You can't own that -- it's dangerous!


PDA






Black Butte
March 9, 2012, 11:13 AM
I was wondering about firearms that forum members would like to acquire but are prevented from doing so by a law that you believe serves little purpose. I'm not talking about full-auto, grenade launchers, and stuff like that. I mean a gun that is no more dangerous than the average gun, yet some politician has deemed it a menace to society. I will start by providing two illustrative examples:

(1) I'd love to get a Walther PPK (not a PPK/S). Being the James Bond gun and having ties to WWII makes it desirable to collectors. As a semi-automatic chambered in .380 or .32, it isn't inherently dangerous as compared to other semi-autos. Yet, the import ban of 1968 prevents me from getting one. Yes, I have the option of getting one made here by S&W under license, or I'm forced to pay a premium if I can even find a pre-'68, but it's not the same.

(2) The semi-auto Thompson (Auto Ordinance - now Kahr) is totally desirable, being the quintessential Al Capone and WWII gun. My state, however, bans SBRs, and a Thompson with a 18.5" barrel rather than a 10.5" barrel just doesn't replicate what you see watching "Road to Perdition" etc.

Any silly laws that seem to serve no purpose frustrate you?

If you enjoyed reading about "You can't own that -- it's dangerous!" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
jerkface11
March 9, 2012, 11:23 AM
All of them are pretty stupid.

InkEd
March 9, 2012, 11:35 AM
My biggest complaint is about SBRs too. I can own a full length rifle in any caliber but I can't have a handier (but less effective) version for short range work without a tax stamp. The same silly law allows the original version of a firearm as pistol because it doesn't have the stock. Why not just let people have the darn proper configurations?

Pilot
March 9, 2012, 11:38 AM
The GCA 1968 was one of the stupidest gun laws ever. Well, most of them are. :rolleyes:

FIVETWOSEVEN
March 9, 2012, 11:41 AM
Only gun law I agree with is Violent Felons not being able to own guns.

CoRoMo
March 9, 2012, 11:42 AM
I'm not talking about full-auto, grenade launchers, and stuff like that. I mean a gun that is no more dangerous than the average gun...
Well I am talking about full-auto, M203 and M79 grenade launchers, and stuff like that. And I mean guns that are no more dangerous than the average gun.

I'd like to have a full auto lower and an M203 attached to the upper. I can't swing the cash for that though.

OARNGESI
March 9, 2012, 11:47 AM
I want a 380 glock and a silencer would be nice

MtnCreek
March 9, 2012, 11:51 AM
I want to know who at Chevy decided a Z71 should only go 99mph. :mad:

VegasAR15
March 9, 2012, 11:57 AM
Aside from full autos, SBRs are just ridiculous. 16" barrel and I am OK, 15 7/8" and I am on my way to prison. No sense.

Buck Kramer
March 9, 2012, 11:58 AM
All I would ask is that they take an honest look at SBR's.

1) Yes they are more concealable, but I have trouble hiding a full size XD
2) Shorter barrels (to a point) propel the bullet a lot slower than a full size barrel
3) I find them a lot more comfortable

None of these things makes them more dangerous.

InkEd
March 9, 2012, 12:06 PM
I am still sticking with the SBR/SBS laws being the most idiotic.

A rifle is easier to shoot accurately than a pistol. A rifle cartridge will MOST likely over-penetrate inside typical homes. A pistol cartridge is LESS likely to over-penetrate inside typical homes. A full length rifle is not as easy to maneuver in small areas (like inside a home). A pistol is easier to take away from it's operator and close distances. Recoil from either is usually easier to manage than a shotgun. If given enough distance shot will spread and cause more collateral damage to an area. (Although over-penetration is less of a problem to be fair about it.)

Therefore, a person would logically conclude that a SBR in a pistol cartridge would be a very good choice for a home defense weapon. Why do you think tactical teams like the
MP-5? Why did Thompsons work so well in WWI and WWII? The higher rates of fire are not really needed but the platforms are proven effective designs. The SBR laws prevent people from easily obtaining one of the best platforms for home defense.

Gregaw
March 9, 2012, 12:17 PM
Suppressed weapons. I'd love to have one, but it's a no-go here.

jon86
March 9, 2012, 12:24 PM
The silliest law to me is that I cannot carry to school. Really? Society seems to believe that when I set foot on campus I am suddenly a hot headed, intoxicated frat kid without a clue.

KodiakBeer
March 9, 2012, 12:42 PM
I wish AOW's were easier to obtain. There are times I wish I could buy a gun hidden in a cell phone or a pen gun or something like that.

Hunterdad
March 9, 2012, 12:42 PM
At least you guys have the option for a tax stamp. In NY, they don't even exhist

xx7grant7x
March 9, 2012, 12:48 PM
I can't own SBR or SBS but a destructive device that has a short barrel and fires shotgun shells is ok.....

GCMkc
March 9, 2012, 12:49 PM
Yeah, I have to pay a tax stamp for, SBR, SBS, AOW, DD, Suppressor, and any other NFA. I wish I didn't have to :(. But, at least I can own all of the above in Kansas.

tyeo098
March 9, 2012, 12:51 PM
At least you guys have the option for a tax stamp. In NY, they don't even exhist
They exist in NY, but only the cops and criminals have them.

Panzercat
March 9, 2012, 01:00 PM
The silliest law to me is that I cannot carry to school. Really? Society seems to believe that when I set foot on campus I am suddenly a hot headed, intoxicated frat kid without a clue.
Now just to be fair... ;)

firesky101
March 9, 2012, 01:10 PM
Yeah I live in Cali, the list of what I want but cannot have is pretty long. We get around what we can, but it is annoying. My AR just does not feel right with only ten round mags.

Cesiumsponge
March 9, 2012, 03:49 PM
Our state allows AOW but no SBR/SBS so we can buy things like the Serbu Super Shorty shotgun but if we put a stock on that, it's illegally short.

Up until last year, it was perfectly legal to own suppressors but it was actually illegal to use them, period. Luckily that law was fixed.

NG VI
March 9, 2012, 03:52 PM
A rifle cartridge will MOST likely over-penetrate inside typical homes. A pistol cartridge is LESS likely to over-penetrate inside typical homes.

Not really true, unless you are comparing a very poorly chosen rifle load to a well chosen pistol load. Almost any of the great 5.56/.223 defense loads offer reduced penetration through building materials and lower risk of harm from a projectile that exits the body of your attacker, because the high velocity and relatively fragile nature of the bullets means that they break apart very easily when hitting almost any kind of barrier. After a few inches of penetration in a person they fragment and by the time they exit on anything but a surface wound, the small, rapidly decelerating bits won't have enough mass or velocity to pose a significant threat.

Walls tend to break them up much easier than the heavier, slower pistol bullets, so while you aren't safe on the other side of a single wall from any capable defensive bullet, on the other side of a second wall you may very well have a significantly reduced risk of injury from a .223 bullet compared to a service pistol JHP.

do you think tactical teams like the
MP-5? Why did Thompsons work so well in WWI and WWII?

They don't like the MP-5, not anymore anyway. They've all switched to AR platform 5.56 rifles.

If we had the M-16 in WWII, we wouldn't have used the Thompson, M1 Carbine, M3, M2 Carbine, and almost certainly not the Garand either.

It's a better hammer for the nails we encounter.

chrome_austex
March 9, 2012, 06:46 PM
I want a butterfly knife. Seems sort of silly that they're illegal with a bunch of conceal carry firearms out and about.

General Geoff
March 9, 2012, 07:07 PM
I'm not talking about full-auto, grenade launchers, and stuff like that. I mean a gun that is no more dangerous than the average gun, yet some politician has deemed it a menace to society.

Those two statements contradict each other. A .22lr pistol is just as dangerous as a rocket launcher in the wrong hands. Sure a rocket launcher can cause more collateral damage, but in the end, people are soft & squishy. Doesn't take much to mortally wound a human.

Full auto, silencers, and so-called Destructive Devices are all overregulated. Then again, if I had my way, they'd be sold with no more restrictions than, say, power tools (which is what they are).

USAF_Vet
March 9, 2012, 07:09 PM
+1 for the SBR/SBS restriction. Michigan now allows suppressors along with full auto, but nothing with a short barrel? (unless it's full auto, then a short barrel is ok)

zxcvbob
March 9, 2012, 07:10 PM
A "silencer" for my house gun. Not even legal with a tax stamp here.

USAF_Vet
March 9, 2012, 07:11 PM
Also, you can get a handgun and carry it pretty easily here, but a stun gun will get you jail time.

mgregg85
March 9, 2012, 07:13 PM
No SBR/SBS allowed here in Michigan, it sucks.

Zundfolge
March 9, 2012, 07:26 PM
The SBR/SBS restrictions are extremely stupid.

Originally the 1934 NFA was going to include handguns so then it made some sense to restrict shortened rifles and shotguns (to stop people from making handguns out of rifles to get around the law), but since handguns were removed from the bill before passage there is really no reason for SBR/SBS restrictions.

modifiedbrowning
March 9, 2012, 07:48 PM
There are some pretty neat Russian made pistols that I would like to own.

General Geoff
March 9, 2012, 07:50 PM
VSS Vintorez :D

Fishslayer
March 10, 2012, 12:32 AM
The list of handguns I can't transfer as they come from the factory is extensive.

kimberkid
March 10, 2012, 09:24 AM
I'm amazed that no one has mentioned 922r ...

The so called assault weapons ... like the Steyr AUG which has only been used in a crime in the movies and on TV is banned? Why?

A firearm with more than 10 imported parts is way more dangerous than one made with 10 or less?

For instance, a post 1989 AK with a US made receiver, muzzel device, trigger, hammer, sear and gas piston is much less leathal than one built from all imported parts?

Really?

Lets make some more confusing laws that make voters feel good but don't accomplish the goal ... kinda like the department of Energy.

Loosedhorse
March 10, 2012, 09:51 AM
I am in the same MA-restrictions mess that the OP is in. It is slowly getting better, but will never be right. We all agree: the "list" has nothing to do with safety, just control.

Note that a C&R FFL could allow you to obtain non-list handguns that are C&Rs. Could help you get a .32 PPK. You will NOT be able to transfer them from your FFL bound-book to yourself (your private collection), nor to anyone else in MA.

Oh: IANAL and the above is not legal advice.

FIVETWOSEVEN
March 10, 2012, 10:19 AM
VSS Vintorez

Yes please!

Neverwinter
March 10, 2012, 10:30 AM
Any of the import restrictions are not about how dangerous something is. If something is dangerous, it doesn't matter what the source is.

Seriously? 10 round magazine limits? Why is that magic 11th round more dangerous?

Driftertank
March 10, 2012, 11:00 AM
That 922r thing? I have heard (and would tend to believe) that it's not a restriction even aesthetically intended for public safety, but rather purely a concession to lobbyists for American manufacturers and unions. If you could still buy Norinco M14's, for example (which i found out can still be had in Canada for about $600-700), then there's no way Springfield could sell as many M1A's as they do, when they cost twice as much even for rack-grade.

If Walmart has taught us anything, it's that patriotism doesn't count for much when chinese crap can be bought for half-price.

TXSWFAN
March 10, 2012, 12:05 PM
Only gun law I agree with is Violent Felons not being able to own guns.

Thank God we have that law. It keeps firearms out of the hands of badguys.

zxcvbob
March 10, 2012, 02:18 PM
Quote:
Only gun law I agree with is Violent Felons not being able to own guns.

Thank God we have that law. It keeps firearms out of the hands of badguys.

How did we ever survive until 1968? :rolleyes:

Owen Sparks
March 10, 2012, 02:22 PM
Does anybody know the history behind the short barrel laws?

Freedom_fighter_in_IL
March 10, 2012, 02:35 PM
Does anybody know the history behind the short barrel laws?

Came from fear that the "Gangsters" from the 20's had rubbed off on the general population so everyone was hiding sawed off shotguns under their jackets to rob liquor stores, banks, and assassinate politicians.

nyrifleman
March 10, 2012, 02:47 PM
The most ridiculous law is the one regarding suppressors. In most places, even ones with much more stringent gun laws than the United States, supressors are sold over-the-counter. I really wish that was the case here. In NY, you can't have anything NFA period, so I can't even get a tax stamp.

Magnuumpwr
March 10, 2012, 03:53 PM
You wouldn't need any gun laws, if our criminal laws were tougher. But the gun laws are to help keep guns out of the hands of repeat felons. If repeat felons were not allowed to re-enter society, where is the problem. That's enough for me, my blood pressure is going up. One last thing, no one can reason with "stupid".

Cactus Jack Arizona
March 10, 2012, 04:04 PM
Yes, the genius behind anything firearm related being banned from Russia. We bring crap into this country all the time from China, but Russia? Ha! Stupid politicians.

Those would be the:
MP-448 "Skyph" chambered in 9x18
MP-446 "Viking" chambered in 9x19

Again, stupid politicians. :cuss:

Cactus Jack Arizona
March 10, 2012, 04:06 PM
But Magnuumpwr, those poor people are just "victims of society". Where are your humane feelings? :rolleyes:

JohnBT
March 10, 2012, 09:05 PM
I've never really wanted a machine gun. For 50-some years I have wanted a working bazooka with lots of ammo. I'd be careful with it.

John

hso
March 10, 2012, 09:34 PM
Deeming a USAS12 shotgun a Destructive Device!

Telekinesis
March 10, 2012, 09:38 PM
Does anybody know the history behind the short barrel laws?


It wasn't really the fear of everyone trying to play "gangster" and keep a sawed off shotgun underneath their coat (though that still could have had a small impact). The reason we have SBR/SBSs in the NFA is because handguns were also listed as NFA weapons in the original draft of the bill. The SBR/SBS provision was included to keep People from taking a rifle and turning it into a pistol. When pistols were later dropped from the NFA legislation, no one apparently thought about removing the SBR/SBS verbiage as well.

Owen Sparks
March 10, 2012, 11:16 PM
BINGO! We have a winner.

Laws against short barrels and removable stocks make no sense in a country where you can still buy a handgun that is even more cobcealable.

crazy-mp
March 11, 2012, 12:54 AM
The USAS 12 is deemed a destructive device, but the Saiga 12 can be had at any gun show and you can pick up some 20 round drums...

FIVETWOSEVEN
March 11, 2012, 01:44 AM
Thank God we have that law. It keeps firearms out of the hands of badguys.
How did we ever survive until 1968?

I don't see it as a magical block but more of a deterrent to own one and more charges to add to a repeat offender's sentencing when he gets arrested again.

Bohemus
March 11, 2012, 06:07 AM
LK vz.52/57 in 7,62x39 (http://www.beareka.cz/beareka/eshop/3-1-Samopaly-a-kulomety/0/5/18-kulomet-CZ-vz-52-57)

ol' scratch
March 11, 2012, 08:00 AM
The only law I agree with is not allowing felons to have firearms. Everything else is a knee jerk reaction to something. In Ohio, they passed a law that you couldn't have ammunition loaded in magazines in your car without a CCW. Because people think magazines and clips are the same, there was some concern that people who bought ammo from Perry loaded in spam cans and in Enblocs were committing felonies by transporting them home. Fortunately, they changed that law.

ol' scratch
March 11, 2012, 08:05 AM
I'm amazed that no one has mentioned 922r ...

The so called assault weapons ... like the Steyr AUG which has only been used in a crime in the movies and on TV is banned? Why?

A firearm with more than 10 imported parts is way more dangerous than one made with 10 or less?

For instance, a post 1989 AK with a US made receiver, muzzel device, trigger, hammer, sear and gas piston is much less leathal than one built from all imported parts?

Really?

Lets make some more confusing laws that make voters feel good but don't accomplish the goal ... kinda like the department of Energy.
922r is one of the stupidest laws on the books. It is as bad as the now expired Federal AWB. I also think it is pretty dumb that they won't let barrels in anymore if they were part of a machine gun. Actually, the whole machine gun law is pretty stupid and against the 2nd amendment.

Gtimothy
March 11, 2012, 09:58 AM
My Grandpa used to have an old single shot 16 GA he called the "Snake Charmer". It was more pistol than shotgun and he used it against the Water Moccasins around the stock pond where us kids fished. As I remember, the snakes kinda disappeared into a writhing sludge when Grandpa used it! Not sure what happened to it but I'd sure love to have it!

Milamber
March 11, 2012, 10:53 AM
All laws that are not reasonable should be repealed. Be careful with the felon gun law. A DUI with a possible sentance over twelve months will lose you your guns. As will a verbal disagreement with a girlfriend if the cops get involved.

So many of our laws in general are political rather than actual necessity it is time for major reform of our political and legal system.

To answer the op, all except the background check. You can kill just as easy with a captive bolt pistol as a M16 on full auto. Harder granted to kill lots of people in one trigger pull but still just as deadly. Besides if everyone was armed how long would the idiot standing in the cafeteria live before someone shot them.

Freedom_fighter_in_IL
March 11, 2012, 12:03 PM
Besides if everyone was armed how long would the idiot standing in the cafeteria live before someone shot them.

Thing is, just how many would actually BE armed? In the states that already have the easy carry laws, whats the percentage of carry by the population? It's still very small.

Tim37
March 11, 2012, 12:17 PM
i would like a supressor with out a tax stamp.

jerkface11
March 11, 2012, 12:32 PM
The only law I agree with is not allowing felons to have firearms.

I don't think you understand what counts as a felony today. Using someones wifi without permission is technically a felony. As is using a false name when filling out a form on the internet.

velojym
March 11, 2012, 12:50 PM
If you've been caught carrying prescription meds in a handy daily container, rather than in the "official" one, you're a drug felon. I have very little respect for most of the U.S. code anymore, and the way they're using it to whittle away our rights. After all, once you've made *everyone* a felon, then the Bill o' Rights need not apply anymore, right?
As was mentioned above, an argument with a girlfriend, especially one who flirts with the cop taking the report, can bar you from your rights, as would any number of other bureaucratically inflicted nonsense.
If you were feeling a little down one week, and mentioned it to your doctor... and he decided to go ahead and record your "clinical depression", then, pow. No guns, no airplanes... and no telling what else they won't let you do. If you drive for a living, your DOT physical may also be voided until further review.

I think what the real goal is, is to try to herd us into the victicrat mindset, while disarming those who may have something negative to say about it. No tinfoil hat conspiracy theory here, though. Just the way power hungry jerks operate.

And, yeah... of course violent felons will always obey the law, won't they?

jerkface11
March 11, 2012, 12:57 PM
I have very little respect for most of the U.S. code anymore, and the way they're using it to whittle away our rights. After all, once you've made *everyone* a felon, then the Bill o' Rights need not apply anymore, right?

Actually I think it's done so that we all know we are felons to keep us from causing the government trouble. After all if you're leading a movement that they don't like they can always find some law you broke and boom you're done for.

parsimonious_instead
March 11, 2012, 01:05 PM
Someone that has a closet stuffed with weapons that he/she "isn't supposed to have" and has no intention of using them except at a range, is far less of a danger than the nutcases I see speeding and weaving on my local highways, yet the bad driver risks a dramatically less severe penalty.

velojym
March 11, 2012, 01:16 PM
Yeah, jf. Selective enforcement is a powerful tool.
Most folks won't really buck if they aren't being actively oppressed, but the knowledge that they're probably unknowingly committing something like 2 or 3 felonies a day oughta bug 'em a little, at least. Especially if they tick off someone with connections.

Resist Evil
March 11, 2012, 01:20 PM
Laws and regulations, ordinances, rules et al. which proscribe what a person might do exist solely for government (the servant) to control the people (the sovereign). Laws should only be passed to define that which is actually done as illegal.

In the realm of all things firearm, I believe the vast majority of laws are predicated upon what might happen. If the focus shifted back to personal responsibility and effective sentencing for actions, not possibilities, we might enjoy a skosh more liberty.

MachIVshooter
March 11, 2012, 01:25 PM
Thank God we have that law. It keeps firearms out of the hands of badguys.

Yeah, sure..........:rolleyes:

FIVETWOSEVEN
March 11, 2012, 02:02 PM
That was a sarcastic comment to what I said about violent felons not having the right to own a firearm.

MachIVshooter
March 11, 2012, 05:46 PM
That was a sarcastic comment to what I said about violent felons not having the right to own a firearm.

That's what ;) is for. Without it or a <sarcasm> denotation, one can expect such a comment to be taken at face value.

rem22long40x
March 11, 2012, 06:05 PM
Becose thay will do any thing to impead the sale of guns and ammo that they can come up with.

steelhawk
March 11, 2012, 07:00 PM
I agree. I'd love a suppressed .22 caliber pistol but can't afford it.

22-rimfire
March 12, 2012, 11:37 AM
The thing that troubles me the most about the law is that our politicians are making more and more "crimes" felonies.

speedway
March 12, 2012, 03:55 PM
In CT, you can have an SKS but not an AK47 semi-auto in 7.62x39.

mgkdrgn
March 12, 2012, 10:07 PM
More people in this country are killed by obesity than any other single cause ... yet they are still allowed to own forks.

chute2thrill
March 13, 2012, 01:17 AM
I believe this thread has gotten extremely off topic but,,, yeah, the SBR/SBS rule is rudely insanely stupid.... Full auto, while I dont agree with it requiring a stamp, I do think a normal shooter would want to experiment shooting it before they actually go through with it. Destructive devices? Can do with black powder, and its completely legal.

Telekinesis
March 13, 2012, 02:12 AM
Destructive devices? Can do with black powder, and its completely legal.

So a pipe filed with explosives and sealed at both ends with provisions for remote detonation is completely legal as long as I use black powder as the enrgetic? ;)

Note: Very heavy sarcasm implied. I don't condone making any sort of explosives. Its dangerous, or so they tell me.



I'm firmly on the side of no regulation at all. If someone (even a prohibited person like a felon or a kid 17 years old) really wants a gun, they'll find a way to get it no matter how many laws they have to break. And honestly, its easy enough to make everything from automatic weapons to suppressors to C4 in your basement given a few hundred dollars and a week or two of R&D that someone wouldn't even need to go through intermediaries if they were so inclined. (Before someone tries to refute that last claim, please do some research, it really is scary easy.)

Just as a general disclaimer: no, I don't build explosives, automatic weapons, or anything otherwise illegal or federally regulated. I do however know a bit about chemistry and have seen the chemical compositions of several explosives, and after consultation with several chemists, have become sufficiently frightened at the ease at which a lot of explosives can be made.

Paris
March 13, 2012, 05:47 PM
Never understood the short barreled rifle restriction. I can have an AR15 with a very short barrel and easily conceal it under my jacket as long as I don't put a stock on it... Hmmm...

If you enjoyed reading about "You can't own that -- it's dangerous!" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!