California high capacity mag ban news.

[TurboLuver]

Originally Posted by hatt
What sort of system is going to prevent straw purchases? Or buying stolen guns? Or buying guns smuggled into the country?


A two pronged approach,
1. Sharply increase the penalty for breaking these laws
2. Enforce the laws

 

[MrHorspwer]

Originally Posted by hatt
What sort of system is going to prevent straw purchases? Or buying stolen guns? Or buying guns smuggled into the country?


Something more than: ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

The reality is there is no point in even talking about it. One side doesn't think there is a problem at all and the other side is too micro-focused on singular issues. With both side shouting into an echo chamber, a real solution is impossible.

Your response is a perfect example. I point out that Astro has identified a number of existing issues with the NICS system and you immediately want to know what's better, presumably so you can share all the ways it won't work, and also throw in stolen guns and smuggling, which weren't part of the original comment. Any discussion beyond this would be equally served by explaining our ideas to a wall.

 

[hatt]

We don't need to fix NICS. We need to abolish it. We should be cash and carry for firearms at the local corner store. An armed society is a polite society. Our current issues are we turned over security to the government. We need more citizens willing and able to protect themselves.

 

[sloinker]

I always like the constitutional argument. When the constitution was enacted there wasn't a federal army branch like nowadays. The right to keep and bear arms was reserved for those serving in recognized/state militias who would be called upon to mass as one during wartime. Of course the state militias have become the national guard more are less and we have multiple government controlled armed forces.

 

[IndyFan]

Originally Posted by sloinker
I always like the constitutional argument. When the constitution was enacted there wasn't a federal army branch like nowadays. The right to keep and bear arms was reserved for those serving in recognized/state militias who would be called upon to mass as one during wartime. Of course the state militias have become the national guard more are less and we have multiple government controlled armed forces.

That is not true. Read Jefferson on the right to bear arms. It was not intended as protection from foreign enemies as much as from tyranny from our own government.

 

[Brigadier]

Originally Posted by Astro14
Originally Posted by Danh
I get the Second Amendment issue, but help me out here: short of repelling a foreign invasion or in law enforcement work, of what use is a 30-round magazine? Or is the concern this ban could lead to others?


What will your hit percentage will be in a self-defense scenario?

How many rounds will it take to stop an attacker?

How many attackers will you face?

Tell me those numbers, and I'll tell you how many rounds you need.


Here's an estimate:

For the first two numbers, let's examine actual police shootings. The NYPD is widely reported to hit about 30% of the time. They're trained law enforcement, so I'll assume you can't do a lot better. It takes anywhere from one to 12 rounds to stop a determined assailant. Depends on hit accuracy, bullet lethality, physiology of the assistant, etc. but for arithmetic simplicity, let's go with 4 rounds.

Remember, because it's critical to this, or any self defense discussion, that you're trying to stop an assailant. Generally young, male, strong, and determined. If they die five minutes after killing you, your shot was ineffective. You need to stop the attack right now. That generally takes multiple rounds, again, in police shooting experience.

And you're facing three attackers who broke into your home.

So you need 1/0.3 (hit percentage) x 4 (numbers of rounds for a stop) x 3 (assailants)

You need 40 rounds.

But only if you're as good a shot as the cops.

See?

Arbitrary capacity limitations are a joke.



I have been to police qualification shoots. I can DEFINITELY out shoot 99% of gun carrying officers. Most officers are NOT gun enthusiasts and only shoot their gun 2X a year during qualification.

 

[Brigadier]

Originally Posted by IndyFan
Originally Posted by sloinker
I always like the constitutional argument. When the constitution was enacted there wasn't a federal army branch like nowadays. The right to keep and bear arms was reserved for those serving in recognized/state militias who would be called upon to mass as one during wartime. Of course the state militias have become the national guard more are less and we have multiple government controlled armed forces.

That is not true. Read Jefferson on the right to bear arms. It was not intended as protection from foreign enemies as much as from tyranny from our own government.


^^^^^ THIS

 

[Brigadier]

Originally Posted by MrHorspwer
Serious on-topic question, because I'm not from California and don't know the whole history. I read the article and didn't quite get the answer.

Does this ruling, the one linked to in the first post, rescind forcing owners of pre-ban high-capacity magazines to give them up or does it rescind the entire high-capacity magazine ban?

Originally Posted by Astro14
Colorado "closed the gun show loophole" by requiring private sellers to utilize the NICS at gun shows (dealers have always been required to) in response to Columbine, even though it would've made no difference in the Columbine shooters getting weapons. The straw purchaser would've passed the back ground check either way. The same number of felonies existed before and after the change in Colorado law.


It sounds like you're making a pretty good case for tougher purchase requirements. I mean, if a straw purchase is what ultimately got weapons into the hands of these two and pretty much any 18 year old that can fog a mirror can also pass a background check, you've set a solid foundation that NICS sucks and should be replaced with something more comprehensive.



Well, committing a straw purchase is already a felony. So what, we make a double super secret felony? Yeah, that'll stop them.

 

[Astro14]

Originally Posted by MrHorspwer
Serious on-topic question, because I'm not from California and don't know the whole history. I read the article and didn't quite get the answer.

Does this ruling, the one linked to in the first post, rescind forcing owners of pre-ban high-capacity magazines to give them up or does it rescind the entire high-capacity magazine ban?

Originally Posted by Astro14
Colorado "closed the gun show loophole" by requiring private sellers to utilize the NICS at gun shows (dealers have always been required to) in response to Columbine, even though it would've made no difference in the Columbine shooters getting weapons. The straw purchaser would've passed the back ground check either way. The same number of felonies existed before and after the change in Colorado law.


It sounds like you're making a pretty good case for tougher purchase requirements. I mean, if a straw purchase is what ultimately got weapons into the hands of these two and pretty much any 18 year old that can fog a mirror can also pass a background check, you've set a solid foundation that NICS sucks and should be replaced with something more comprehensive.


Actually, I am making the case against tougher purchase requirements. Tougher purchase requirements would NOT have stopped the Columbine shooters from getting weapons.

A 21 year old girl, with no priors, bought Kleebold and Harris the guns. She went through a dealer. She was clean. She passed the NICS check.

Because she bought them for a prohibited person, she committed a felony. A federal crime, in fact.

Colorado, in response, passed a law that requiring private sales go through NICS.

But she didn't buy from a private citizen. She bought from a dealer.

It was already a Fedrwl Law that all dealers MUST use NICS. Gun show or not.

The "Gun show loophole" isn't a loophole. It's a myth. A piece of divisive rhetoric. I've bought guns at a gun show. I filled out an ATF 4473. My data was fed into the NICS background check. I passed. I bought the gun. Same as with any dealer anywhere.

So, Colorado passed a law that wouldn't have prevented Columbine.

They "had to do something" the legislature said.

What they chose to do was ineffective.

If a person is willing to commit a felony to get guns for someone else, and that person has no prior record, they're going to pass a background check, until we get "Minority Report" "pre-crime" background checks....

 

[TurboLuver]

Originally Posted by Brigadier
Well, committing a straw purchase is already a felony. So what, we make a double super secret felony? Yeah, that'll stop them.


Obviously the penalties are not unpleasant enough.

 

[hatt]

Originally Posted by TurboLuver
Originally Posted by Brigadier
Well, committing a straw purchase is already a felony. So what, we make a double super secret felony? Yeah, that'll stop them.


Obviously the penalties are not unpleasant enough.

LOL. Drug dealers get life sentences every day. We still have plenty with more going into business every day. The world doesn't work like you think it does.

 

[RooflessVW]

Originally Posted by Astro14
Actually, I am making the case against tougher purchase requirements. Tougher purchase requirements would NOT have stopped the Columbine shooters from getting weapons.

A 21 year old girl, with no priors, bought Kleebold and Harris the guns. She went through a dealer. She was clean. She passed the NICS check.

Is there any reason we couldn't create a universal firearms license with separate endorsements for different classes of weapons? It would hardly be prohibitive to any firearms enthusiast or responsible owner.

 

[hatt]

Originally Posted by rooflessVW
Originally Posted by Astro14
Actually, I am making the case against tougher purchase requirements. Tougher purchase requirements would NOT have stopped the Columbine shooters from getting weapons.

A 21 year old girl, with no priors, bought Kleebold and Harris the guns. She went through a dealer. She was clean. She passed the NICS check.

Is there any reason we couldn't create a universal firearms license with separate endorsements for different classes of weapons? It would hardly be prohibitive to any firearms enthusiast or responsible owner.

Yeah. Because we don't want all of our stuff confiscated. Check out New Zealand. They literally have exact system you just proposed. Some Aussie came in and shot up some people and now those "responsible" owners are having to turn in stuff.

 

[Astro14]

Originally Posted by TurboLuver
Originally Posted by Brigadier
Well, committing a straw purchase is already a felony. So what, we make a double super secret felony? Yeah, that'll stop them.


Obviously the penalties are not unpleasant enough.


It's not really a matter of penalty, which is ten years in prison and a fine of $250,000 for each instance.

It's a matter of enforcement.

An estimated 400,000 straw purchases take place each year.

With a few dozen brought to prosecution annually.

In Virginia, for example, there were 12 cases brought to court from 2006-2011.

That's two a year.

What good does it do to up the penalty, when no enforcement takes place?

 

[Brigadier]

Amazing how many sheep are willing to trade freedom for the illusion of safety.

 

[Astro14]

Originally Posted by rooflessVW
Originally Posted by Astro14
Actually, I am making the case against tougher purchase requirements. Tougher purchase requirements would NOT have stopped the Columbine shooters from getting weapons.

A 21 year old girl, with no priors, bought Kleebold and Harris the guns. She went through a dealer. She was clean. She passed the NICS check.

Is there any reason we couldn't create a universal firearms license with separate endorsements for different classes of weapons? It would hardly be prohibitive to any firearms enthusiast or responsible owner.


What other Constitutional rights require a license?

I'm OK with a background check. That's been the law for a while. I'm OK with prohibiting some people from owning a weapon.

But licensing is like putting a small tax on voting, or simply requiring property ownership to vote... it's an infringement.

And licensing has been used in other countries to form the basis of confiscation.

"Ah, Mr. Smith, since you have a firearms license, we are here to search your house and confiscate any firearm that has been retroactively deemed illegal".

That's exactly what IS happening in New Zealand right now.

No thanks.

 

[Brigadier]

Those who are ignorant of history are doomed to repeat it.

 

[TurboLuver]

Originally Posted by hatt
Originally Posted by TurboLuver
Originally Posted by Brigadier
Well, committing a straw purchase is already a felony. So what, we make a double super secret felony? Yeah, that'll stop them.


Obviously the penalties are not unpleasant enough.

LOL. Drug dealers get life sentences every day. We still have plenty with more going into business every day. The world doesn't work like you think it does.


Hey, I'm like minded, when I say the penalties are not drastic enough I mean something stronger than a life sentence. I agree that an armed society is a polite society, but you would still
have a fringe element of criminals to deal with.

As far a national license (registry) goes, like others have pointed out, it has been used historically as a tool for confiscation.

 

[MrHorspwer]

Originally Posted by Astro14


It's not really a matter of penalty, which is ten years in prison and a fine of $250,000 for each instance.

It's a matter of enforcement.

An estimated 400,000 straw purchases take place each year.

With a few dozen brought to prosecution annually.

In Virginia, for example, there were 12 cases brought to court from 2006-2011.

That's two a year.

What good does it do to up the penalty, when no enforcement takes place?


You and I are totally on the same page.

More comprehensive background check, beyond NICS, for first-time purchasers? Require character references from most immediate family members?

In the case of Columbine, what if law enforcement had called a father/mother/brother/sister to follow up before a first time purchase: Why the heck is my daughter/sister trying to buy firearms?

An AI component to NICS? If Target can use machine learning to determine if someone is pregnant and send them coupons based on purchasing or even browsing habits, I'm sure you could do the same for firearm purchases. Once flagged, any future purchases are on temp hold until law enforcement can do a follow up?

I dunno. Complicated problem with no easy solutions.

 

[RooflessVW]

Originally Posted by Astro14
Originally Posted by rooflessVW
Originally Posted by Astro14
Actually, I am making the case against tougher purchase requirements. Tougher purchase requirements would NOT have stopped the Columbine shooters from getting weapons.

A 21 year old girl, with no priors, bought Kleebold and Harris the guns. She went through a dealer. She was clean. She passed the NICS check.

Is there any reason we couldn't create a universal firearms license with separate endorsements for different classes of weapons? It would hardly be prohibitive to any firearms enthusiast or responsible owner.


What other Constitutional rights require a license?

I'm OK with a background check. That's been the law for a while. I'm OK with prohibiting some people from owning a weapon.

But licensing is like putting a small tax on voting, or simply requiring property ownership to vote... it's an infringement.

And licensing has been used in other countries to form the basis of confiscation.

"Ah, Mr. Smith, since you have a firearms license, we are here to search your house and confiscate any firearm that has been retroactively deemed illegal".

That's exactly what IS happening in New Zealand right now.

No thanks.

So what is the solution to the problem we have? Nothing? Just live with it? Start hiring Triple Canopy to patrol our schools and churches?