The FAST Approaching Gun Ban

[martin48]

Lots of knowledge about firearms - always worrying!

Call me crazy... but I thought they were called the 'bill of rights'... not the 'bill of needs'.

More so... you realize that the Armed Forces do not much use the AR-15... instead they use the M-16 (variants).

What's the difference? Semi-automatic vs burst fire/fully automatic. Or are you advocating to limiting the US armed forced to using only semi-automatic rifles in combat?

Lets ignore your error in definitions for a moment... we'll assume you meant an M-16...

That being said... are you aware of what it takes for a civilian (or private organization) to lawfully own an M-16 (which is legal, though difficult), thus subject to the National Firearms Act of 1934, which was expanded in the Gun Control Act of 1968, and The Firearm Owners' Protection Act in 1986?

It has long requires a Class 3 tax stamp from the BATFE which costs $200, which these days tends to take ~9 months for the BATFE to come back on your paperwork... which for an individual requires finger printing and the OK of your local chief law enforcement officer (who don't always say ok).

Even if you go the trust or corporation route, you get to avoid the local LEO signoff & fingerprinting... but still get/have to pay the $200 for the tax stamp and wait the ~9 months.

BTW... because the Firearm Owners' Protection Act of 1986 put an end to the manufacturing of 'machine guns' which could be transferred to a private owner, the prices of the limited (and alas decreasing supply) of legal 'machine guns' for transfer has only gone up... and for an M-16 you are looking at spending on the order of $15 to $20k.

Are you really worried about private ownership of such things?

Exactly how many crimes have we seen committed with legally owned fully automatic M-16's (aka 'machine guns') in the last 10, 20 or 50 years?

[thombergeron]

Call me crazy... but I thought they were called the 'bill of rights'... not the 'bill of needs'.

More so... you realize that the Armed Forces do not much use the AR-15... instead they use the M-16 (variants).

What's the difference? Semi-automatic vs burst fire/fully automatic. Or are you advocating to limiting the US armed forced to using only semi-automatic rifles in combat?

Lets ignore your error in definitions for a moment... we'll assume you meant an M-16...
...

Are you really worried about private ownership of such things?

Exactly how many crimes have we seen committed with legally owned fully automatic M-16's (aka 'machine guns') in the last 10, 20 or 50 years?

It's weird that you would leave such an extensive reply when it's clear from the start that you have very little idea what you're talking about.

The AR-15 is a 5.56mm/.223 caliber assault rifle platform introduced in the late 1950s. The M16 rifle is an AR-15. Currently, the standard issue service rifle for the U.S. Army is the M4 carbine, which is also an AR-15. I was active duty Army 1988-1994, and my unit was one of the first to be issued the M4. The Marines still issue an updated M16 variant, the M16A4, though some units have moved to the M4.

In 1994, all rifles based upon the AR-15 platform were banned from civilian ownership in the U.S. by the federal assault weapons ban. That legislation expired and was not renewed in 2004. However, six states (Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, California, Maryland, and Connecticut) and the District of Columbia maintain bans on assault weapons including rifles based upon the AR-15 platform. These bans mostly apply to both semi- and fully automatic rifles.

AR-15 rifles are very popular amongst spree killers. John Muhammed, the DC sniper, used an AR-15 rifle. So did James Holmes in Aurora, Colorado. So did Jacob Tyler Roberts in Clackamas, Oregon. So did Adam Lanza in Newtown, Connecticut.

So yes, many of us are very concerned about civilian ownership of military-grade weapons. Fortunately, it appears that the courts largely agree that civilians do not have a Constitutional right to own these rifles. All we need is some leadership at the national level to re-impose the federal assault weapons ban.

[buttslinger]

"if only everyone would understand and do what I tell them, life on earth would be perfect"

A serious collector of firearms is not the problem, it's felons and drunks and kids and Lee Harvey Oswalds and George Zimmermans.

Unfortunately you can't write one law for one guy, and the opposite law for another guy, Law trumps Freedom.

It makes sense to me that people who live out in the wide open spaces like guns, and people who live in crowded cities don't.

The Jails are full of people that love Freedom more than Law. They'll fight Wars over it. It's complicated.

[bobvela]

Lots of knowledge about firearms - always worrying!

Like most liberals... or as they prefer to be called these days... 'progressives' (but all are technically more correctly labeled 'mentally retarded' in some form) who call out for 'common sense gun control' or the like... almost universally fail to recognize the degree of 'gun control' which is already on the books... laws which lawful firearms owners must familiarize themselves with said laws... which are an unbelievable minefield with regards to what is legal where, and where it is legal to carry (and sometimes when).

I carry several state issued permits which lawfully allow me to carry in a multitude of states... so it's important not only to know which states make it unlawful for me to carry in a bar (or certain parts of one), 'outdoor music festivals', or what the actual punishment is for places that place a sign saying "no weapons permitted" (hint: it depends on the state)... and that just for carrying.

I own multiple firearms (and parts) which are illegal in some states but perfectly legal in most others... and spending a night in the wrong state with such a firearm (even if unloaded & locked) can mean serious criminal penalties.

[bobvela]

It's weird that you would leave such an extensive reply when it's clear from the start that you have very little idea what you're talking about.

It's more weird that you make such a claim without specifically citing where I am wrong... and then follow up your non sequitur with a narrative which contains only partial truths at best, and bold faced lies at worst.

The AR-15 is a 5.56mm/.223 caliber assault rifle platform introduced in the late 1950s.

Here you start from a confusing point... the AR-15 as is known today... yes can often chamber a 5.57 NATO round, or a .223 Remington (note there is a difference other than just name)... did in fact start as something known as the AR-15 when built for the military long ago, whose military variant has long since has been known as the M-16.

The M16 rifle is an AR-15.

You make that claim, but again... without any specific citation.

Also, you realize don't you, that "AR-15" has been a registered trademark of Colt's Inc Corporation... since 1966... right? There by further leading to a clear separation between the two.

Currently, the standard issue service rifle for the U.S. Army is the M4 carbine, which is also an AR-15.

You seem to have missed a step... the modern M4, which is more commonly known as an M16 in civilian circles, did yes derive from the AR-15 of long ago... but if you are to say that a modern M4 is also an AR-15... surely then we can claim that a modern Ford F-series pickup is still the same as an original 1940 F-series.

I was active duty Army 1988-1994, and my unit was one of the first to be issued the M4. The Marines still issue an updated M16 variant, the M16A4, though some units have moved to the M4.

Your point?

In 1994, all rifles based upon the AR-15 platform were banned from civilian ownership in the U.S. by the federal assault weapons ban.

If you knew your law or history, you'd know that was provably false... allow me to demonstrate.

While it is true that the AWB did ban the sale/transfer of weapons/parts manufactured after a certain date which were based on certain design types of weapons to civilians, existing weapons/parts were still legal for transfer.

What's that? A fully automatic M-16 (or semi-automatic AR-15 variant) was still legal for transfer even after the 1994 AWB? Not to mention the much hated standard capacity 30-round magazines which you would have used back in the Army? That's right!

More so, with a bit of an artistic flair, it was perfectly legal to manufacture & transfer a weapon that under the spirit of the AWB was prohibited, but per the letter of the law was legal (one such derivation is called the 'thumbhole stock' which per the federal AWB is not considered a 'pistol grip').

That legislation expired and was not renewed in 2004. However, six states (Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, California, Maryland, and Connecticut) and the District of Columbia maintain bans on assault weapons including rifles based upon the AR-15 platform. These bans mostly apply to both semi- and fully automatic rifles.

You keep throwing around the term 'assault weapon', yet fail to recognize that any weapon used in an assault can be classified as such... while most states still allow the lawful possession of such items that were purchased at any time... and those states (and district) you mentioned still generally allow the lawful possession of grandfathered items.

More so, California has yet to outlaw the 'bullet buttons' (a novel workaround to existing ban on certain types of detachable magazines), while not allowing thumbhole stocks on certain classes of weapons.

AR-15 rifles are very popular amongst spree killers. John Muhammed, the DC sniper, used an AR-15 rifle. So did James Holmes in Aurora, Colorado. So did Jacob Tyler Roberts in Clackamas, Oregon. So did Adam Lanza in Newtown, Connecticut.

AR-15 like rifles are also very popular amongst civilian shooters who enjoy plinking targets... what's your point?

Know what is funny about the examples you cherry picked? Only one of the shooters lawfully possessed their weapons.

John Allen Muhammed stole the Bushmaster XM-15 in question from Bull's Eye Shooter Supply in Tacoma, WA, Jacob Tyler Roberts stole the Bushmaster M4 from a friend, as Adam Lanza did from his mother after she killed her.

Of your list, only James Holmes lawfully purchased his.

So yes, many of us are very concerned about civilian ownership of military-grade weapons.

Define 'military-grade weapons'... I own a couple of .45 ACP pistols... whose ammo was designed for greater 'stopping power' for the military. Depending on who you talk to, the US Navy Seals tend to prefer either the 9MM Beretta 92 or the SIG Sauer P226 (also chambering 9MM)... should all three (pistols & rounds) be on the national 'concerned' list?

I'd wager it's hard to find a round or weapon that has never been considered 'military-grade'?

Fortunately, it appears that the courts largely agree that civilians do not have a Constitutional right to own these rifles.

Citation please... because in most states it remains perfectly legal, not only to own such an item, but even to build one.

All we need is some leadership at the national level to re-impose the federal assault weapons ban.

Again, your understanding of the federal AWB is quite lacking as it only prohibited the manufacturing & transferring of NEW items... any such law today would either criminalize existing possession would be on shaky legal ground... and lucky for the country, the political will does not exist for such a fight.

[Prospero]

Phew... the gun nuts are nitpicking when the over riding truth is that the possession of guns is just plum loco crazy. They should only be in the hands of law enforcement and other appropriate personnel. Not the public. So three of the cases you cite in your long reply got their guns by theft. They could not have obtained them this way is the original owners had been prevented from buying them. Yawn.... America, otherwise in most respects such a civilised place is hugely flawed over weaponry. You need a new constitutional amendment to cleanse your streets and populace of these weapons.

[martin48]

Just some facts

http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

"Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please" - Mark Twain

[trish]

Martin, don't you know only the "mentally retarded" use charts and graphs. 'Normal people'; i.e. law abiding carriers of concealed firearms find them confusing and emasculating.

Bob, limiting the legislative role of Federal government in passing meaningful firearm regulation (which is the present day strategy of the NRA) puts the onus upon the individual States to pass their own gun regulations. So obviously 'normal people' who'd rather shoot first, whine second and read later find it confusing, bothersome and a bit emasculating to familiarize themselves with the laws of all fifty States. Here's to keeping it up. Happy reading.

[martin48]

Martin, don't you know only the "mentally retarded" use charts and graphs. 'Normal people'; i.e. law abiding carriers of concealed firearms find them confusing and emasculating.

Trish, you are right. So in the well-argued concise reply I would expect from "Normal People", why don't you "Go fuck yourself."

[Prospero]

Fucking oneself could, in theory, be a pleasant activity were it possible. But in defence to the beliefs of gun owners why not say, instead, "go shoot yourself." They'd surely believe that accorded with your rights as a gun-owning citizen, would get right of another pesky left winger and show how valuable gun ownership is.