glock Gen 4’s are banned. Of course, police are exempt from the roster and then can turn around and sell them via PPT so it’s unclear what the law is supposed to accomplish other than a way to ban guns.
I think that what the laws try to accomplish are to make an attempt at decreasing the gun violence.
Whether or not these laws are effective is certainly up for debate.
The problem is, is that gun rights advocates complain about lawmakers making ineffective laws, but they cannot make effective laws, because the gun community will block that. The complain that legislatures are ignorant about guns, but they do little to educate, but instead mock or complain.
Lets put it this way, as a gun enthusiast yourself, if you decided to try to implement laws that would decrease the gun violence, either in your state or nationwide, what laws would you be looking to enact?
Are there any examples of laws that would help to lower the death toll that you find acceptable? Are there any hypothetical laws you can think of that would be acceptable that would make a difference?
I have never gotten a firearm without one. It’s cheap and easy to include it with each new firearm and makes it so that the patchwork of compliance laws doesn’t require specific packaging for states that have the law in place.
Holy shit, I didn’t realize there were ONLY 307 handgun types for purchase! That changes everything!
snark aside, sorry, I don’t feel at all swayed by the argument that since there are only 307 types of handguns available, your rights are being eroded. Let me know when the number of types available is zero. If the Constitution specified how many types of handgun have to be available for purchase, and your state fell below that, then I would also be concerned. But last I checked, it doesn’t.
The only laws I ever heard from any gun advocate (and I don’t use that negatively. Maybe gun owner, or something) are laws that increase the ability for citizens to purchase and carry guns. Those are the only laws that can decrease gun violence.
So you would be OK with CARB whittling the list down to the Chevrolet Impala and nothing else? You can still buy a car, after all. How about California whittling down the list of abortion providers to one doctor? No big thing, you can still get an abortion.
That is not how any of this works unless the intent is to ban.
Isn’t that what this thread is? OP seems to have a genuine interest in learning. As far as politicians, some of the worst seem to be willfully ignorant. But yes, I agree some gun rights people don’t seem to want to educate and I think that is wrong. But others do try to educate politicians and it’s like hitting your head against a brick wall.