If this is political, please delete it.
Has anyone thought about or examined the Jim Crow aspects of gun control? Here in NC one must have a purchase permit, issued by the CLEO, in order to purchase a handgun. If one has a concealed carry permit, also issued by the CLEO, one can purchase a handgun with it as well.
I've lived in NC all my life and I believe the underlying purpose of these restrictions has been to make it harder for minorities to buy guns.
Pete. (l33t FS) said:In reply to Beer Baron :
Most pro gun people I know are specifically against some kind of federal licensing because they don't want to be on a list.
*snip*
Interesting thought. But doesn't the act of buying a firearm legally put you on a list? From what I understand, after you clear the back round check the type of firearm and serial are logged by the seller (logbook) and also logged on a hard copy (paper) by the government to be looked up if necessary. (Firearm stolen, firearm used in a crime). What is not done is logged on a computer file like you see in various crime shows. If the government wanted to look up to see who has what and when it was purchased the government has the means to do so. Please correct me if that is wrong.
Next. Assault Rifle.
What defines this? And it is not easy.
Semi auto? If so, that is going to be quite the catch all including some shotguns and pistols. And even if it is limited to high powered rifles then an AR-15 in .22lr or even 9mm is not an assault rifle even though it looks very similar to it's larger caliber cousin. Let's look further.
Detachable magazine? That pulls some .22lr and some shotguns back under the assault rifle designation. Even if it would be hard to call a .22 caliber or a shotgun an assault rifle.
Flash hider? 
If it has a flash hider it is definitely an assault rifle. Yep. Sure. Besides, there are "flash hiders" on Nerf guns. (Sorry, I am getting tired.)
5 round or more magazine? This would catch all of the above and make them all assault rifles. BTW are there not semi auto BB guns which could be caught up in all this also?
And I have to throw this out there as well as an outlier. Just for giggles.
SKS rifles. 7.62 x39 which is a lower powered high power rifle. (Huh?) It was a rifle designed for war. It is semi-automatic. It was also on the list for the assault rifle ban despite the fact that it does not have a flash hider and has a fixed internal magazine at 10 rounds.
I almost feel sorry for the people that work in the government that have to define things like this. I am rambling, it is late. I guess an assault rifle is like porn. I can't describe it but I will know it when I see it. Time for bed.
BTW, is a M1 Garand an assault rifle?
In reply to Noddaz :
I can legally buy any non NFA firearms right now with cash from a private seller. There are lots of them on armslist. There are legal mechanisms in place that put a lot of liability on the seller, but as a buyer that is not my concern 
. Most people seem to want a copy of your legal ID when they sell.
I believe the legal definition of assault rifle involves being select fire, which is already severely restricted as noted. An M16 is an assault rifle, an AR15 is not. There are other requirements for the term but that is the biggie.
barefootcyborg5000 said:Javelin said:In reply to Boost_Crazy :
We do not have background checks, waiting periods, or licenses. Any 18 year old can walk into any gun store and walk out with a gun without any of those. That's literally what the Uvalde shooter did.
This is false. If he bought a gun in a store in the USA, he underwent and passed a federal background check. This is federal law. The law, according to the FBI.
As someone who has undergone several backgroud checks I can confirm this is false. Also initial reports state that he bought the gun at a gun store and had a background check done.
Also to fact check earlier statements that the Sandy Hook shooter had never shot a gun that is also false as his mother took both sons to gun ranges to shoot prior.
I just want true facts stated not falsehoods stated as fact in an obviously trying time.
Children shouldn't die. That much we all should agree on.
Javelin said:In reply to Boost_Crazy :
We do not have background checks, waiting periods, or licenses. Any 18 year old can walk into any gun store and walk out with a gun without any of those. That's literally what the Uvalde shooter did.
Jav - do you know for a fact this is correct? I ask because I am under the understanding that ALL pistols (not sure on rifles, sorry) have to have a 4473 when bought from a dealer, which includes a background check.
Many states require a pistol purchase permit or CCW will act as one as well - again, it's a big background check.
Waiting periods? Yeah, NC doesnt have them either, other than waiting on the check to come back
M2Pilot said:If this is political, please delete it.
Has anyone thought about or examined the Jim Crow aspects of gun control? Here in NC one must have a purchase permit, issued by the CLEO, in order to purchase a handgun. If one has a concealed carry permit, also issued by the CLEO, one can purchase a handgun with it as well.
I've lived in NC all my life and I believe the underlying purpose of these restrictions has been to make it harder for minorities to buy guns.
I wouldn't say it's political, but it's fairly insulting to assume someone can't figure out how to jump through the hoops based only on skin color. I can't imagine those permits have a skin color box on the application.
In reply to Steve_Jones :
It can be as simple as looking at neighborhood maps and making it extremely inconvenient for people in certain neighborhoods to get a permit. Oh, you have to go to X courthouse 30 miles away, only open during such and such hours, minimal parking there, etc. Then you get there after taking a day off of work and oh, you need this form filled out. Take another day off, wait in line for hours as the understaffed department works, oh, you also need THIS form. Since we started the process you need to get that form to us within five business days. Stuff like that.
This is also the argument against voter ID laws, they can (and historically have) been used to make it extremely difficult for "some" people to vote. It is one of those ideas that looks good on paper until you think about how it can be abused.
In reply to Steve_Jones :
No insult intended. Back when there were poll taxes, many minority people couldn't afford to pay them, therefore they couldn't vote. So far as I know, there's usually,if not always, a fee involved in obtaining a purchase permit or a CC permit. Furthermore, there have been a E36 M3load of highly racially prejudiced CLEOs and such permits might have been denied because of race. A bigoted CLEO wouldn't need a skin color box on the application to make a good guess as to race of the applicant.
In reply to M2Pilot :
I'd say that's a completely different discussion, but maybe I'm just naive. I'd think if you can afford the gun, and ammo, you can afford the permit fee.
Boost_Crazy said:One of the difficulties is that these mass shootings have wildly varying circumstances. It makes it hard to nail down an overall cause.
Sacramento was about gang bangers spraying indiscriminately into a crowd to shoot other gang bangers. As I understand it, all involved were already prohibited from possessing firearms, and the guns the used were already illegal in CA. That one is probably the easiest to solve- keep the criminals in prison. More gun laws would have no effect in this case.
There was one this week that was not widely covered in WV. A felon was upset that members of high school graduation party asked him to not speed through a parking lot. Some sort of an ego battle ensued, and he returned with a gun- illegally possessed- spraying into the crowd. A woman attending the party had a gun of her own, and killed him before anyone else was hurt. Had she not been carrying, it would have been a bigger story.
In Buffalo, a crazy racist planned an attack in an area where he thought he could find a soft target due to strict gun laws. In this case it could be argued that the strong gun laws reduced the likely hood that a defender was present.
In Uvalde, there were warnings that went unheeded. The coward attacked our most vulnerable. Thousands of children die from gun violence each year, which is a tragedy itself- but it's different when it's a mass casualty in the very place where we should feel safe leaving our children.
While these are each tragedies, about the only thing they have in common is that they involve guns. So I understand why the focus is on guns, but I think that is ignoring the real underlying issues. It's a difficult problem that we are trying to find an easy answer to.
Re: Sacramento: my wife worked that case as a nurse in trauma care. Way too close to home. States can have rules but as long as they border states that don't, rules don't matter. So, I look at that argument that rules don't matter as another straw man. More federal gun laws have had and do have an effect on gun related violence.
In Uvalde, the school had an officer who was summarily shot. A police force who showed up in a reasonable amount of time and chickened the berkeley out when it was their time to serve. More guns don't make a safer school, or supermarket.
I'm emotional about this. Not sorry.
barefootcyborg5000 said:Javelin said:In reply to Boost_Crazy :
We do not have background checks, waiting periods, or licenses. Any 18 year old can walk into any gun store and walk out with a gun without any of those. That's literally what the Uvalde shooter did.
This is false. If he bought a gun in a store in the USA, he underwent and passed a federal background check. This is federal law. The law, according to the FBI.
Sorry, I should have clarified that statement as "universal to all 50 states".
The Uvalde shooter had two years of reports of threatening to shoot up a school including a psychiatric evaluation and an almost arrest for it (so there was a logged LEO contact). The FFL background check law you mention, which applies to federally licensed dealers only and not private sellers, only checks for a past criminal record that disqualifies gun ownership, which is not a comprehensive background check.
Further, if the check is not returned by the FBI within 3 days, the dealer is legally allowed to move forward with the sale regardless (default proceed). Also, 13 states do not participate in that law at all and run their own state only background check, meaning you could have a disqualifying person travel to one of those 13 states and a buy a gun with a "clean" background check as long as they had no record in that particular state.
It's also an automatic pass (meaning they don't even run the check) in most states if you possess a CCW permit, which you don't need to own a gun to obtain.
In reply to Noddaz :
Yes, it's next to impossible to define "assault rifle", just like every other definition. We already ban or heavily regulate full auto fire, so just keep going on that by banning select fire and burst fire. 1 trigger pull = 1 round only, period the end. Ban bumpstocks and every other stupid work around device with a penalty so harsh nobody will dare possess one. Ban high capacity external magazines (anything over 10 rounds). Those steps (along with real universal background checks, federal licensing, 21+ age limit, and mandatory training and recertification) will put up significant resistance to people's ability to carry out these crimes while also not infringing on our rights or making a judgment show about what weapons are allowed or not by model.
Personally, I'd like to see large caliber/high powered semi-automatic rifles fully banned as well, but I recognize that that is a much tougher mountain to climb.
In reply to Javelin :
Sone of this is correct some is not. I'm not going to bother trying to correct this because you've w repeated the same incorrect information multiple times after being corrected. There's no point.
I can't even start with this topic. I have a lot to say, but i can guarantee that outside of about 5 people no one wants to read it so I won't waste everyone's time.
keep to your silos everyone. It's "safe" there.
hybridmomentspass said:Javelin said:In reply to Boost_Crazy :
We do not have background checks, waiting periods, or licenses. Any 18 year old can walk into any gun store and walk out with a gun without any of those. That's literally what the Uvalde shooter did.
Jav - do you know for a fact this is correct? I ask because I am under the understanding that ALL pistols (not sure on rifles, sorry) have to have a 4473 when bought from a dealer, which includes a background check.
Many states require a pistol purchase permit or CCW will act as one as well - again, it's a big background check.
Waiting periods? Yeah, NC doesnt have them either, other than waiting on the check to come back
Correct, pistols. Not rifles. From what I understand about Texas law, the shooter was not allowed to buy a pistol (21+ there) but was allowed to purchase a rifle. We don't know for sure or not if he actually passed a background check (thanks to default proceed, and whether he bought from a private seller) and there is no additional waiting period in Texas.
In reply to bobzilla :
What was incorrect? And why the antagonistic language? You do understand that I'm a gun owner, right?
In reply to Teh E36 M3 :
Re: Sacramento: my wife worked that case as a nurse in trauma care. Way too close to home. States can have rules but as long as they border states that don't, rules don't matter. So, I look at that argument that rules don't matter as another straw man. More gun laws have had and do have an effect on gun related violence.
By that extension, federal laws shouldn't matter since we border a country without those laws. Tell me the boarder makes a difference. Damn Canadians and their syrup smuggling.
What is up with calling everything a straw man argument? One, in order to be a straw man argument- it needs to be an argument. My statement was just an observation, one the many recent mass shootings- to illustrate the differences. I mentioned it because it hit close to home for me too. My wife and I attended a concert a couple blocks from the scene that weekend. The fact is, despite those weapons being illegal to be possessed in the state of California, they were here and used in a mass shooting.
Speaking of close to home- as I'm typing this, I heard that there was just a shooting at my town's Memorial Day carnival. The one I took my family to yesterday. I know better than to go at night, but WTF is wrong with people?
To give you an idea of what gun law could look like, here in Washington state we have one of the most comprehensive set of laws in place (since 2014, which was actually the first state to pass a universal background check law, and amended in 2019). Note that I didn't say restrictive. The gun ownership industry here is huge and flourishing even with these laws. A good friend of mine literally owns an indoor range. None of the people I shoot with have any complaints about these laws now that they've lived with them for awhile.
bobzilla said:In reply to Javelin :
Sone of this is correct some is not. I'm not going to bother trying to correct this because you've w repeated the same incorrect information multiple times after being corrected. There's no point.
I can't even start with this topic. I have a lot to say, but i can guarantee that outside of about 5 people no one wants to read it so I won't waste everyone's time.
keep to your silos everyone. It's "safe" there.
I want to hear it, it's why I started this thread. I'm interested in all opinions.
In reply to Javelin :
I'm a gun owner but I describe myself as a redneck liberal. I'd also give up all my guns if it meant 18 kids didn't die for no reason.
In reply to Javelin :
If he bought from a dealer in the state of Texas he passed the check. If that was in question at any level the dealer would be in the hot seat.
I wasn't trying for a gotcha, but to put as much specificity as possible into the discussion.
You said anyone 18 can buy a gun with no check. That is false.
The NICS check may not be adequate, but that is a different argument.
Boost_Crazy said:In reply to Teh E36 M3 :
Re: Sacramento: my wife worked that case as a nurse in trauma care. Way too close to home. States can have rules but as long as they border states that don't, rules don't matter. So, I look at that argument that rules don't matter as another straw man. More gun laws have had and do have an effect on gun related violence.
By that extension, federal laws shouldn't matter since we border a country without those laws. Tell me the boarder makes a difference. Damn Canadians and their syrup smuggling.
What is up with calling everything a straw man argument? One, in order to be a straw man argument- it needs to be an argument. My statement was just an observation, one the many recent mass shootings- to illustrate the differences. I mentioned it because it hit close to home for me too. My wife and I attended a concert a couple blocks from the scene that weekend. The fact is, despite those weapons being illegal to be possessed in the state of California, they were here and used in a mass shooting.
Speaking of close to home- as I'm typing this, I heard that there was just a shooting at my town's Memorial Day carnival. The one I took my family to yesterday. I know better than to go at night, but WTF is wrong with people?
I'm emotional about it man. I know you and I could have beers and be chill about any arguments. The point about local regulations being irrelevant is that you can just cross a state border with a lesser rule and just mass murder people. Federal borders are a helluva lot more restrictive than states - 'welcome to California' and check your fruits is the biggest restriction we have right now. I don't want more. I just want us to recognize that the tool used to commit mass murder is controllable if we implement sensible regulation. It will take a decade or more to make a sizable dent but it can be done. It can it can it can.
Stampie said:In reply to Javelin :
I'm a gun owner but I describe myself as a redneck liberal. I'd also give up all my guns if it meant 18 kids didn't die for no reason.
I'd give up mine as well if no kids ever died again. I know that's not realistic though, so I want to figure out how to make it much much much more rare than it is and am willing to jump through more hoops and give up certain weapons to do it. I don't understand when people hear something like that and clamp down full stop with "my rights".
A well regulated militia's right to bear arms doesn't mean I get to own everything up to assault weapons with no training, licensing, or universal background checks. I mean it technically does now, but it shouldn't reading the law as written (and the court interpretations such as DofC v Heller) and understanding the policies that go with rights (like property taxes, private property titles, registration to vote, etc).
Regarding culture, licensing works well in Switzerland because they have a "follow the rules" mantra. James May on Germany's version.
The fervent firearm enthusiasts I've met think they're cowboys, not all of them though.
Every media company is posting their gun control pieces and The Daily Show posted theirs on Switzerland. I thought it was funny.
barefootcyborg5000 said:In reply to Javelin :
If he bought from a dealer in the state of Texas he passed the check. If that was in question at any level the dealer would be in the hot seat.
I wasn't trying for a gotcha, but to put as much specificity as possible into the discussion.
You said anyone 18 can buy a gun with no check. That is false.
The NICS check may not be adequate, but that is a different argument.
But that's not true. He could have had default proceed, which is not passing the check. That's the same as no check. It's not a gotcha either, it's a legitimate part of this conversation. The Charelston shooting in 2015 happened exactly because of that part of the law. The shooter applied to buy the weapons, the dealer ran the check, and 3 days later default proceeded to sell him the firearms. He failed the check, but it was after the 3 days. As long as that provision exists, it's not truly a check.
In reply to Javelin :
Just to be a devils advocate, I own two guns that I'd take over any AR15. One I have a Remington 700 Police Tactical. Bolt action so not "assault rifle". I could reach out and touch someone way before they could even think of getting me with an AR15. I also have a Remington 1100 semi auto 12 gauge with a 9 round tube. If I throw slugs in it then no protection will stop it going through you at close range. Neither are considered assault rifles but I consider both of them more effective military type guns. Don't get me started on my Spanish M1906 which is an actual bolt action military rifle.
You'll need to log in to post.
