I completely disagree with banning rifles and pistols. However, I am all for intensive background checks, psychological tests, firearm classes and tests, mandatory storage safety with inspections and licensing classifications depending on what you want to buy. The Europeans do this correctly and the US allows lunatics to own firearms.
Those will be used against letting leftist get guns.
“If you’ve smoked weed in the last 5 years or have Trump Derangement Syndrome, I’m afraid I can’t sell this to you.”
We joke, but Ronald Reagan signed California’s gun control laws because the Black Panthers had guns and minorities having guns scares conservatives
mandatory storage safety with inspections
Here in the U.S. our Constitution prohibits the government from performing searches of people’s homes with first having probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed and a warrant to search their home that has been signed by a judge. Const. Amend. IV.
As part of getting an FFL, you effectively waive that right; the ATFE can drop by the address on the license, unscheduled, for inspection, and if you don’t let them in, your FFL we be immediately rescinded, and nearly any judge will approve a search warrant for that location over the phone in minutes.
We could do the same for individual owners, just like dealers, and there would be supporting precedent. (But, it would certainly be subject to judicial (including SCOTUS) review.)
That kind of regulation wouldn’t even survive a 9th Circuit en banc. Existing law governing industry is not “supporting precedent” to force private citizens to waive one right just to enjoy another in their own home.
Well yeah, they might need those guns to topple fascists…
In that case, let’s ban them
- Republicans most likely
Smart move.
Well the Republicans are public stating they plan on erasing everyone who isn’t white so yeah stay strapped
Great point. When the country has fallen to fascism is not the time to implement gun control.
They’ll need it for the civil war
Or…this is just another cynical ploy to appeal to the right, since they seem incapable of moving left on any subject.
I don’t think so. It happened in the Hawaii state legislature. They don’t run on the same incentives over there.
It’s because it’s not the issue, nor should time be wasted on that right now. We can argue policy later. We need to unite and get the traitor out of office
That’s literally the only garbage the Democrats have been running on for almost a decade now. “Don’t think about policy…just focus on getting the bad guy out of office.” If that’s such a great strategy, then why do things keep getting worse?
Maybe if we actually deal with the underlying policy problems, we wouldn’t have the issue of fascism taking over, in the first place.
Sorry. You’re wrong.
Focusing on this stupidity is what hurt the Dems. They keep going to the same wall Wich dried up a long time ago. Focus on the issue at hand
Lol! How did Democrats focus on policy?
This is one thing I hate about democrats. They barely swing a few undecided voters and throw it all away by bringing up an item that many undecided voters take as a single-issue subject.
Gun issues are a losing topic.
Focus efforts on anything else (healthcare, housing, etc) and gun violence will drop.
Where the fuck are all your dedicated gun nut independents? Because this issue that you don’t like and because of that assume that massive numbers of true independents don’t like seems to have added up to jack shit as far as exercising those cherished rights to actually do ANYTHING in response to unmistakeable tyranny.
And I’m not even talking about starting a hot rebellion. The MAGA shitstains armed up and showed the colors over school boards and vaccines, but actual assaults on democratic constitutional order and this supposedly critically large non-MAGA gun population can’t even be arsed to do anything. You’ve got a hobby and a fantasy that when things get Really Serious, you’ll be the hero, but that time is always somehow not actually happening, because it’s only supposed to be a fantasy.
Where the fuck are all your dedicated gun nut independents?
Everywhere, in plain sight, not talking about it on heavily surveiled social media.
Not doing anything. I don’t want a status report, I just don’t believe that this huge group of tyranny-resistors is actually there and none of them are organizing shows of force to put the government on notice, but that you’re all just waiting for something more serious to actually decide it’s time for the well regulated militia to hit the streets. Maybe you’ll be out there when the shooting war actually starts, but I’m not even confident in that.
What are you doing? Why do you think owning a gun obligates anyone to put themselves in the Trump regime’s crosshairs?
It’s their whole excuse for why protecting their hobby is important. When it matters they’ll convert from fetishists to patriots. They finally have their chance to prove that all the dead children was worth it. If that’s not happening then their deadly hobby is just a hobby, to be regulated and restricted like drag racing or fireworks.
You seem to be under the impression that gun owners are a monolith. There are lots of leftist gun owners you never see because they keep it on the down low.
No I’m not, and that’s the whole point. Most right-wing gun owners are just hobbyists too, but some bleeding edge of them showed up when their side declared “tyranny” was afoot (aka vaccine requirements or woke schoolboards). If there’s some deep well of good guy gun owners that will (some day) make all the dead kids worth it, you’d expect some bleeding edge to be showing the colors, declaring the stakes, and putting the government on notice.
So the media again is helping stir the pot. When you use vague language like “assault-style” weapons, it makes it open to wide interpretation as to what an “assault-style” weapon is. You. the reader, are assuming and envisioning the AR-15, the AK-47 but it can also include semi-automatic hand guns or some types of shotguns. If you want to put a ban on something quit tip toeing and define the weapons you want to ban and their variants using specific language such as semi-automatic rifle, fully-automatic rifle, barrel length, etc. They should also quit banning by cosmetics to define “assault-style” weapons. You can easily change your fully-automatic rifle to look like a Nerf gun (fully automatics are illegal anyway). Here’s a bit more on the term:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon
People should actually read the laws on the books and quit relying on the media or their politicians to do the reading for them. They may find there’s already several bans on “assault-style” weapons because specific language is used. People should also focus on the loopholes instead and campaign to get those closed. Politicians won’t do it so long as the NRA keeps shoving cash into their pockets.
If you want to put a ban on something quit tip toeing and define the weapons you want to ban and their variants using specific language such as semi-automatic rifle, fully-automatic rifle, barrel length, etc
That’s how you get weird-ass weapons designed specifically to work around the law though. E.g in Russia they regulate harder any weapon that has rifling on more than half of the barrel (otherwise it’s considered a hunting shotgun iirc), so of course there are tons of Russian civilian weapons that are basically military stuff with shitty rifling and locked to semi auto
It does turn into a game of “one-up” but this is why you get actual weapons experts to advise on the language of the law and not business owners and lawyers who have no idea what a gun is other than it makes them a lot of money or its scary.
You will get zero people that have real knowledge and understanding of weapon systems advising legislators on ways to ban them.
Lots of cops and ex-military in favor of gun control. Not all people who know guns love them being easily and widely available.
Lots of cops and ex-military in favor of gun control.
Cops and ex-mil are not usually people I’d say know guns. When I say “know guns”, I don’t mean just that they know how to shoot–which most cops and mil people can’t do for shit----I mean know how they work, and why they’re designed the way that they are. I mean, how many cops or military people can tell you exactly what the difference is between, say, a direct impingement and a piston system? Or what the different kind of delayed blowback mechanisms are? Or what the technical differences are between and AR-15 that’s capable of being select fire, and one that isn’t?
And, even more than that, when you look at history, it’s clear that the second amendment was intended to ensure that the people had access to militarily-suitable arms. We’re right at the point of gov’t tyranny right NOW, and Dems want to disarm people? So, what?, we can have a King Trump I?
When I say “know guns”, I don’t mean just that they know how to shoot–which most cops and mil people can’t do for shit----I mean know how they work, and why they’re designed the way that they are.
None of this is rocket science. Your side hobby isn’t a PhD program that no lowly normie could comprehend without years of jerking off to gun specs.
We’re right at the point of gov’t tyranny right NOW
And I notice a conspicuous lack of “patriots” reacting at all. We’ve had years excusing dead kids in the name of deterrence against a tyrannical government and now people are getting kidnapped by masked men without identification or documentation and the people getting in the way and showing up at detention centers are unarmed women.
Your side hobby isn’t a PhD program
And yet, none of the people writing laws can understand these things. Nor do cops, most people in the military, or–in all likelihood–you. But by golly, they’re going to write laws about them, even if they have no idea what the laws they’re writing will actually do!
And I notice a conspicuous lack of “patriots” reacting at all.
Yeah, it’s almost like what passes for a “political left” in the USA is a completely watered down, neutered version of the left, and is more interested in circular firing squads than actually doing something, huh?
Hawaii state Senator Joy Buenaventura, who is typically a supporter of gun control measures, said the bill would criminalize existing owners of assault rifles, per Hawaii News Now.
She said: “Now, by their mere possession, because we decide to pass this bill, we decide to label them as criminals and that to me, it’s unethical and should not be tolerated by this body.”
However, Senate Judiciary chair Karl Rhoads disagreed with this take on the bill saying it allowed for “grandfathering.”
Sooo… which is it?
But yeah. Obviously America should do this.
YUP. Seems like an important contradiction where a good journalist could then go to the bill text and determine which one of them is lying.
Says it “allows” for grandfathering, so I bet they pick & choose who’s a criminal and who gets a pass.
rEaChInG aCrOsS tHe AiSlE
What a pointless bill. Assault rifles have been illegal nationwide for decades.
The bill provides the exact definition they use for assault rifle which appears to be more strict than federal law. So, no, it is not pointless.
What do you mean? Assault rifles are perfectly legal
Assault rifles are full auto or burst fire. They’re not legal for civilians without a specific form of FFL, which is difficult and expensive to get. Even with an FFL you will probably run into problems with state and local laws. That’s why you’ll pretty much only see assault rifles at places like the ones outside Vegas where they let you pay to fire one for a few minutes.
Fully automatic weapons can be legally owned after a mere $200 application to the ATF.
The real hurdle is the closed nature of the full auto registry creates artificial scarcity and pushes the price of the gun itself up.
But, assuming you have the money, it is a straightforward process no more complicated or time consuming than legally owning an SBR.
Edit: Not sure why I’m being downvoted. Here is the transfer form. Block 4B is where you list what type of NFA item you are buying.
I think they call em “assault weapons” and they’re basically anything high capacity and semi auto and black and scary. Basically no recent discourse about assault whatever has actually referred to burst or auto weapons.
I think you’re probably right that those are what the law is targeting, and Newsweek is simply lying in this article.
I went and read the text. The TLDR is the law was targeted to semiautomatic weapons, but the text itself defined those as “assault rifles”.
The text proposed banning “assault rifles” and within the bill it laid out a definition for the purposes of the bill:
“Assault rifle” means a semiautomatic rifle
(1) With an overall length less than thirty inches;
(2) That has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than ten rounds, except for an attached tubular device designed to accept, and capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition; or
(3) That accepts a detachable magazine or that may be readily modified to accept a detachable magazine and has one or more of the following characteristics:
(A) A folding, telescoping, or detachable stock, or a stock that is otherwise foldable or adjustable in a manner that operates to reduce the length, the size, or any dimension, or otherwise enhances the concealability of the weapon;
(B) A pistol grip or thumbhole stock;
© Any feature capable of functioning as a protruding grip that can be held by the non‑trigger hand;
(D) A flash suppressor;
(E) A shroud that is attached to or partially or completely encircles the barrel and permits the shooter to hold the firearm with the second hand without being burned, but excluding a slide that encloses the barrel;
(F) A bayonet mount;
(G) A grenade launcher; or
(H) A threaded barrel capable of accepting a barrel extender, flash suppressor, forward hand grip, or silencer.
Why are you using a term as vague as “assault rifle”?
Because it’s the term used in the article we’re discussing. It’s not vague, assault rifle has a pretty solid definition. It’s essentially a select fire rifle that uses rounds smaller than machine guns but larger than pistols.
Gun control would make so much more sense if we treated guns like vehicles.
Want to drive a car?
New driver?
Pass a test, and get a provisianal license to operate safely with experienced users in your company.
Test to prove proficiency, ensure you don’t have any restrictive health issues that could impact your safe operation of the unit, validate your insurance coverage and you get a standard operators permit.
Need to use the big equipment?
Take some additional safety courses, beef up your insurance and prove you can handle it - with regular check ins and enhanced supervision and you get a commercial license.
Want to do something different, like the gun equivalent of a motorcycle? Another test and license endorsement to use.
Main theory - you can have anything you want but agree to prove and maintain proficiency and be mentally and physically able to operate it. Regular check ins to ensure your abilities do not wain and annual registration.
This is not crazy. If it works for cars, semi trucks, motorcycles etc - it should work for deadly weapons.
And remember, we have handicapped drivers, we have people on probationary permits etc, breathalyzer start switches, etc ……there are lots of places for reasonable accommodations to the infringed and those with limited or restricted capacity.
But to just turn the keys of a semi truck with a double trailer over to 16 year old with near sighted vision?
They’d say you are crazy.
But anyone of legal age can walk in, grab an AR-15 and disappear into the woodwork for the rest of their lives with capacity for mass assault and no one does anything about it.
I understand why you say this, but Americans have a right to bear arms, not vehicles. The only reason for all the controls on vehicles is because they are a privilege, not a right.
The law can be whatever we collectively want it to be. The entire point of having Amendments is that the Constitution was supposed to be a living document that we would refine and improve over time.
No bro the constitution was 100% perfect and infallible from day 1 and can never ever be altered
/s
That’s simply incorrect. Nothing in there is stopping gun control laws from being implemented.
Permits are already a thing in some states, and certain individuals are prohibited from owning guns.
The right is far from unlimited, even though many seem to think so.
Americans have the right to bear arms just as much as they have the right to shout fire in a crowded theatre — it’s a right that can be regulated and both already are, one needs more regulation, but people don’t seem to understand.
You should be allowed to bear arms without bullets, in a small “right to bear arms zone” far outside of any town, in a desert, with a bunch of “law enforcement” (chuckle) types pointing guns at you while you bear them. Fair is fair.
We have a right to free political speech too, anytime anywhere. But we dont have those rights anymore outside of “free speech zones” far from anywhere people will see you, and you will be threatened and physically abused and your cars vandalized by cops if you go to one. So cry me a river on your “constitutional” “right to bear arms”.
As the founders intended, we have a right to bear a single-bore muzzle-loaded flint-lock. Anything more than that should really be a separate right.
And you should also be required to regularly attend militia training if you have any kind of weapon.
