The New Assault Weapons Ban

Great Debates
141

[QUOTE=Bear_Nenno]
First is that there are so many jurisdictions, how can a lawful owner know the rules in every area? It is too easy for him to be simply driving through a town in which he is now committing a felony. Whoops, too bad for him, right? You ignorantly stated that this would be just like “concealed carry laws”. It isn’t like that everywhere. Florida has forbid any city or county government from making ANY laws concerning firearms. This keeps the laws uniform throughout the state and protects lawful owners from unintentional felonious possession charges. The Mayor of Miami tried a “not in my city” type stance when the carry laws were passed in the 80s. Didn’t work out so well. Good thing too.
[/QUOTE]

IIRC in another gun thread around here somewhere I asked about people with a CC permit getting busted in areas where it is not allowed. I forget who responded (I can search for it if you want) but if you have a CC permit you can legally carry it through jurisdictions where they are not allowed. By “carry” it I mean it can be in your trunk and not on your person (presumably unloaded as well but I do not know). As long as you are just passing through you will not get arrested for that. Where “passing through” turns into “staying too long” I do not know.

I would guess with the Full Faith & Credit Clause this is how it would have to work most places. Otherwise planning a trip anywhere with your guns in tow would be near impossible to figure out and at the least hopelessly complicated.

142

[QUOTE=GomiBoyJohnny L.A. - I am not going to go to a gun-cert web page and expect to see any contradictory cites or certs. Yet you are surprised why?[/QUOTE]

I didn’t ask you to, nor do I expect you to find contradictory claims on a pro-gun website.

What I asked is whether you have any cites contradicting that:
[ul][li]In 1974 registered revolvers were confiscated in New Zealand;[/li][li]In 1995 Canada passed a law that registered handguns are to be confiscated upon the death of the owner;[/li][li]In 1996 Australia required surrender or confiscation of registered firearms;[/li][li]Great Britain required surrender (confiscation) of registered handguns;[/li][li]In the 1990s New York banned and confiscated lawfully owned and registered firearms;[/li][li]California required registration of certain firearms, and then declared them illegal;[/li][li]In 2005 lawfully owned firearms were confiscated from victims of Hurricane Katrina[/ul][/li]
Did these things happen, or did they not. If they did not, please provide evidence.

143

[QUOTE=GomiBoy]
Bear_Nenno - you asked some questions, I answered them. You stooped to insults first, remember that. And in case you don’t recall the exchange, it’s about 5 posts back.
[/quote]
And what is that? Calling you ignorant? That is not an insult. If I was proposing some legislation about quantum physics, my ignorance on the matter would be blatantly obvious.

Why do you assume that? You think a debate should end after you give your side? I am trying to show you, through knowledge and experience of the system, why your rough draft proposals are inefective feel good legislation at best. They are redundant to current measures already in effect. That add nothing to safety while at the same time creating an unstable, confusing legal environment where one minute you’re legal, the next you aren’t.
I’m trying to show you certain things so that you can go back and rethink your proposal and make it stronger and more effective. I am not rabidly against all gun legislation. But laws that create ambiguous, nonsensical categories of firearms (ie quick shooters or what have you), laws that are unenforceable, laws that create new logistical issues without a propsed solution to those issues… I am categorically against such legislation.

If one wants to license or register gun owners, fine by me.
If one wants to creater harsher penalties for gun crime, great idea.
If one wants to make training mandatory, go for it.

But don’t try to register firearms. Dont reclassify firearms into some strange made up categories that fit only your idea of what a safe gun should be.

Personally, I am all for the registration and mandatory training of all gun owners. But I think, as some reciprocity, the government should unban and deregister all NFA weapons and repeal the ban on domesticly manufactured machineguns. Like a motorcylce endorsement on a driver’s license, allow anyone with that level of training and acceptable moral character to purchase all the machineguns he wants.

Until this post, I never shared my opinion with you. I was just trying to help you tweak your own proposals. Maybe you just lumped me in with anyone and everyone else who has countered your points into one huge, collective pro-gun Doper.

Hobbyists?

I am a noncommissioned officer in the United States Army. I am a former licensed dealer in Class III Firearms. I am a former supervisor of a rather large indoor gun range. I am a certified Home Firearm Safety and Personal Defense instructor. I am a certified Range Safety Officer. I have given the mandatory training to dozens and dozens of individuals to receive their CCWs. I’d say this makes me a professional, not a hobbyist.

And because of this, I am a bit familiar with the everyday transactions of all types of firearms. Believe me when I tell you that your ignorance clearly shows in your posts. That is fine, I will answer any question asked to help you understand.

Hmmm. Seems to me that you just decided you couldn’t answer this very relavant question. I’ll ask it again in case you missed it.

*Are there, or are there not, mental health issues that do not currently prohibit a person from purchasing a firearm which you think should prevent them?

If so, what are they, and how to you propose we check for these without an investigator and without a new database?

If not, then what exactly is different in your proposed plan that is not already part of the current process for purchasing every firearm from a legitimate business?*

A tangent? How about you start by answering the question above.

144

[QUOTE=Johnny L.A.]
I didn’t ask you to, nor do I expect you to find contradictory claims on a pro-gun website.

What I asked is whether you have any cites contradicting that:
[ul][li]In 1974 registered revolvers were confiscated in New Zealand;[/li][li]In 1995 Canada passed a law that registered handguns are to be confiscated upon the death of the owner;[/li][li]In 1996 Australia required surrender or confiscation of registered firearms;[/li][li]Great Britain required surrender (confiscation) of registered handguns;[/li][li]In the 1990s New York banned and confiscated lawfully owned and registered firearms;[/li][li]California required registration of certain firearms, and then declared them illegal;[/li][li]In 2005 lawfully owned firearms were confiscated from victims of Hurricane Katrina[/ul][/li]
Did these things happen, or did they not. If they did not, please provide evidence.
[/QUOTE]

Why all the discussion on the issue of confiscating guns? If the laws/constitution change that that is what will happen then you, as a law abiding citizen, need to comply. You may hate it. You may rail against it but I suspect there are a number of laws with which you do not agree but comply with. Part of living in a society where the rule of law is supposed to prevail. If the society wants that to happen then that is what should happen. Democracy and all that jazz.

Will all the bad people who do not comply go nuts and run rampant against the newly disarmed citizenry? Somehow I doubt it but that is not really answerable. Besides, in time those guns would get confiscated as well in the normal course of affairs and getting a gun would become prohibitively expensive for your average gang banger.

And if it is worry over the government becoming totalitarian and this is the first step well…not sure what good a shotgun will do you when the troops come down the street. Not to mention if we ever come to that pass we are all so seriously screwed gun ownership rather pales in comparison.

Also it may be worth noting that in your list of confiscations none of those countries have gone on to repress their citizens nor am I aware of any massive upsurge in crime against the newly minted, weaponless sheeple in those countries.

145

[QUOTE=GomiBoy]
And rather than discuss, you make personal observations about my lack of knowledge. OK, fine.
[/QUOTE]

Ignorance is not a character flaw, unless one wishes to remain so.

Considering I posted in this very thread that I did believe in restricting weapons sales and ownership, you’re purposefully misrepresenting my position in GD.

[QUOTE=Me on Page 1 of this Thread]
I do favor restricting people, not the guns. As in, raising the bar for gun ownership and possession, but keeping, or even lowering, the bar on the types of weapons.
[/QUOTE]

I never said those weren’t, why are you again trying to misrepresent my posts? YOU said:

YOU have been proven wrong. Your whole premise included your assertion that detachable magazine guns were civilian copies of military weapons. I gave an example proving you wrong. You’re now playing dance of the seven veils by making a strange and bizarre implication I said that AR-15’s et al were not copies.

And as to a single example, well, I didn’t think folks really wanted a laundry list of weapons posted here. Despite my participation in these threads, I’m not an expert on various brands and models of firearms available for sale. I can’t name all the .22’s, hunting rifles, and other weapons that have, by your definition, “high-capacity magazines.” But hey, I knew one more than you apparently did…

Huh? I named two specific cities, and you’re not understanding it? I pointed out DC and Chicago. DC had (and still does, in effect) a complete ban on ownership of the most popular means of firearms self-defense - handguns - excepting some that were grandfathered in from 1976. They eliminated carry of all firearms (with some exceptions) and required that all firearms be non-functional in the house. Chicago has a similar ban on handguns after a certain date. These are easily Googlable and have been discussed ad nauseum on this message board. Here, since you can’t even be bothered to do the least legwork, let’s give you a link:

DC: Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 - Wikipedia
Chicago: Gun laws in the United States by state - Wikipedia (see note on handguns…do I need to Search for you in the page as well? I hope not.)

In fact, the fact that you are not aware of this means you really aren’t very knowledgeable about the issue, because no one interested in this issue could not know about DC’s ban and the resulting Heller decision.

Even if that was true and somehow Constitutional, that is in no way comparable in magnitude and you know it. Try again.

146

[QUOTE=Whack-a-Mole]
IIRC in another gun thread around here somewhere I asked about people with a CC permit getting busted in areas where it is not allowed. I forget who responded (I can search for it if you want) but if you have a CC permit you can legally carry it through jurisdictions where they are not allowed. By “carry” it I mean it can be in your trunk and not on your person (presumably unloaded as well but I do not know).
[/QUOTE]
But that’s just it. It is only a minor inconvenience when one might have to stop at the state line, go to his trunk, unholster and unload his firearm, and then get back in and continue driving. That’s not too big of a deal when going from a state that recognizes your license to one that doesn’t. But if, like Gombi suggested, the chief of police could make his own rule for the area, that would be insane. There are just so many little towns that actually are incorporated cities with mayors and cheifs of police. A person could be stopping for gas in some city and not even realize he is in a different city. Now he’s got a concealed firearm in the store. If nothing else happens right then and there, no harm no foul. Nobody finds out.
But what if for some reason, a cop walks up to him to talk to him about some recent incident. Maybe the guy fits a description of someone they are looking for or something. Then the guy gets searched… off to jail. Any sort of “well he was only passing through” tolerance will be solely up to the officer’s discretion. Get one on a bad day, and see how that goes.

And if you dont think my story is plausible about all the little cities, drive through Florida a little bit. When you’re in the Tampa Bay Area, tell me if you know where Temple Terrace, Pinellas Park, Bellair Beach, or any of the other dozen little baby cities begin and end. And then a person would be expected to know all the local carry and possesion laws in each little place? Its insane. What if a person is from Orlando and visiting there. Unecessary burden with little to no benefit to society, in my opinion.
And FWIW, contrary to the NRA’s official opinion and the views of others, I don’t believe that encroachment of gun rights is the worst atrocity our country is dealing with. Ironic that the NRA encourages its members to vote “Freedom First”, and then promotes candidates who are actively engaged in the desicration of just that–our Freedoms. I am obviously pro-gun. But I refuse to vote for someone who is rabidly anti-freedom of speech, anti-due process, anti-gay marriage, or anti any other fundamental rights of human beings just so that I can get a candidate in office who will not restrict gun ownership. Gotta keep things in perspective.

147

[QUOTE=Whack-a-Mole]
Why all the discussion on the issue of confiscating guns?
[/QUOTE]

Because GomiBoy asked why anti-registration people believe that registration leads to confiscation. I provided citation that democracies that have registered firearms – including in the United States – have confiscated them. He said he would not take the word of a pro-gun site. In effect, his post suggested that the cite was wrong. So now I’m asking for cites to back that opinion.

As to the rest of your post, you seem to have me confused with a paranoid. I don’t believe I said anything about ‘bad people going completely nuts’, and I’ve said earlier in this thread I don’t guy into the ‘defense against tyranny’ idea.

But take a look at your first paragraph: ‘If the laws/constitution change that that is what will happen then you, as a law abiding citizen, need to comply.’ If the problem is ‘bad people’ misusing guns, what sense does it make to pass laws that only affect ‘good people’?

148

Given that NICS is used to determine if someone should not carry a firearm, why not turn it around and have a database of people who are licenced to carry firearms. Licencing coming from training, testing and showing you are capable of handling each type of weapon responsibely.

That way, if someone who is licenced wants to purchase a weapon, they will already have been pre-approved.

I have still yet to see someone tell me about an Assault Weapon that is non-lethal and designed for something other than killing, seeing as this is central to the ban in question. Anyone?

149

[QUOTE=Una Persson]
I’ve probably written hundreds of thousands of words on it, and no one here agrees with me anyhow, so I’ll summarize my points as to why I believe the AWB is a bad idea:
[/QUOTE]
For what it’s worth, I agree with all the points you listed. And it’s basically the arguments of people here on the SDMB that have convinced me. I used to feel that basically any gun control was good gun control (although as a non-gun owner, I didn’t know much about the issues involved).

150

Cat, the problem with that is, of course, the same as requiring a license to own and operate a printing press.

Don’t worry, citizen. We won’t block anyone from speaking and publishing freely.

151

You would like an assault weapon that is not lethal and is not designed for killing.
You sound a little unclear on the concept of what an assault weapon is.
But heck. Sure. Load an AA-12 with Tazer or beanbag rounds, and it becomes a less-than-lethal weapon. Happy now?

152

[QUOTE=Johnny L.A.]
Because GomiBoy asked why anti-registration people believe that registration leads to confiscation. I provided citation that democracies that have registered firearms – including in the United States – have confiscated them. He said he would not take the word of a pro-gun site. In effect, his post suggested that the cite was wrong. So now I’m asking for cites to back that opinion.

As to the rest of your post, you seem to have me confused with a paranoid. I don’t believe I said anything about ‘bad people going completely nuts’, and I’ve said earlier in this thread I don’t guy into the ‘defense against tyranny’ idea.

But take a look at your first paragraph: ‘If the laws/constitution change that that is what will happen then you, as a law abiding citizen, need to comply.’ If the problem is ‘bad people’ misusing guns, what sense does it make to pass laws that only affect ‘good people’?
[/QUOTE]

Sorry if I mischaracterized your stance on the issues. I do however see those as common issues cited by those who support gun ownership. Una Persoon mentioned on the first page having shock troops going door-to-door to get your guns.

For my part I reject the notion of gun laws affecting only “good” people. When the laws are as filled with loopholes as is currently the case then yes, it leaves the door wide open for the bad guys to easily obtain weapons and only those who are law abiding are affected. For this I actually blame the NRA and their ilk. Their lobbying efforts ensure that any gun control law that gets passed is riddled with exceptions and stupidity (e.g. evil black guns, gun show sales, etc.) and then they spin around and point to those laws and say, “See! These are ineffectual and even downright dumb laws!” But by taking that stance that any restriction only affects the good guys then why start? We have guns, good guys and bad guys and that’s that? Is there no way to construct restrictions that affect bad guys too?

Likewise I do not buy the whole “It’s my right!” tack. Yes, it is currently a right and as such it is something I have to accept (read that again before you tell me I am suggesting it is not a current right we possess). However while it is in the Constitution I do not see how the word “militia” in there is conveniently ignored. If the framers simply meant for everyone to have a gun I think they would have worded it without that bit in there. Further, this presupposes that the Founding Fathers were immune from making mistakes. Just because they wrote it does not mean it cannot have been a bad idea. Even if it was a good idea then they lived in a vastly different time and society than we have today. If it made sense then that does not necessarily argue that it still makes sense today.

So all debate on any restrictions is usually still born. Aside from mandatory waiting periods (to an extent), background checks and required instruction I have not seen a restriction that is not vehemently opposed (and even those are by some). Of course, sensible as those restrictions/requirements are, they do absolutely zero to keep guns out of the hands of bad guys which I think is the ultimate goal of gun control.

153

[QUOTE=Whack-a-Mole]
For my part I reject the notion of gun laws affecting only “good” people. When the laws are as filled with loopholes as is currently the case then yes, it leaves the door wide open for the bad guys to easily obtain weapons and only those who are law abiding are affected.
[/QUOTE]

So, you’re saying that nobody would have guns if they were under a blanket ban of the sort applied to cocaine, DRM-strippers, backroom gambling operations…? :dubious:

154

You could say the same thing about samurai swords (well, excluding movie props and unsharpened replicas, but there are fake assualt weapons too.) Yet we don’t ban those. The fact that something is designed for killing doesn’t preclude someone from wanting to own one just because it “looks cool”, or for a multitude of other reasons.

You can make a case that more assualt weapons than samurai swords are used in the commission of crimes, but as noted above the vast majority of gun crimes are actually committed with handguns, not assualt weapons.

155

You’d be surprised about the number of samurai swords used in the commission of crimes. Ancedotally, I hear about more of them than I do actual assault weapons.

156

[QUOTE=Steve MB]
So, you’re saying that nobody would have guns if they were under a blanket ban of the sort applied to cocaine, DRM-strippers, backroom gambling operations…? :dubious:
[/QUOTE]

Of course where there is a market people will buy them and people will seek to meet that demand.

However they would become much more expensive. Particularly since they are harder to smuggle in than cocaine. So sure some bad guys would still have them but I doubt you would find an average street gang well armed.

157

[QUOTE=Whack-a-Mole]
We have guns, good guys and bad guys and that’s that? Is there no way to construct restrictions that affect bad guys too?
[/QUOTE]

We already have laws that affect the bad guys. Felons, drug addicts, and mentally unstable people are not allowed to own firearms. We have laws against theft and the receiving of stolen property. A minor is not allowed to purchase a firearm, and one must be 21 to buy a handgun. And yet there are a lot of mid-teen gangbangers out there who are armed. Doesn’t it make more sense to enforce the laws we have and apprehend the crims, than to make more laws that won’t affect them and only puts undue burdens on the vast majority of gun owners?

158

[QUOTE=Johnny L.A.]
We already have laws that affect the bad guys. Felons, drug addicts, and mentally unstable people are not allowed to own firearms. We have laws against theft and the receiving of stolen property. A minor is not allowed to purchase a firearm, and one must be 21 to buy a handgun. And yet there are a lot of mid-teen gangbangers out there who are armed. Doesn’t it make more sense to enforce the laws we have and apprehend the crims, than to make more laws that won’t affect them and only puts undue burdens on the vast majority of gun owners?
[/QUOTE]

Sure. But you need a way to stop them getting guns in the first place. Busting them after the fact for an illegally owned gun they just used to shoot someone is not terribly helpful.

So why not make it so any gun purchase is tracked and requires appropriate paperwork (back ground check, permit, whatever else falls within that)? That means if you want to sell to your buddy, if you are selling at a gun show or buying at a store or wherever. The last person in the line who did not get the appropriate paperwork to sell the gun is liable (to some degree) for a crime the weapon caused. The idea here is to stop someone buying them legally then selling to people who probably shouldn’t have a gun and shrugging that it is not their fault what happens once it leaves their hands.

159

[QUOTE=E-Sabbath]
Cat, the problem with that is, of course, the same as requiring a license to own and operate a printing press.

Don’t worry, citizen. We won’t block anyone from speaking and publishing freely.
[/QUOTE]
Or a driving licence.

Of course friend citizen, we won’t stop anyone from driving either.

[QUOTE=E-Sabbath]
You would like an assault weapon that is not lethal and is not designed for killing.
You sound a little unclear on the concept of what an assault weapon is.
But heck. Sure. Load an AA-12 with Tazer or beanbag rounds, and it becomes a less-than-lethal weapon. Happy now?
[/QUOTE]

Check the location as to why I am unclear, please bear with me :wink:

Not lethal anymore, yes. But it is still designed for killing. Then again, how many gun owners would be happy to have all their assault weapons remain neutered in this way and remain non lethal.

160

I apologize for a reading comprehension error - the original design of the AR15 was probably intended for killing. I somehow read “designed” as “made for” or something.
However that still doesn’t seem terribly important. Neither I nor anyone I know use their AR’s for killin’ folk.

I disagree with McCain on this, but his idea makes far more sense from a public safety point of view - that is to ban cheap “Saturday Night Specials” rather than expensive precision instruments that are treated like a fine watch. I believe crimes are more often committed with $100 zinc pistols than $1000 MOA-capable rifles. This is also a good way to make sure poor people don’t get guns, which seems to be the goal of some people (IMHO).