Gun Talk - News, Laws, etc.

[allegro]

there's are all kinds of ear protection available. besides giving the public access to assassin's tools. for people who live near a gun range you have ton of other things to worry about like stray bullets lead contamination, to name a few. for a party that's supposedly anti-abortion they sure are intent on seeing you die after you leave the womb
-louie

Silencers are already legal in many states. The House moved on to other issues because this one just isn't that important, and because it's up to individual states to figure it out. This isn't a guns rights thing, it's just a priorities thing and a state's rights thing. You're right, though, in that nobody lives around the outdoor ranges near here because it ain't like living near a golf course.

My biggest problem with the "argue for ANYTHING that the gun fans want" stance is that there is zero compromise and a lot of times there's just no logical explanation provided for "need" vs. "want." I am not against guns, and @DigitalChaos knows this. But, there are certain things for which I will not advocate because (a) I think it's not needed and / or is more detrimental to the good of the country and innocent people than helpful or necessary to anybody, and / or (b) I'm supportive of states rights.

If you're worried about your hearing while hunting, then take up REAL hunting: Bow and Arrow. G's cousin does this.

[allegro]

Many poor people can't afford GUNS. Guns are expensive. From a legal or Constitutional standpoint, there's nothing in the 2nd Amendment that guarantees your ability to buy a gun (it only protects your right to have one), let alone your "right" to protect your hearing from said gun. There's not even Federal legislation requiring safety precautions. If we want to be semi-originalist, then we can't extend the 2nd Amendment to include your right to protect your hearing on a Federal level.

If you want a suppressor and you can't have one in your state, you can move. But, there's nothing in the 2nd Amendment providing for ear protection. Or, frankly, hunting rifles for hunting. Any laws re hunting were via case law that broadened the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment far from an originalist interpretation. Again, I'm not strictly an originalist but I do at least look at the authors' intent. The House was voting on this legislation because lawyers knew that nobody could successfully argue for it in state courts; and the House is probably cognizant that this legislation will be argued almost immediately, which will cost a lot of taxpayer's money, and the SCOTUS won't even bother with any appellate courts that strike it down (deny petitions for writ of certiorari, which the SCOTUS has repeatedly done re assault weapons bans).

The 2nd Amendment is important, but it's woefully ambiguous; right to bear arms; "bear" has been interpreted by the SCOTUS as "carry" which is why there are concealed and open carry laws, and "arms" (per Heller) is whatever arms are "in common use at the time" yet "not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose" (Scalia).

[allegate]

Paul Ryan shelves silencer bill, it's dead.

I'm shocked, shocked I tell you.

[allegate]

Yeah let me pull out some ear plugs real quick during a home invasion. Then I'll make sure to have my wife and kids put theirs in too. And with the extra awareness I've just gained with my surroundings I may as well wear a blindfold and try to engage the person who is in my house.

And for all the people that live near a range I'll tell them all that they should just wear ear plugs at home.

That addresses absolutely nothing I mentioned. I never said anything about protecting the shooter at a range.

"hold on guys, I know you want to rob me but I need to put my suppressor on real fast. Just give me a minute."

[allegro]

There may be some interesting cases where there is some constitutional argument around suppressors. Maybe its behind whether the federal govt should be allowed to restrict them? Maybe its about a gun with the suppressor built into it. etc. I don't know. But thats not a statement being made here. Just "removing the $200 fee seems good"

If you spent a lot of money on a gun, already, and you decide that you need a suppressor, it's likely that you can afford it. You already bought the expensive gun. It's a Federal (punitive / restrictive-intended) tax. If a poor person could afford the GUN ... I'm pretty close to being a socialist but this one doesn't seem like discrimination to me; if there was a law that said "you won't get food stamps or health care unless you pay $200," then I'd be all over it. But, a $200 fee on a silencer for an already-expensive gun isn't pulling on my heartstrings, and THAT is what a lot of law is all about. Need vs. want. Individual states could assist poor people with the fee if it was THAT big of a deal.

Again, HUNTERS can wear ear protection. I know a lot of hunters, and I sense a big fat load of bullshit in this: they just don't want the DEER to hear them. Nothing scares off more deer targets more than a big giant boom of a gun. Yeah, so learn how to hunt with a bow and arrow. A fucking snowmobile probably causes more ear damage than a hunting rifle.

Like SEE THIS.

Meanwhile, there are a million issues for Congress to deal with right now that are far more important than this.

[allegro]

Again, im not saying its a right or that rights are being restricted. I'm simply saying that I agree with the removal of the $200 fee and that it currently is most damaging to poor people.

To give you an example: Poor people usually favor Hi-Points. You can get a new hi-point pistol for $150. Less if used. Cheap suppressors are easy to source for <$50. Bringing us to $200 for a *brand new* setup. There have been situations where someone does this without paying the tax stamp, it then gives an instant felony because they didn't get that $200 tax stamp. It mirrors the fallout of the drug war.

then have each state where silencers are legal provide monetary assistance to poor people to help pay or pay the fee, after whatever other individual state and Federal requirements are met.

Reading through all of the online information, this act isn't REALLY about the poor; it's about hunters and about their wanting to shoot more game without scaring the game with sound. And, yes, it appears that the original intent was to stop "white trash and negroes" from purchasing cheap hunting guns.

Anyway, this is an interesting article:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.ac2fdc2a0365

I can certainly see why people who live around hunting areas would want suppressors (my grandparents lived near hunting areas for a while); but there's a reason why there's a process and tax; perhaps LOWERING the Federal tax might help poorer hunters, but - again - perhaps states can help to alleviate that tax.

None of this is a high priority right now, though; we have North Korea and disasters and lowering rich people taxes ahead of us.

[allegro]

oh man, i'd be down for this.
You KNOW most dems would be 100% opposed to something like this though. Using tax money to help people get gun gear... HAAAAAA. That would be almost as popular as bringing back gun safety classes in public schools.

But there ARE communities where hunting is how they FEED THEMSELVES for pretty much the rest of the year. They store the meat in freezers, smoke it, do all kinds of stuff with it, depending on what they're hunting and the season. I know that a lot of these voters are urban and just don't grok the rural life and how hunting is healthier for the environment and overall than buying tortured-and-killed animal meat full of antibiotics and growth hormones from the supermarket. And the country ain't going vegan or vegetarian any time soon.

edit: Also, per my prior post, bow hunting is also a very good (and economical) hunting option. Also, if the suppressor legislation is already THERE on the state's books, then that state is logically already on board with suppressors for hunting and would, in my mind, already be on board for assistance provided for poor people who can't afford it. Again, let each state legislate based on the wishes of the constituents of that state. It's what states rights is all about. But, yeah, at this point I don't see the $200 fee collected by the Feds changing in this current environment, if ever.

[Louie_Cypher]

i was thinking so i counted i did not talk to 60 people today and i friken live in sf. I still fell like until we can get get money out of politics. we will just get excuses opiod crisis. pharma money. it's sad
-louie

[sick among the pure]

HUNTERS can wear ear protection. I know a lot of hunters, and I sense a big fat load of bullshit in this: they just don't want the DEER to hear them. Nothing scares off more deer targets more than a big giant boom of a gun. Yeah, so learn how to hunt with a bow and arrow. A fucking snowmobile probably causes more ear damage than a hunting rifle.

Hunters 100% SHOULD NOT wear ear protection. Not only because you want to be able to hear what you're hunting, but most importantly, you want to be able to hear other people. Wearing ear protection while hunting is a HUGE safety risk. NO.
Beyond that, sound dampeners do not actually "silence" guns. A rifle or shotgun shot in the woods will still be heard on the hill across the way. This isn't about "I don't want the deer to hear someone else firing." This is about how I stood near my sister when she took a deer last year and LOST HEARING MY LEFT EAR FOR OVER 2 WEEKS. Wasn't even MY gun that was fired.

Silencers aren't some big scary "assassin accessory" that makes gunfire silent so it's harder to deal with bad guys using them. They just dampen the sound so that the person firing the gun (or those nearby) don't cause damage to their hearing. It's a safety accessory.

Also, I have taken up archery hunting as well. Have you hunted with both firearms as well as a bow? Before I even continue down that road of discussion with you. No "I have friends who do this or say that" I want to know if you have any person experience with any of this.

And no, a fucking snowmobile doesn't cause more damage. Nor does an atv. You're just being facetious.

[allegro]

Silencers aren't some big scary "assassin accessory" that makes gunfire silent so it's harder to deal with bad guys using them. They just dampen the sound so that the person firing the gun (or those nearby) don't cause damage to their hearing. It's a safety accessory.

Also, I have taken up archery hunting as well. Have you hunted with both firearms as well as a bow? Before I even continue down that road of discussion with you. No "I have friends who do this or say that" I want to know if you have any person experience with any of this.

And no, a fucking snowmobile doesn't cause more damage. Nor does an atv. You're just being facetious.

Snowmobiles can be pretty fucking loud. Ride an old snowmobile all day, and your hearing can get pretty fucked up. (but, yes, I was being facetious with @DigitalChaos , he "gets" me. none of my comments had YOU or your propensity for facepalming in mind. Now that I got facepalmed, though, wow, I'm really turned on, thanks!)

Note that my husband, whose hearing abilities are a requirement of his job/career, wears ear plugs TO MOW THE LAWN.

I've been standing next to a .357 Magnum (mine) while it was shot before I was able to grab my ear protection, and not only did i hear that gun but also all of the other guns suddenly going off at the same time at the range. And, yeah, it's loud. But, nothing happened to my hearing. FWIW, most ranges REQUIRE that you wear hearing protection.

At any rate, yes, shotguns are really fucking loud, I've been standing next to them at the range, too. No, I don't hunt, I have a done a lot of fishing in my life (a nice quiet sport). But, I've been shooting handguns at ranges since 1987. However, nothing compares to standing next to an exploding M80.

And ABSOLUTELY this although I've never been there.

Anyway, a LOT OF HUNTERS wear ear protection. See also. (There are electronic ear plugs that enable you to hear certain sounds while still suppressing loud sounds.)

That being said, I DID indicate (several times) that I'm not against suppressors; they are already legal in most states. I'm not against hunting, either (as indicated by this post); I'm just saying that suppressors are not protected by the 2nd Amendment, nor does the 2nd Amendment prevent the payment of a Federal tax imposed on "arms" or "safety equipment" related to said arms.

[Louie_Cypher]

the second amendment state s a well regulated militia, what do you think they wanted well regulated, the uniforms, i think the other thing that is not being talked about health costs of the 500 that were injured, did they have insurance, if they did probably probably didn't cover gunshot wounds most don't, those people are now most likely in debt for the remainder of their lives.
-Louie

[sick among the pure]

I have never and will never argue that the 2nd amendment has anything to do with suppressors or hunting, either. I'm just saying the reasons against them are, quite frankly, stupid. And the reasons FOR them are literally just for hearing protection.
Yeah, when you go to a range, you use hearing protection. When you do a lot of loud things, you use hearing protection. But there are instances (hunting, home invasion) where they're either impractical or else it's not safe to hinder your senses.

I want firearm regulation. I want a country-wide database. I want mandatory psych evals and safety training courses and background checks. I want reasonable limits on a lot of things from ammo count to attachments.
Thing is, I want gun laws that make sense. All of my liberal friends want massive sweeping bans without understanding the tech or how it's used or how the laws are currently set up. All of my conservative friends want unlimited access to any gun and attachment they can afford to buy without the government putting an fee on everything. There is a middle ground that makes sense, but most of the time people don't want to think about what the other side wants or is concerned about and only cares about what they personally want in order to feel good with the law.
And it gets frustrating being a hippie liberal who advocates for responsible gun ownership and use. Sorry if I kind of took it out on you, but so many people in the last few days (and years, really, talking about this time and again) go straight to "hunters should just use ear protection, silencers make a gun so quiet it's only needed for assassinations!" and when I calmly explain anything, they come back with either "hunters deserve hearing damage then!" or some related tripe about how they should just use ear protection anyway because they said so even though they've never hunted before let alone taken hunting safety classes. The "gun debate" is another one of those super divisive debates where 99/100 people involved are steadfast in their opinion and will not look for a common ground to figure out real change that can happen.

[Louie_Cypher]

technology will continue to advance the same as it has since it has the 2nd amendment was written, and humans will do what the always done find new and better was to kill each other it's impossible to stop, you cannot stop the human mind, I had a book when I was young "how to kill" which was exactly what the title said it was, OK my neighbor growing up was ex airborne so I went to s lot of gun show where he would get drunk and I would have drive him home. I guess the idea of any kind of gun control is a little hard to achieve. we can dowhat they kind did with driving under the influence. Make it a huge pain in the ass, if you get caught. of maybe require some form of insurance or bond with gun purchase, which could go to victims if used illegally. not great but we do need to find something. the thought of that you might not come home from just wanting to have a fun day out and listen to some music. this is not the price of freedom. an act of evil, or any other bullshit excuse thy are using for their lack of action.
-Louie

[allegro]

It’s just too difficult or even nearly impossible for us to prevent all gun violence in this country.

Limiting the number of certain types of weapons that one person owns might be a logical start, in an attempt to try to prevent what happened in Vegas (nearly 600 people shot by one guy in 20 minutes).

I saw a security expert on TV this morning talking about the true impact that the Vegas massacre will have and he said the biggest thing right now is event planners are freaking out; e.g. how do you ever hold a music festival near tall buildings ever again? What security will be needed? Who pays for it? Who’s in charge of it? Who’s liable if security fails?

A good example is Lollapalooza here in Chicago. Put that same Vegas shooter guy with his guns and ammo in any of the dozens of tall buildings surrounding Lollapalooza ...

This Vegas shooter passed every background check over the last year; the gun store staff that interacted with him said he appeared to be totally “normal” and they didn’t notice anything wrong with him; the shooter spent days, including all day of the shooting, playing high-stakes poker and wandering around the hotel among other guests, completely unnoticed and unremarkable; he was a self-proclaimed millionaire, a former accountant, a licensed pilot, he’s owned two private planes (NOT cheap), and he gave his girlfriend $100,000 to go on vacation; every piece of equipment he had was legal, obtained legally. HOW the hell do we legislate anything to “avoid” this when everything was legal? Except perhaps limit the number of guns.

Having been in law for nearly 30 years and having studied law, my mindset is always: “what serves the general public, the most amount of people, and protects the most amount of people?”

For example, banning all peanuts because many children are allergic to peanuts penalizes too many (most) people whose livelihood depends on peanuts (in the interest of a small percentage of people).

Cannabis is scientifically proven to be medically helpful to millions of people in many ways and has the potential to help millions more people, nobody has ever died from cannabis, yet politicians and religious people (a relative minority) refuse to allow something that benefits more people than would or could harm people (cannabis) to be Federally legal.

Passing a Federal law that would make silencers legal in all states and without an imposed fee may help a group of specific people, but what does it do, if anything, for the vast majority of those other citizens? What is that side of the story? If it does no harm and poses no significant threat or does not increase any existing threat, then the public could be made aware of that. But, placing it within the “right vs. left” agenda is just furthering the polarization. Also, NOT passing something related to something that either side wants is not necessarily a symbol of anything significant; not a sign that anyone kowtowed to an agenda, etc. sometimes it’s just a matter of prioritizing a number of issues within a certain time frame, or the context or timeline or mood.

TLDR: it doesn’t matter WHAT we legislate when, as @DigitalChaos pointed out, we have this:

https://www.wired.com/2015/06/i-made...-15-ghost-gun/

So when they figure out that I’m not Handmaid material and they want me as either a cleaning lady or a hooker or somebody shoveling nuclear waste in the Colonies, I’ll be in the basement printing guns for the resistance.

Blessed be the fruit.

[allegro]

Louie, I had no idea you were local to me. If you ever want to check out the machine in the last half of that video let me know.

I've been making it do other stuff, like key cutting and engraving, but it IS the scariest desktop CNC on the market

Yup that shit is scary, we ain’t in Kansas, anymore, Toto.

[thelastdisciple]

I know it'd never fly and I'm sure there would be logistical problems, i also know i haven't thought of everything but a few things could go a long way.

Every state needs to be on the same page, this should be at the federal level.

Mandatory background checks and psych eval, after 5 years if people want to renew their license they'll need to be re-evaluated.
Mandatory gun safety and training course
Limit to 1 PISTOL per household, must be registered (no shotguns, no rifles)
Limit to 1 low capacity magazine
Limit to 1 box of ammunition at a time

If the biggest reason for owning a firearm is for defense well this should all be more than sufficient, you don't need a rocket launcher to blow the guy away. This shouldn't be a fucking fetish.

[Deepvoid]

Not sure where to post this but I guess here will do just fine. A GREAT read.

America's Mass Delusion - The strategy of praying to God is not stopping mass shootings in the U.S.

"Is America’s national Thoughts and Prayers Strategy (TAPS) no longer working?"

[allegro]

I know it'd never fly and I'm sure there would be logistical problems, i also know i haven't thought of everything but a few things could go a long way.

Every state needs to be on the same page, this should be at the federal level.

Mandatory background checks and psych eval, after 5 years if people want to renew their license they'll need to be re-evaluated.
Mandatory gun safety and training course
Limit to 1 PISTOL per household, must be registered (no shotguns, no rifles)
Limit to 1 low capacity magazine
Limit to 1 box of ammunition at a time

If the biggest reason for owning a firearm is for defense well this should all be more than sufficient, you don't need a rocket launcher to blow the guy away. This shouldn't be a fucking fetish.

Too late, it’s been an American Pastime for 200 years. It’s also an integral part of our Constitution. And Federal laws violate the State’s rights of our Constitution and the 2nd Amendment. 600,000 people died during our Civil War over State’s rights. People make their own ammo, and now they can make their own guns.

Psych evaluations are a nice thought, but we’ve had several mass shootings done by people who would have passed them. ESPECIALLY if it’s some shitty Government evaluation.

The Vegas shooter planned this thing for at least a YEAR. He did everything legally. He passed many background checks. He was like an angry genius with 17 guns.

There is no solution. There could be an ATTEMPT at a solution via legislation regarding “assault” weapons designed for long range mass killing that were intended for military and not citizens.

[Louie_Cypher]

Too late, it’s been an American Pastime for 200 years. It’s also an integral part of our Constitution. And Federal laws violate the State’s rights of our Constitution and the 2nd Amendment. 600,000 people died during our Civil War over State’s rights. People make their own ammo, and now they can make their own guns.

Psych evaluations are a nice thought, but we’ve had several mass shootings done by people who would have passed them. ESPECIALLY if it’s some shitty Government evaluation.

The Vegas shooter planned this thing for at least a YEAR. He did everything legally. He passed many background checks. He was like an angry genius with 17 guns.

There is no solution. There could be an ATTEMPT at a solution via legislation regarding “assault” weapons designed for long range mass killing that were intended for military and not citizens.

these are good common sense solutions. it's kind of like care to hard so the gov. does nothing and tries to hope the population doesn't notice it's all about who's writing checks
-Louie

[allegro]

these are good common sense solutions. it's kind of like care to hard so the gov. does nothing and tries to hope the population doesn't notice it's all about who's writing checks
-Louie

It's complicated. There truly is a fine line re what we can or cannot do, Federally. This country was deliberately established as a REPUBLIC, with each State acting as its own entity under the broad umbrella of the country. Each state has its own Constitution, its own House and Senate, a Governor, its own laws.

Federally, supported by SCOTUS decisions, we *can* pass "assault" (meaning high-capacity long range guns) legislation; even if it's not an outright ban, there could at least be limits as to how MANY of them you can own. Yes, there will be a segment of smarter people printing their own guns. But, this still attempts to thwart people from stockpiling guns for the Apocalypse.

Right now, we can't tell which one's the Prepper ...

... and which one wants to camp out at the Blackstone to kill thousands of people at Lollapalooza.

[Louie_Cypher]

i find it funny how sales go up every-time there is a mass shooting now bump stocks are selling out, that fear that your going to miss out some how, me in discussion with friend who own three hand-guns and constantly complaining about being broke
me: why do you own three guns that you cant afford
him: protection
me: you just asked me if you borrow money, what are trying to protect?
him: it just makes me fee safer
me: from what?
him: you know there are a lot crazies out there
me: apparently i know one of them
this went on for enough time to bore me never being able to explain why, i was trying to counting of like i did to think about 60 people, between TV news movies, we've seen hundreds thousand of gun battles, but if you talk to a cop or a veteran who's been in an actually gun battle to comprehend how scary it is. but every one thinks their Clint Eastwood or John Wick. you want to be a bad ass join the military and go fight Isis, I hear they need the help.please allow me the freedom of going to see an outdoor music festival or down down to the liquor store for a pack of cigs without getting my head blown off I know smoking is bad for health. but I guess not as bad as not as not being armed with multiple automatic weapons
-Louie

[thelastdisciple]

Interesting opinion piece re: Second Amendment.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/05/o...etType=opinion

[sick among the pure]

Every state needs to be on the same page, this should be at the federal level.

Agreed.

Mandatory background checks and psych eval, after 5 years if people want to renew their license they'll need to be re-evaluated.
Mandatory gun safety and training course

Yes x 1,000

Limit to 1 PISTOL per household

I would say per person.

must be registered

Yes.

(no shotguns, no rifles)

On the basis of the second amendment alone, this technically works. But to completely cut out all uses for firearms other than personal protection, I disagree with the idea of banning ALL shotguns and rifles completely.

Limit to 1 low capacity magazine

I agree with low capacity, but disagree with one per person. An argument of exact numbers isn't what's important in all of this, though.

Limit to 1 box of ammunition at a time

Again, that's an extreme limit. While I agree that you shouldn't be able to stockpile enough ammo to go up against a hoard of zombies (or have enough ammo to be able to commit a mass shooting, in all seriousness) lack of availability for certain types leads to having a few boxes at a time. If I'm going to the range, I could easily fire off a full box. Again, a limit should be in place.

If the biggest reason for owning a firearm is for defense well this should all be more than sufficient, you don't need a rocket launcher to blow the guy away. This shouldn't be a fucking fetish.

There is a big gap between "one gun per house, one box of ammo, pistol only" and "rocket launcher" though. Having a few hunting rifles, hunting shotgun, and personal protection pistol would be a much more realistic middle ground. Many people who hunt, hunt different kinds of game. You don't use the same firearm for a rabbit as you do for a turkey as you do for a deer as you do for a bear, for instance.
Also, there are people who collect old firearms, some passed down as family heirlooms as what great great great grandpa used in the war or else historical collectors. These are typically display firearms, sometimes cleaned up and used at a range to get a feel for "this is what they used in the war".

I agree that a lot of people take it so far as it becomes like a fetish, but owning reasonably and responsibly is not that.

[Louie_Cypher]

you want to see gun legislation get attention, have blacks and minorities, exercise their right to open carry
-Louie

[allegate]

https://twitter.com/shriekhouse/stat...84893038284800

[allegro]

you want to see gun legislation get attention, have blacks and minorities, exercise their right to open carry
-Louie

Man, ain’t that the truth.

[Louie_Cypher]

gonna take a break again but i wanted to share this about race relations imagine there's a game of monopoly and you're i wanna play i wanna play the say no you cant play you're a insert label here_________. but you keep on them finally they let you play but by that time all the properties have been bought up and deals made. and when you say. "that's not fair1." they say we let you play isn't that what you wanted!" OK off to Cuvier City for a bit. stay safe ETS.
-Louie

[botley]

Why have white North Americans been so historically well-armed, I wonder?

[allegro]

no shotguns, no rifles

On the basis of the second amendment alone, this technically works. But to completely cut out all uses for firearms other than personal protection, I disagree with the idea of banning ALL shotguns and rifles completely.

Yes and also, more importantly: A shotgun is arguably THE BEST form of home protection and holds very little ammo. Also, I own two pistols but they’re REVOLVERS with zero magazines.

I think a lot of proposed legislation is without any real knowledge of or experience with firearms, and how target sports or hunting fit into the picture.

[allegro]

Why have white North Americans been so historically well-armed, I wonder?

This is a semantics issue; when the Media calls something a “mass shooting,” they mean one singular incident that happens at one time by one person or an organized group of persons (terrorists). Decades of whites killing Native Americans and stealing their land isn’t included in “mass shooting” data because it was over the course of days and years, not minutes or hours; bombs aren’t included in mass “shooting” data, either.

The point is correct: the NRA was totally for gun control when the Black Panthers openly carried arms to protect themselves from police brutality. The NRA didn’t give one shit about Philando Castile.