Let's discuss the REALITY of where we are at on the 2A and Gun Control

[leadcounsel]

So, as I see it, there's many angles and options. Chime in on the liklihood:

This can happen either through new laws or Executive Order.

New laws require majority votes in Senate and House, and then signature by the President. Senate is majority Democrate and House is Majority Republican. Anti-gun laws will likely be along party lines, with a few swing voters. President will happily sign into law ANY gun laws before him.

a. High Cap mag bans past/current/future. I think this is likely, banning FUTURE manufacture and import and possibly sale. Overall, I still think this fails in at least the House, for now.

b. Private transfers. The 'loophole' will almost certainly be on the table for guns, and possibly mags and ammo. We may go the way of Illinois needing a special card to buy ammo. Online sales may go away. All could require a special background check to buy or sell/transfer. I think this will become law, at least for guns.

c. Deeper mental health ownership restrictions. Possibly for anyone that has sought mental health treatment, including PTSD and TBI. I Possibly a total ban for you or anyone in your household, much like felony restrictions. think this will happen.

d. Gun/ammo import restrictions. Expect a total ban, probably not through law, but through EO.

e. Special Weapon registry. I expect either through law or EO, the ATF will tighten down on our beloved AR15 and AK type weapons. There could certainly be a registry. (We all know that will lead to confiscation one day.). Other than the NDA from a few years ago, I'm not aware of any prohibition, and the "well regulated" language of the 2A doesn't help argue against it. DC v. Heller protects handguns but didn't go quite far enough to protect these weapons, unfortunately.

So, for now, I think we'll see some encroachments. Hopefully not too terrible, but terrible just the same. As a result, I think prices will be a solid 50% higher for anything on the ban list or ammo and mags than they were in November 2012 probably until after at least the next Congressional elections, and then possibly longer depending on the outcome.

Your thoughts?

 

[gc70]

e. Special Weapon registry

What existing law provides the authority for an Executive Order to achieve such an end?

 

[avs11054]

I am hopeful and confident that none of these will pass. You must also note that while the republicans are the minority in the senate, Democrats still do not have the 60+ votes needed in the senate to stop a fillibuster. High profile senators such as Lindsey Graham have already said he will not support another ban.

Like you said, any vote on this will probably be along party lines with a few members of each side crossing over. I don't see any gun control legislation passing either chamber.

That being said, if something does happen, I see the most likely legislation being a ban on hi-cap mags and/or the gunshow "loophole."

 

[45_auto]

The ATF can rule that a weapon is "readily convertible" to automatic operation and it instantly becomes a machinegun. As a general rule, ANY semi-auto is readily convertible to automatic operation. All it takes is a string (or lever if you don't mind a little machining) to trip the sear or trigger when the bolt closes.

That's how they took the open-bolt semi-autos off the market in 1982.

The National Firearms Act, 26 U.S.C. § 5845(b), defines a machinegun to include any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.

The “shoots automatically” definition covers weapons that will function automatically. The “readily restorable” definition defines weapons which previously could shoot automatically but will not in their present condition. The “designed” definition includes those weapons which have not previously functioned as machineguns but possess design features which facilitate full automatic fire by a simple modification or elimination of existing component parts.

http://www.atf.gov/regulations-rulings/rulings/atf-rulings/atf-ruling-82-8.pdf

There was an ATF ruling in 2006 that ruled that any firearm with a string used to increase the cyclic rate is a machinegun. I don't know of any semiauto that would be difficult to rig a string between the bolt and trigger. An AR15 would be one of the most difficult since it doesn't have a charging handle that rides with the bolt, and even then all you would need to do is stick a pin out the side of the bolt carrier.

http://jpfo.org/filegen-n-z/savage2.htm

 

[bikemutt]

I've noticed lately the gun show "loophole" is slowly being morphed into what it really is which is private sales of firearms period.

I predict this will be a relatively easy one to get passed. All they need to do is resurrect some of the NBC/CBS/ABC or whomever's footage showing people selling guns to buyers who say things like "I probably couldn't have passed a background check anyway".

The sellers responses when accosted by the journalists: "I need the money", "I don't care", "it's not illegal" etc.

Not saying I agree with BG checks for private sales, but when there are clear examples out there of sellers exercising very poor judgement, it's going to be pretty hard to drum up any sympathy from those without some skin in the game.

 

[mljdeckard]

I still don't now how eager Obama is to push this stuff through. I know he wants to LOOK like he is. He is getting heat from his base for mostly shtting up about it during the first termI really think that his sending Biden to head a commission on this is his way of pushing it down to the road, so that he can bring it up later, push a bill that won't make it out of committee, and say; "Look, I tried. The republicans stopped me again." I really think he wants to avoid the issue because it will eat up so much political capital, it will leave him with none left to do anything else. Right now he REALLY wants to get a budget deal done. That won't happen if he has already walked all over everyone and used all his favors and leverage on gun control that will confirm everyone's fears and hurt him badly in the mid-terms.

 

[beatledog7]

^^I tend to agree there won't be sweeping changes, but for different reasons.

Obama knows he has no mandate for anything, let alone far-reaching gun control, and that as he only "good feelings" to work from. A fair number of Obama voters I know simply voted Democrat or against Romney and are now waiting for Obama to straighten up and fly right. They won't tolerate a lot of fluffy, feel good, BS and are looking to him to govern for a change. I don't think they'll see trashing 2A as good governance.

 

[guyfromohio]

Mental health is a slippery slope. Banning vets with ptsd is a bad thing.

 

[Geneseo1911]

I see one of two scenarios:
-They focus on magazines, and our chances are about 50/50
-They let DiFi go for the full enchilada and get smacked down, and nothing happens.

Either way, I look for anything imported to be gone, Saiga-12's, maybe all auto shotguns that take more than 3 rounds, to become DD's, and anything else they can think of to do by EO. My gut feeling is that legislation fails and Obama does whatever he can unilaterally. That is almost certainly the best thing for him politically, as well as for the D. party, which we all know is what really drives decisions in Washington.

 

[comus3]

Mental health is a slippery slope. Banning vets with ptsd is a bad thing.

Unless it saves that vet's life

 

[highlander 5]

The Feds can't handle the requests from gun shops on background checks,now add in the requests from private sales and the system will come to a screeching halt. Viola,no gun sales at all. And IIRC the NICS check was for dealers exclusively

 

[mljdeckard]

The law gives a time limit for the checks. If they can't handle it, it goes through. If they change the law to say that all transfers have to go through an FFL, it just means that a lot more dealers will become FFLs.

Here's the thing, and I might get jeers for saying it, but I will anyway. It's not the background check for every transfer I couldn't live with. If it were me, I would become an FFL and do transfers either for free or very little to make it easier for people to do it. I don't have a problem with every transaction being CHECKED. What I have a problem with is the possibility (likelihood) that it will eventually become a way to track guns and owners. It's not the check system, it's the eventual long-term consequences.

 

[Geneseo1911]

This is starting to drift, but WHY THE HECK IS NICS RESTRICTED TO DEALERS?! I think most gun owners would make a call voluntarily if it was possible. Remove the 4473, and you remove any complaint I have about BG checks on private sales.

 

[bikemutt]

Here in WA, dealers are tax collectors for the state; all FFLs must collect the sales tax and remit to the state. So, from a practical standpoint, if a private sale for a $500 gun is now subject to a background check conducted by a FFL dealer, that gun will now pick up a $30 transfer fee (estimate) and 9.5% sales tax; $577.50.

As far as non-FFLs accessing the NICS, I don't see that happening anytime soon. There is more to what the ATF expects from a dealer than simply making a phone call to the NICS. Being able to sniff out straw purchases and other suspicious activity comes to mind.

All that said, I'm not ready to draw the line on BG checks for private sales since the effect on me as a buyer is minimal and largely financial. As a seller, I would find it remarkable and surprising to learn that someone whom I "cleared" failed a BG check that would be upheld on appeal. But it could happen I suppose.

 

[goon]

I agree with requiring checks on all sales, or at least on allowing private citizens to run checks themselves during transfers.
I have seen shady deals go down at gunshows when a seller knowingly sold a gun to someone he wasn't supposed to. In the case I am thinking of, the guy seemed legit but was from another state and the guy with the table wasn't licensed. He noted that he shouldn't sell it to an out of state resident privately, then took the money and did it anyhow. Granted, the buyer in that case was likely not going to go off and harm someone - he was just a guy buying a rifle he really wanted.

But given bad judgement like that on the part of private sellers, and I'm sure that there are cases much worse than that, I agree that losing private sales may be inevitable, at least for semi-autos. And though this may draw fire, I'd be OK with that. I agree with background checks on every sale with destruction of the 4473's within a short period of time (again, echoing the fears of registration).

Another question on my mind - what will Heller vs. D.C. allow legislators to get away with in this case? Heller specifically notes the right to self defense and that people have the right to use weapons in common use to do that. With millions of AR-15's and probably something like 30 manufacturers, they are popular. They seem to fit the criteria, as do high capacity magazines (which are used with AR's, AK's, FAL's, M1A's, Glocks, Berettas, SIG's... well, you get the idea).

And while I may draw even more fire from some for this idea, I don't think I'd shed any tears about a licensing system that would allow us to carry concealed anywhere in the country and buy anything we want up to select fire belt-fed weapons. I'd get on board with that. But the problem with gun control is that it never comes out to a real negotiation where both sides give and both sides recieve. Instead, it's always a matter of us losing something... and in the end, no one ever gains anything.

 

[guyfromohio]

Nics on all transfers? Here wifey, take mine today..... Oops, illegal transfer. Son, I'd like to give this colt to you.... Oops, illegal transfer. An attack on 2A is an attack on freedom.

 

[bigfatdave]

Mental health is a slippery slope. Banning vets with ptsd is a bad thing.

Unless it saves that vet's life

"If it only saves ONE LIFE" is a tired old argument. It is incorrect in the first place and has been disproven too many times to count.

Someone intent on suicide will accomplish it with whatever tools are handy

You must think veterans are awfully stupid, comus3, to assume that if denied a FFL purchase of a firearm they will be unable to end their own lives.

 

[bigfatdave]

I think most gun owners would make a call voluntarily if it was possible.

I sure wouldn't

 

[Hacker15E]

I think that the NRA should stop the silly push for armed school security and instead go all in to reform/improve the NICS system.

- Improve the infrastructure of the system; better computers, better updates out of sources

- Improve access and open access to NICS to all citizens for use in private sales

- Figure out how to determine which types of mental illness diagnoses should go into NICS. Figure out how to add those various types of documented mental illnesses into the system, AND ensure there is a reliable process to get one's name OFF that list once a medical professional clears someone.

It isn't a "solution" by any stretch, but it is a needed improvement to the system and could be shown to the gun control crowd as something that could actually help.

 

[Deer_Freak]

Lot's of people commit suicide in jails and prisons. I am quite sure all the prisoners are banned from possessing firearms.

 

[goon]

I agree that the NRA is going to have to back a plan that does more than just stick armed guards in schools. Although I support the idea of an armed person, or several, being available to slow down or halt an attacker, I think the cost alone of such a plan will likely be prohibitive. I'd rather see reservists or National Guardsmen be able to fulfil some of their required yearly service guarding schools, allow teachers to carry concealed, allow volunteers in the community to undergo training and provide additional security, or all three.

But they do have a point with their pledge of assisting schools in beefing up security. Most schools are such soft targets that anyone with a big rock could gain unauthorized access. Someone needs to get real and make it plain that a huge glass door is not secure no matter how you lock it, and that a receptionist with a clipboard or an unarmed security guard isn't going to accomplish anything other than being the first victim.

While it's true that criminals commit crimes without guns and that people with mental issues can still harm themselves or others without guns, the fact is that people are also getting harmed with guns. No gun starts out for the illegal market in this country, but they make their way there somehow. I'm sure theft puts some of them there, but some get there through "bad" private transfers too. As a gun owner, I feel a responsibility to society to help prevent that from happening. It may not have made a difference with the latest shooting or with many others, but it's something we can do address, even if private immediate family transfers are left alone. I'm for making the background check necessary on all private transfers (or at least most). At the worst, didn't Heller allow DC's licensing requirement? So if it's a matter of supporting the idea of NICS on every transfer or being bullheaded and getting stuck with all-out licensing, which would you prefer?

For mental health, Hacker15E is right. It's important to not make those who end up in the system, vets or not, feel like they'll have to lose their rights to get treatment. I understand why a vet wouldn't seek out help for a mental issue for fear of losing his or her guns - making them feel that way doesn't help anyone. I could also see if that were the case with a family member with a mental illness in the same household. I agree on defining which mental health issues make one truly dangerous and which ones don't. And I agree that there has to be a clear way to get off any list once someone is on it so that those who seek help and are effectively treated have their rights restored when they are no longer a danger.

 

[bigfatdave]

- Figure out how to determine which types of mental illness diagnoses should go into NICS. Figure out how to add those various types of documented mental illnesses into the system,

Still vulnerable to input from malicious "mental health professionals"
The entire concept of NICS is flawed. If someone can't be trusted with a new gun from a dealer, they can't be trusted with a vehicle, power tools, black powder, high places, access to freeways, or any of the other things that go with freedom.

We let these people pilot 2500-pound motorized battering rams in public, why is hassling them about a boomstick an issue?

 

[leadcounsel]

Background checks on ALL transfers are problematic.

1) Added cost and inconvenience.
2) Lists
3) Do YOU want to give your home address, DL, CPL, etc. to a stranger just to buy a handgun? Not me. Talk about serious Operational Security issues and Identity Theft problems. Now you've just given your home address to a stranger who knows you have guns.

 

[cbpagent72]

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Hacker15E]

Still vulnerable to input from malicious "mental health professionals"

The entire concept of NICS is flawed. If someone can't be trusted with a new gun from a dealer, they can't be trusted with a vehicle, power tools, black powder, high places, access to freeways, or any of the other things that go with freedom.

It doesn't really matter if you think the concept is flawed or wrong -- it is the law, and there is no chance in the near term that it is going away.

My proposal was, since we have to live with it, it is better to spend time and money and effort trying to make it as efficient and effective as possible.