Biden to target 'ghost guns,' stabilizing braces in new gun control actions

If you don't believe what I said, not my problem. It again comes down to the core issue of guns that avoid the NICS or equivalent checks. That boils down to whether you want to eliminate that system for new gun sales.

The brace issue is stupid as they were work arounds for SBRs. Tell me when Mitch, Ryan and Trump pushed for the elimination of the SBR rules. Also, remember that the NRA's position is that without the bumpstock ban as low hanging fruit for Congress and Trump, they would have banned all semis.

Of course, my view is that Scotus, led for awhile by the great failure on gun issues - Roberts, should finally take a case to eliminate the Federal and state gun bans and carry restrictions for law abiding citizens. Will they, who knows?

Thus banning braces and kits have deeper implications and surface complaints don't really get to them. So if the ATFE said that the current kits and 80% receivers have to be sold by or through an FFL - you ok with that? If not, why not - that's because you don't like the NICS system.

Tinman357 said:

I'm just amazed at the number of members here that support banning 80%, bumpstocks, and pistol braces. "

Click to expand...

Not me! And among the many reasons for my lack of support is number 17, It does Zero to prevent crime.

"My neighbor got 2 DWI's and the police knocked on my door to revoke MY license."

GEM said:

So if the ATFE said that the current kits and 80% receivers have to be sold by or through an FFL - you ok with that? If not, why not - that's because you don't like the NICS system.

Click to expand...

The response will be 75% kits that aren't considered to be guns, so don't need to be sold through an FFL, and so it will go.

The same places that have been claimed to be at risk from the 80% kits are trying to require background checks for ammo purchases. How long before handloaders are accused of just trying to avoid the NICS?

The point is on ghost guns is the lower is not considered a receiver until its milled out. So how do you ban a piece of metal that is not a gun as a gun? Where is the line that this is a receiver and this is just a piece of metal? The eighty percent is just something made up by the sellers. So if ATF says this is a gun then what do you have to leave out to then not be a gun again?

Think this through - if the shape is that of a receiver, even if metal needs to be removed - it will be classified as a 'gun'. Unless it is block of metal that you have to totally shape - that will be it. Also, what does handloading have to do with it. NICS is not demanded for ammo. Granted several states are tightening up on ammo purchases but it isn't NICS. That isn't to say that legislation to add background checks for ammo won't be proposed and then background checks for components. Then you would get into whether a bullet is a bullet or a lead ingot is a bullet, I suppose.

The percentages are a rabbit hole that are useless in this discussion.

They get all excited about the braces on a AR pistol, Well it's not much different overall than a BullPup design. Sure the barrel is a "acceptable" length but overall size??

Now it is down right evil looking!

https://www.steyr-arms.com/us/steyr-aug-a3-m1

How about Bullpup Shotguns??

It will never ever end!

GEM said:

Think this through - if the shape is that of a receiver, even if metal needs to be removed - it will be classified as a 'gun'. Unless it is block of metal that you have to totally shape - that will be it. Also, what does handloading have to do with it. NICS is not demanded for ammo. Granted several states are tightening up on ammo purchases but it isn't NICS. That isn't to say that legislation to add background checks for ammo won't be proposed and then background checks for components. Then you would get into whether a bullet is a bullet or a lead ingot is a bullet, I suppose.

The percentages are a rabbit hole that are useless in this discussion.

Click to expand...

The percentages may be a rabbit hole, but you have to define what is regulated, and as soon as that's done, there will be entities marketing just outside that definition. It is not as if the NICS actually makes a measurable impact on crime. It's not like a newly made 80% AR is somehow more of a threat than a used one sold in a face to face sale.

The issue for me is that all of these measures are specifically intended to restrict and reduce the civil rights of law-abiding citizens, and for no benefit to society. All we get is increased authority for the government. Everyone in this discussion knows that if 80% receivers had never been marketed or built, the only change to society would be where the crime scene firearms were sourced, not the actual crimes themselves. The proposals are intended for political, not social ends.

The whole short barrel rifle and shot gun is a stupid law. It makes no sense. But when does the Fed make sense? The Feds could mess up a wet dream.

I think the best thing that could be done to make the process better and have it actually (maybe) keep guns out of the hands of the goblin horde is to fix the system we have. No new laws. Get the system that it's all built upon to actually work. That means getting courts to file correctly that someone's case was tossed out or they were found not guilty. I see so many people chasing their tails now with Covid shutting down courthouses having to actually do the work that should have been done by some lazy clerk. Before we add any more laws of dubious value, let's get the existing system up to snuff.

How many times does a gun trace solve a crime? I would suggest that it is not as common as seen on CSI.

So what that a weapon found at a crime scene doesn't have a serial number. Since many criminals either a) steal their weapons, or b) trade them on the black market, even if a firearm had 10 serial numbers that were on file in a computerized database (which is not the case), this would not assist in tracking that firearm back to the perp.

More meaningless infringement that makes a certain segment of society "feel" better without actually solving anything.

The trace issue may be a red herring. The issue that will push the attack on the kits will be producing guns that don't need a NICS or equivalent check to get into the public's hands and then perhaps directly into criminal hands. Again, without all the rhetoric about infringement and percents, are folks saying that the current check system should be eliminated? You have to decide how you feel about that.

The brace issue is stupid and should have been wiped out by legislation or the courts concerning SBRs.

castile said:

The whole short barrel rifle and shot gun is a stupid law. It makes no sense. But when does the Fed make sense? The Feds could mess up a wet dream.

Click to expand...

It makes sense if you understand what the original draft of the 1934 National Firearms Act was intended to do.......outlaw all concealable firearms, allowing only rifles and shotguns with at least a 26"OAL and a minimum barrel length of 18". Everything else would be taxed.

Once folks realized that included handguns, Colt, S&W, etc lobbied hard to have them removed from the NFA. Once removed, it still left anything not a handgun but less than 26"OAL/BBl of 18" as taxable under the NFA. (later the NFA was amended to allow 16" bbls on rifles)

So, while we may dislike the "whole short barrel rifle and shotgun" parts of the NFA.........it does make sense. It makes sense because that was the intent of the NFA. ATF is required to make the implementing regulations of the NFA and as part of that defined what is a rifle, shotgun, pistol, revolver, frame, receiver, silencer, SBS, SBR, machine gun and AOW.

Blaming ATF for the nonsensical aspects of federal gun laws is misplacing the blame.......thats squarely on Congress. Congress wrote and passed the NFA and created the mess we have today. You want a federal agency to write stupid regs, then be sure Congress passes a poorly written law.

I'm waiting for some federal judge to wake up one day and ponder if the original intent of the 1934 NFA was to prohibit concealable firearms.....why is there a problem with making a legal firearm such as a pistol or revolver LESS concealable? Whether by lengthening the barrel, adding a stock, arm brace or the shoulder thing that goes up.

There are no judges to wake up. There are judges that are just against guns of all types for what we consider carry and SD. They may approve of Uncle Dick's hunting guns and that's it. The gun bans just have to be overcome, there is no convincing people based on logic as the debate is emotional.

wait util the liberals figure out a deadly shotgun can be made from a screw and end cap and two pieces of pipe and are quite cheap and deadly

I just have trouble wrapping my head around why people don’t understand “should not be infringed”

infringed:
act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on.
"his legal rights were being infringed"

If the Supreme Court really acted as an interpretation of the constitution they would toss all gun laws. I should be able to buy me a Nuke.

I believe if you have been to jail for felony convictions and have now done your time and been released, you deserve the right to defend your family. How messed up do you have to be in the head to let someone out of jail that you don’t entrust with full rights under the constitution? Sentance them longer or hang them if your not going to restore their rights after time served.
The constitution scares politicians. And it was designed to do just that. Obviously they aren’t scared of us anymore because enough has been taken over the years. They are just there to get rich.

Just chipping away like always. And here some sit being ok with it because it could be worse. Then we wake up one day and they’ve achieved “worse”.

GEM said:

, without all the rhetoric about infringement and percents, are folks saying that the current check system should be eliminated? You have to decide how you feel about that..

Click to expand...

I'll bite, I'm for the current check system, the proposed changes can remain unimplemented.

I couldn't care less about bump stocks, they were just a fun add-on to do mag dumps. Should they have been banned? Nope. Should braces be banned? Also a strong no. On braces, they were originally intended to help people who could not shoulder a rifle to at least have assistance to do so. Then people started to install them on AR pistols to shoulder them to get around the BS NFA.

80% were to get around the ATF's ever changing goal posts on what constitutes as a firearm and to allow people to build to their heart's content. A ban on those doesn't fix the underlying issues.

I'm hoping the G.O.A will get the chance to fight all of these issues in court. I have more hope for them than the NRA to challenge these. The NRA sat on their hands with Conceal Carry Reciprocity and the Hearing Protection Act in 2017.

I just have trouble wrapping my head around why people don’t understand “should not be infringed”

Click to expand...

That has been discussed quite thoroughly here. Frank Ettin, one of our legal experts, has explained that while a lay person thinks X - it is the Supreme Court that interprets it. I am not a lawyer and to get into those weeds. Just to give you a flavor, the anti gun folks say the militia clause implies 'not infringer' refers to the rights of the state to have an armed militia - not individual ownership of guns. Sigh - tons of discussion of that. You might search on it and Frank's postings in Legal.

We announce the phrase as a magic spell but it doesn't work that way in actuality, even if we would like it to be so.

Were things worse when I, as a 12 year old, walked into the local Western Auto with my lawn mowing money and walked out with a .22 rifle and a box of ammo? No, they weren't.

As a result, all gun control laws, including background checks, are not just an infringement, they haven't done anything to stop violent crime.

The anti goal is disarmament, and they continue to unrelentingly chip away, but by bit. Until we put our foot down and say "No more!", or better yet "Roll back" we are going to continue to lose our freedom, our guns, and our country.

Rule3 said:

Heck many of the recent shootings have been by people that PASSED a background check!

Click to expand...

One of the big failings of the b/r check system is it's based on courts and law enforcement truly doing their jobs. For example, the POS in Parkland who shot up the high school. FBI and local cops had him on their radar for a long time but for whatever reason, either no entry was made in his record or it was in a juvenile record that got sealed when he turned 18. In any case, he passed his background check and was able to buy a firearm.

Also, little is mentioned about shooters who are using weapons that are patently illegal to own/use where they do their illegal shooting. Or the illegal magazines. Or whatever other aspects of the situation aren't legal. If those didn't stop the goblin from doing his infamous deed, no additional laws are going to prevent it either.

If it's already illegal, you can't make it illeagler..... It's like being pregnant, you are or you're not. Layering multiple laws on top of ones already violated isn't going to make it not happen.

As I have said already in other posts, if the system is built on a broken subsystem, the whole is going to fail in numerous instances. Lawbreakers don't pay attention to laws unless they're trying to set a record for how many they've broken.

Saying that the current check system has faults just leads to the argument that it gets tightened up. Isn't that simple to see. It's not an argument to get rid of it, if that is what folks are making.

It is a problem with progun folks. They see an antigun policy and suggest - it doesn't work well, so get rid of it. The antigun folks say - fix it.

It is similar to the folks saying that a lever gun can shoot as many as a semi EBR, there is no evidence that the AWB affected crime rates.

So the response is to get rid of the lever guns and truly come after all semis. I heard this from their experts at a DOJ panel way back when.

GEM said:

Saying that the current check system has faults just leads to the argument that it gets tightened up. Isn't that simple to see. It's not an argument to get rid of it, if that is what folks are making.
It is a problem with progun folks. They see an antigun policy and suggest - it doesn't work well, so get rid of it. The antigun folks say - fix it.

Click to expand...

Not sure if you are replying to me, but I see the anti's not wanting fix and fine tune the system so that it works, they want to patch more laws on top of ones that are on top of a system that isn't working. We've had people denied a b/r check because someone along the way dropped the ball on passing along updated information. I've seen people get passed on their check for much the same reason, but instead of the information that didn't get passed along clearing them to buy a gun, it dropped the ball on damning information that would have prevented them from getting the firearm.

I don't mind the b/r check, in fact, I like not being able to be likely conned into selling a gun to a prohibited person. We're in 2021, we should have accurate information available to whoever grants the permission to buy, it shouldn't take days. If there is a hurdle preventing a fast background check, let's clear that out of the way.

Not you, just a general comment on how folks react to a policy that seems to be ineffectual. I don't mind the check, either - I'd fix it so it works. I also think it is inevitable that the kits fall under it, if the parts are clearly able to produce a gun. The bigger issue is the ban on weapons types and mags. That is the real battle. Who cares if you can mill a receiver if the entire weapon is banned.