What makes a gun illegal?


June 19, 2006, 04:25 PM
This question is simple, but the answers are extremely complex. Why are "Street sweepers" and spas illegal? What’s up with the part count on SKS’s and AK’s? What about other guns (that are not full auto) that the government has ban, why? So what if your AR has detachable mags, a pistol grip, AND a flash suppressor?

If you enjoyed reading about "What makes a gun illegal?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
June 19, 2006, 04:27 PM
Because someone in the government, who knows absolutely nothing about guns says so.

June 19, 2006, 04:27 PM
Because liberal politicians think they look scary and think in the future their policy decisions might push ordinary people to point those scary things at them. Hence they must be banned, "for the children!"

June 19, 2006, 04:35 PM
Because someone in the government, who knows absolutely nothing about guns says so.

Exactly. Most banned guns I've seen have been banned on the premise of looks and not capabilities.

One gun that was banned in CA because of its "anti-aircraft" capabilities was the Barret .50BMG... so what did Ronnie Barrett do? Built a .416. Ironically the .416's flatter trajectory would make it more effective against aircraft, in the event there is anyone out there with enough skill to hit an aircraft with either rifle :scrutiny:

Byron Quick
June 19, 2006, 04:44 PM
Legislators are the primary culprits, oddly enough. Burearats who have received reglatory power delegated by legislators are the other source.

If you're looking for rhyme or reason to the various laws...stop...you won't find such.

Even if you accept the premise that the laws and regulation will achieve their stated purposes...the laws and regulations have little connection with the reality.

Just accept that either the drafters of these laws and regulations are well intentioned idiots or malicious idiots who think they have the power to command the tides.

Sheldon J
June 19, 2006, 04:49 PM
It's the bozo's you people keep re-electing to office,:fire: maybe if you painted them pink, :scrutiny: or green, :scrutiny: or plad, :scrutiny: put some flowers on the grips, :eek: then they would not be so ugly and baned in your state.:evil:

June 19, 2006, 05:30 PM
Because the Socialists in our government write the anti-gun bills. The quasi-anti-socialists attempt to water down the bill and make its impact less drastic, at least this session. Then they reach a compromise, which makes the new law almost incomprehensible and almost impossible to follow. That way, no-one who owns or uses firearms can turn left or right, take a step forward or back, or express his opinion without stepping on his hooter.

Its all about control. Not about control of guns, but about control over you and me.

Tell me, what kind of person plans and schemes constantly with the objective end of controlling anybody and everybody around him?

I do not believe the anti-gunners are "well meaning but misguided".

June 19, 2006, 05:36 PM
What makes a gun illegal is fear...and those in office that are afraid of them.

June 19, 2006, 05:40 PM
One cannot provide a rational answer to irrational legislative actions.

June 19, 2006, 05:41 PM
The secret fear of some in power that somewhere, someplace, someone is having fun.


The realization that this nation became a nation becasue the govenment we suffered under in the 1770's could no longer be tolerated, and that history can repeat itself.

June 19, 2006, 05:45 PM
That would be a little thing called The Law:neener:

What makes the Law legal is US, by voting and supporting our representatives in government. If we decide that a law shouldn't be legal we let our representative know. If they fail to listen, we vote them out. If the government refuses to listen to our voting, then we stop supporting it and start a new one.

It's all there in the Constitution.

June 19, 2006, 05:52 PM
Easier said than done...I've been voting in every single election since Reagan's second term.

I live in California...so you know how effective my vote has been.

June 19, 2006, 07:34 PM
dfaugh Because someone in the government, who knows absolutely nothing about guns says so.


June 19, 2006, 07:52 PM
To get the masses of sheeple used to incremental bans. Death by a thousand pin pricks.

June 19, 2006, 08:11 PM
What’s up with the part count on SKS’s and AK’s?

This has to do with the importability of a gun. Foreign made AKs and SKSs may not be imported unless they've been converted to a configuration that makes them suitable for sporting use. Nor can you import the parts and assemble the gun in a configuration that is not importable (using foreign made parts). This means thumbhole stocks, no flash hiders, and no bayonet lugs for AKs and no bayonets or grenade launchers for SKSs (the Yugo gets in as a Curio/Relic, a whole different animal with a whole different set of rules). You may not be able to import SKSs aside from Curio/Relics period, I don't know for certain.

Now domestically made AKs have no restrictions (other than the usual barrel length and overall length for rifles). So the parts count is a way to reclassify the gun as a domestic rifle by replacing certain critical foreign made parts with US made (the law contains a list of parts that may be switched out - you can't just change out any old part). Once you've done this, you can assemble your AK with the pistol grip and bayonet lug to get that classic look. If you just do what you want and get caught, it's serious jail time. I generally buy my AKs from known importers and trust them to assemble the gun in compliance with the applicable federal laws.

As far as state laws, it's just like the federal stuff. Do-gooders who think they can improve society by making nonsensical laws. I remember a few weeks back there was a History channel thing about bill introduced into Congress. Totaled 25,000 bills or pages a year, I can't remember which. That's plain insane. We need to get back to a part-time legislature. Give them only enough time to get the budget done and don't allow overtime or out of session extensions. Then they get the heck out of Dodge as soon as the session expires.

June 19, 2006, 08:45 PM
Too bad the framers of the Constitution didn't put in a clause like

1) No more than 10000 laws


2) Even terms of Congress can make X laws. Odd terms must remove laws.

Or a variant. Something to get them to think about making more laws and making more sense instead.

Yeah, wishful thinking.....

June 19, 2006, 09:24 PM
Because someone in the government, who knows absolutely nothing about guns says so.


June 19, 2006, 10:26 PM
Quote from Roadwild17:
"What makes a gun illegal? "
:cuss: :fire: :scrutiny:

June 20, 2006, 12:54 AM
2) Even terms of Congress can make X laws. Odd terms must remove laws

Thats actually a really good idea... I think I'm going to borrow it for my own personal 'how the world should work' phillosophy.

It would be a way to reform/redeem the existing system without taking radical measures.

June 20, 2006, 01:04 AM
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Here are the simple facts:

- The Founding Fathers considered guns to be a fundamental right given by God not by the government.

- The Founding Fathers knew that the ability of citizens to rebel against an oppressive government is that ensures freedom.

- The Second Amendment was created for the purpose of keeping the government from limiting and regulating this "God given" right and to allow people to maintain their ability to defend themselves against all that would do them hard (even their own government).

- Liberals have taken it upon themselves to define what includes "infringed" and what is meant by "bare" and "militia".

June 20, 2006, 01:08 AM
What makes a gun illegal?
Maggots in the Goverment.

June 20, 2006, 01:20 AM
2) Even terms of Congress can make X laws. Odd terms must remove laws.

You know you might be onto something there. How about anytime they propose a new gun law, old ones become null and void and they must improve the law and vote on whether the improvements are fair. That way there is only one gun law.
I'm sure the antis would figure out a way to screw that up though.

June 20, 2006, 09:26 AM
Because Slick Willie and the late Lord Benson decided to classify the Street Sweeper and USAS 12 as a destructive device. Lets be specific on the Franchi SPAS. The SPAS 12 is still legal to own, though banned from importation.


# Gilbert Equipment Co., Inc., v. Higgins, 709 F. Supp. 1071 (D. Ala. 1989)
This is a federal district court decision, and paved the way for the backdoor ban on the USAS-12, Striker and Street Sweeper shotguns by endorsing the ATF's "non- sporting" finding as to the USAS-12 (at issue in this case) and the prior non-sporting finding of the Striker-12, that apparently was not appealed to the courts. A gun must be found to be particularly suitable for sporting use, or readily adaptable to that, in order to be lawfully imported after the Gun Control Act of 1968. Prior to 1984 or so that just meant meeting safety standards. After that ATF decided to become arbiters of what sport was, and decided the USAS-12 wasn't suited for hunting, nor trap or skeet, and thus was unsporting. They rescinded their decision that combat shotgun matches were sport, which had allowed the import of the SPAS-12, and decided they were really police training. However they continued to approve permits for the SPAS-12 until this particular case came to trial. The non-sporting finding meant the gun was not covered by the "sporting shotgun" exemption to being considered a DD, although ATF didn't pick up on this for a number of years. In any case the Crime Bill solved the problem, making law out of what had been administrative rulings from ATF. The non-sporting finding is crap made up after the case was filed, and not part of the administrative record. As the court itself notes, one of the principles of administrative law (basically how the courts will treat actions by administrative agencies like ATF) is that the record generated by the process itself must justify the decision, the Agency cannot make stuff up to justify the decision after the fact. Period. But the court allows it here, basically because (I think) they agreed that this gun needed to be banned from import due to its evil looks.

The case also has a rather interesting discussion of whether or not the 2nd amendment includes a right to import guns. The judge (magistrate really) concedes who the right applies to (people, not states), but refuses to agree "keep and bear" includes importation. I don't know where he thought the guns to be borne were going to come from though. And he says flat out, to decide otherwise would gut gun control laws he thinks are good.

Ira Aten
June 20, 2006, 10:24 AM
The same type of thought process that believes politically correct speech causes racism to cease.

Carl N. Brown
June 20, 2006, 12:01 PM
One gun that was banned in CA because of its "anti-aircraft" capabilities was the Barret .50BMG...

I can never get over this.
A credible .50 BMG anti-aircraft weapon is twin or quad Ma Deices
each with 250 round belts loaded armor piercing-incendiary-tracer,
with a stable mount and some kind of fire control sighting equiupment.
And basicly it would just keep light aircraft from getting too close
or disturb the aim of a bomber or straffer.

When VPC or Brady Bunch call a single shot bolt action .50 rifle
an anti-aircraft weapon "capable of shooting down an airliner"
it floors me as in rotflol. It is scary that politicians act on such.

If you enjoyed reading about "What makes a gun illegal?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!