I'd be for maybe exempting suppressors from the $200 tax stamp. CCPs should not be easier to obtain; if anything, they should be more difficult require more training. As far as national CCP reciprocity, that would be nice, but I don't think we should override state sovereignty like that. I don't think there's a strong argument that such a law would be constitutionally permissible.

2/22/2013 8:01:24 PM

SBRs and SBSs should be removed from NFA as well

2/22/2013 8:54:47 PM

Quote :

"CCPs should not be easier to obtain; if anything, they should be more difficult require more training. As far as national CCP reciprocity, that would be nice, but I don't think we should override state sovereignty like that. I don't think there's a strong argument that such a law would be constitutionally permissible."

I understand the state sovereignty issue. I just threw out some ideas, and I hear that one a lot. What actual compromises can you think of?

[Edited on February 22, 2013 at 8:55 PM. Reason : ]]

2/22/2013 8:54:54 PM

letting us have well-regulated militias

2/22/2013 8:56:30 PM

that's the national guard

2/22/2013 9:06:09 PM

nope, anytime you actually try to use it as a state's militia and the fed doesn't agree, POTUS can just call them up for service. happened during the '60s.

[Edited on February 22, 2013 at 9:11 PM. Reason : the militia is every able-bodied male over 18. SCOTUS agrees.]

Quote :

"[E]ach and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia...[and] every citizen so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch with a box therein to contain not less than twenty-four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball: or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear, so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise, or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack."

[Edited on February 22, 2013 at 9:16 PM. Reason : ads]

2/22/2013 9:07:57 PM

we were warned about the dangers of standing armies. now, when you say "we need 2A as a check against tyranny" the response always boils down to "but the standing army will kick your ass".

2/22/2013 9:17:27 PM

neusriverrat wants his militia so he can start attacking LEO's

and you wonder why Clinton and H.W. Bush cracked down on them

2/22/2013 9:45:47 PM

also

every one of you saying that less gun laws is what we need to reduce gun crime and gun deaths are mouth breathing morons

2/22/2013 9:47:30 PM

That may be true, but there is no gun ban beyond automatic weapons that makes too much sense.

The Biden video really points this out. A shotgun and handgun are just as deadly in massacres as a rifle with a pistol grip.

It just seems an AWB that focuses on limiting certain features and guns misses the mark.

Gun reform should focus more on policing and monitoring the avenues guns get into criminals or madmens hands. It might be a compromise to ditch the AWB in favor of closing loopholes and increasing penalties on failing to secure weapons. If this leads to information being consolidated on where a guns might be, so be it. This should be on the table.

2/22/2013 10:00:24 PM

^ If the AWB is missing the mark, why use it as part of a "compromise" ?

by agreeing to cut it, i mean

[Edited on February 22, 2013 at 10:20 PM. Reason : |]

2/22/2013 10:19:39 PM

Because politics and gun lobby

2/22/2013 10:51:05 PM

Quote :

"encouraging an opened up background check system, but not wanting to register guns is now not compromising?"

Background check system is not worth shit if it is not being used by the private party sellers. Right now, there is no accountability for private weapons exchange and everything happens on an "honor system" in many states. I'm not advocating complicating someone's life just to put a checkmark for "another victory on on gun control", I would like to see an actual working solution that will make guns harder for criminals to purchase. That's why I thought that background checks IN CONJUNCTION with mandatory transaction vetting by some sort of government agency will keep people accountable for what they do with their guns. You bought ten guns this year and cannot account for eight of them? You would show where you sold it to ELIGIBLE buyers or show a police report where you reported them stolen.

Not how this solution does NOT restrict you what type of guns you can buy, how many of them you can own, what type of accessories you put on them as long as you are LEGALLY ELIGIBLE to own a firearm.

2/22/2013 11:08:54 PM

what if my dad wants to let me borrow his rifle or shotgun to go hunting or go give it a try at the range? what if my buddy wants to try out my new pistol at the range? should we have to go to an FFL, pay a transfer fee, and fill out paperwork before and after?

2/22/2013 11:16:38 PM

No, as long as you trust someone to use the gun in a lawful manner and then return it back to you, there should not be any paperwork (just like you can let someone else use your car without transferring the ownership of it). Now, if you give it to your buddy and he shoots someone with it, obviously the blame will initially fall on you, and then you will have to prove that the gun was not in your possession (just like when someone borrows your car and runs a red light with it)

2/22/2013 11:34:10 PM

but that's exactly why red-light tickets aren't criminal penalties.

2/22/2013 11:52:02 PM

^^^^ there's really not much accountability for licensed dealers too, there are so many restrictions protecting them against audits

[Edited on February 22, 2013 at 11:53 PM. Reason : .]

2/22/2013 11:52:46 PM

Quote :

"neusriverrat wants his militia so he can start attacking LEO's"

There are actually LEO's that are in full support of civilian ownership of firearms and, more importantly, are doing their job of protecting not only their communities, but also the Constitution of the United States.

The Utah Sheriff's Dept is just one of many agencies taking a stand.

http://www.newsmax.com/US/obama-gun-grab-sheriffs/2013/01/28/id/487693

Quote :

"State Rep. Brian Greene has proposed legislation giving Utah sheriffs the power to arrest federal agents who attempt to seize firearms from citizens."

Quote :

"The letter states, “… as the duly-elected sheriffs of our respective counties, we will enforce the rights guaranteed to our citizens by the Constitution. No federal official will be permitted to descend upon our constituents and take from them what the Bill of Rights – in particularly Amendment II – has given them. “We, like you, swore a solemn oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, and we are prepared to trade our lives for the preservation of its traditional interpretation.” "

http://www.moabtimes.com/view/full_story/21505211/article-Utah-sheriffs-oppose-gun-confiscation-in-letter-to-Obama?instance=lead_story_leftcolumn


[Edited on February 23, 2013 at 2:11 AM. Reason : .]

2/23/2013 2:09:47 AM

While I applaud the sheriff's enthusiasm, I wonder what would the department would if I were to try to open carry in Utah state courthouse, and when they would tell me there are no guns allowed in the courthouse, I'd quote my constitutional right to bear arm and refuse to surrender it.

I think SCOTUS has to find a law unconstitutional before you can actually resist it with deadly force without a possibility of getting shot by state LEO or the feds, you can't just say "i find this unconstitutional" and start firing away in self-defense. Constitution is the Supreme Law, and it is lawmakers' job to make all other legislature based on that law, while it is SCOTUS' job to interpret the Constitution and to make sure any new legislation does not violate it. However, if the law is passed, whether state or federal, and it is not found unconstitutional, public must obey the law or challenge it in a legal way, not just grab a gun and barricade themselves in their home swearing to defend it to last drop of blood.

Even in Hiro's quote, it is clear that what they are defending is a specific "traditional interpretation" of the constitution

I understand that there may be cases where government grossly oversteps the boundary and at some point groups of citizens or entire states can decide simply not to follow a new law and resist arrest for breaking it, but at that point they have to be ready to lead a revolution and/or a civil war.

I often hear this argument that without the Second Amendment rights, other rights given by BOR would cease to exist. I personally read it as the ability of armed citizens to organize militias in case of government tyranny in order to force the government to amend its ways. I think some people read it differently and imagine think that they can defend their individual freedoms by firing upon LEOs, be it federal or state, that they think violate their rights. To provide an analogy, imagine if a few individuals wanted to do some hate speaking, law enforcement would probably try to arrest them because SCOTUS found hate speech not protected by the First Amendment. These people could then declare than they prefer the "traditional interpretation" of the first amendment and fire at the LEOs, claiming that they are protecting their constitutional right. The question is, if there is a law issued by the Congress and not found unconstitutional by the SCOTUS, are they protecting their rights or are they breaking the law? Now what if government found that magazines larger than 10 rounds are not protected by the Second Amendment, and the SCOTUS agreed this law doesn't infringe on peoples right to bear arms. Would people refusing to surrender their magazines be right to fire at the LEOs that would try to enforce this new law?

2/23/2013 11:08:06 AM

^ you seem to equate self defense and what these Sheriffs are doing as a "shoot first" situation. You do know that's not necessarily the case, right? There's nothing that says these Sheriffs are going to shoot a federal agent trying to do their job. You shoot when your life is in imminent danger, not to prevent any old crime. If the Feds shoot first, I'm sure the sheriffs will shoot back. If there is a serious danger of that happening, they may shoot first. They're not going to just walk up and say "You are acting illegally. bang". You've had a few posts now where I get that vibe from you. Maybe it's just your wording but it really seems like you misunderstand self defense and defense of constitutional rights.

2/23/2013 4:31:50 PM

Quote :

"There are actually LEO's that are in full support of civilian ownership of firearms and, more importantly, are doing their job of protecting not only their communities, but also the Constitution of the United States."

i made that statement based on his statement that he wants to attack LEO as soon as he has a militia. he said it, not me.
see:

Quote :

"NeuseRvrRat MOLON LABE 28353 Posts user info edit post when enough folks agree with me that the U.S. is no longer a "free state". i'd suggest shooting anyone who enforces the measures that prevent it from being a "free state". 2/20/2013 12:29:10 PM"

Hiro,

At what point do you think we need to take up arms against the government? At what point have they overstepped the line and infringed on our freedoms? If the 2nd amendment is a protection against government tyranny, at what point has the government become tyrannical and we need to take up arms?


[Edited on February 23, 2013 at 6:54 PM. Reason : name]

2/23/2013 6:52:26 PM

Quote :

"I think SCOTUS has to find a law unconstitutional before you can actually resist it with deadly force without a possibility of getting shot by state LEO or the feds, you can't just say "i find this unconstitutional""

you still can't resist wwith deadly force even if they have, that's what civil rights lawsuits are for. unless you want to go to jail, then go for it.

2/23/2013 6:55:53 PM

^Good point. I guess it will constitute resisting arrest. But what if they break into your house with no warrant, don't you have a right to shoot in self-defense?

Quote :

"you seem to equate self defense and what these Sheriffs are doing as a "shoot first" situation. You do know that's not necessarily the case, right? There's nothing that says these Sheriffs are going to shoot a federal agent trying to do their job. You shoot when your life is in imminent danger, not to prevent any old crime. If the Feds shoot first, I'm sure the sheriffs will shoot back. If there is a serious danger of that happening, they may shoot first. They're not going to just walk up and say "You are acting illegally. bang". You've had a few posts now where I get that vibe from you. Maybe it's just your wording but it really seems like you misunderstand self defense and defense of constitutional rights."

Sure, I was basing it on pure speculation of what would happen if federal agents will come to confiscate guns from people who said they will not give up their arms even in face of any new legislature. Wherever there are armed people taking arms from other armed people, either the offending party is going to give up trying, the defending party is going to surrender their weapons, or there's gonna be a gunfight. I was looking at the video of weapons confiscation on the previous page and though of what would happen if instead of the granny it was an armed LEO that felt like the Feds are standing on his turf, trying to take his firearms.

2/23/2013 7:29:06 PM

Quote :

"-That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world."

2/24/2013 8:57:01 AM

Quote :

"But what if they break into your house with no warrant, don't you have a right to shoot in self-defense?"

a LEO? nope.

[Edited on February 24, 2013 at 12:14 PM. Reason : assuming you are discussing legal rights as opposed to moral rights]

2/24/2013 12:14:08 PM

I think it's interesting that when you look at countries where crime rates are much higher than in the U.S., you will find that for self defense of home invasion people put the most faith in panic rooms and security systems.

2/24/2013 11:02:01 PM

That might be because gun ownership is more difficult in those countries.

2/24/2013 11:32:04 PM

and also because its a fact that's nearly impossible to prove that was probable just made up

2/24/2013 11:49:42 PM

Not made up

2/25/2013 12:11:32 AM

So its a fact from where or based on what?

2/25/2013 8:29:04 AM

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/284679-gop-lawmaker-says-obama-using-fake-people-to-flood-twitter-with-gun-control-messages

haha now the white house is spamming twitter with its bullshit

2/25/2013 7:38:11 PM

How did you trace that to the white house? Is Obama responsible for everything anyone does on his behalf?

2/26/2013 8:43:23 AM

Suck it gun control advocates.

2/26/2013 1:54:41 PM

this is the beginning of a new era

2/26/2013 4:18:32 PM

This will end well...

2/26/2013 4:21:39 PM

Wow, you can buy a $4k 3d printer and make gun parts! That's so much different than how you could have bought a $4k cnc machine and have made gun parts for years now.

2/26/2013 4:41:09 PM

3d printer does cavities and contours that you would need a 5-axis machine for, or that would be impossible on a mill.

2/26/2013 4:43:39 PM

Quote :

"Wow, you can buy a $4k 3d printer and make gun parts! That's so much different than how you could have bought a $4k cnc machine and have made gun parts for years now. "

The technology is moving fast. It's getting better and cheaper. You'll be able to buy a used 3d printer that costs 4k today for 500 bucks in a few years. You're not stupid, you understand this.

2/26/2013 4:52:25 PM

$4k cnc machine?

[Edited on February 26, 2013 at 5:07 PM. Reason : capable of making a lower?]

2/26/2013 5:06:44 PM

Quote :

"The technology is moving fast. It's getting better and cheaper. You'll be able to buy a used 3d printer that costs 4k today for 500 bucks in a few years. You're not stupid, you understand this."

No, you won't be able to. You're assuming that all technology follows the trajectory of consumer goods like TV's and Nikon's, which isn't true. If it were, you would be able to buy CNC machines and Laser cutters for under a $1000 by now, which is not the case.

Hell, even a TI-83 still costs as much today as it did when I was in high school, which blows my fucking mind.


Unless, of course, you're talking about buying a 20 year old first generation 3D printer some time in the future...in which case, good luck getting any use out of it...


[Edited on February 26, 2013 at 7:27 PM. Reason : ]

2/26/2013 7:10:17 PM

i guess we'll just have to sit back and watch

2/26/2013 8:54:31 PM

the only reason silencers have been thrown into the mix too were poachers not murders.

2/26/2013 8:59:55 PM

price isn't the reason 3D printers are disruptive, they are disruptive because it takes very little skills to make parts that typically would require a skilled machinist or armorer

2/26/2013 9:36:47 PM

^+1
Another issue is that apparently 3D printers can be used to print "disposable" guns that are only good for a few shots but use little or no metal parts and can pass through metal detectors (although I am still wondering what would one use for the barrel and the chamber, maybe they are metallic but non-ferrous?)

By the way, Defense Distributed does not do any favors to the gun-rights movement IMHO. All that posturing will lead to another set of regulations, this time about what can or cannot be printed.

2/26/2013 11:38:56 PM

^^ they take a program, just like a cnc, they hook up to a computer just like a 3d printer. Dentists and jewelers have been using them for years without machinists, I've used a cnc before, not that hard, it's got a little computer, you find the cad file, load it up, put in material and start it up. But regardless, before that you had lathes, before that you could smith your own, you could make your own gun since guns have existed. I don't know what you're trying to prove with this.

2/27/2013 12:27:16 AM

expensive CNCs are easy and calculate the tooling directions on their own...

cheap ones don't calculate tooling directions from cad and need to be programed and it takes someone who knows what they are doing to complete the programming.

2/27/2013 7:48:56 AM

a 3D printer is much more capable than a CNC, even an expensive 5-axis CNC because it can print all of the internal voids that you would need to cast or assemble. its not a good comparison, its a much different technology.

to explain it in another way, try to make a hollow ball on a CNC

Quote :

"But regardless, before that you had lathes, before that you could smith your own, you could make your own gun since guns have existed. I don't know what you're trying to prove with this."

based on this it's pretty clear you are being purposefully obtuse to troll. the difference now is that you can download a file and create something with very few skills, that hasn't been true before. its a disruptive technology. yes you could always make your own gun, but not without knowing how to machine and tool parts.

[Edited on February 27, 2013 at 9:22 AM. Reason : .]

2/27/2013 9:18:28 AM

http://reason.com/blog/2013/02/27/gun-control-laws-increasingly-irrelevant

Ahem. This seems relevant. Link includes the video that destroyer posted as well as some other stuff you might want to read.

If anyone here has ever read The Diamond Age the advent of 3D printers is somewhat reminiscent of the seed. The ability to basically make anything you can imagine at home with little more than a computer, internet access, and a 3D printer is an absolute game changer.

[Edited on February 27, 2013 at 11:19 AM. Reason : sdfasdf]

2/27/2013 11:17:38 AM

just another isolated incident, but why did someone who was known to have mental problems knowlingly own a gun?

http://www.wral.com/cops-grandma-shot-self-young-grandsons-in-car/12158226/

2/27/2013 12:21:52 PM

^if she didnt have access to a gun she could have easily driven the car into deep water

2/27/2013 12:45:54 PM