Govt is going after the low hanging fruit-this time ghost guns

[johngalt]

No, I don't want to ban handguns. Just the untraceable ones you can buy in a kit.

No, I'm not suggesting all things not made by a skilled person be made illegal. Just lethal weapons. . When a skilled person was making them, they invested in machinery, tools, and many hours of practice. Now Joe Hood-Rat is making them and shooting up street corners. Yeah, bag guys are gonna get their weapons anyway. We don't have to make it easy for them. Decent, law abiding people aren't interested in these things. I wouldn't take one if you gave it to me.

AR pistol do the same damage as an AR pistol? Not even close. Some nut in a subway car in Brooklyn opened up with a Glock and several extended magazines. He shot 10 people. None died. .223 rounds do far more damage, short barrel or not.

Knives are lethal weapons, lots of knife makers out there. They aren't decent people?

I've yet to see any (convincing) explanation of why I should let criminals define what my rights are.

 

[kbm6893]

Knives are lethal weapons, lots of knife makers out there. They aren't decent people?

I've yet to see any (convincing) explanation of why I should let criminals define what my rights are.

Oh please! You're comparing guns to knives? How about baseball bat makers? Hammer makers? Ironing board makers? They're all lethal too.

What's done is done. Just like bumpstocks and pistol braces, they'll be gone. All the internet posturing won't change that. I can't bring myself to care one iota.

Criminals define what your rights are all the time. Many laws were written after an offense has been committed. Nobody cared about bump stocks until after Vegas. Fully auto weapons were banned due to the gangsters using them against the cops. We used to be able to buy guns through the mail. Nearly every one of the thousands of federal gun laws were written in response to a crime, to say nothing of the state and local laws. You get searched before you fly and what you can bring on the plane because of 9/11. Federal AWB was written and passed based on criminal actions, as politicians never stopped telling us.

 

[Paul in Nevada]

Indeed. If the president issued an EO in favor of gun owners, nobody here would have a problem with it.

An EO in favor of your Constitutional rights? Am I supposed to apply moral relativism and support rules that violate my rights just because I support rules that uphold my rights? This is diseased, disordered thinking.


edit: I may have misunderstood your point and if I did I apologize.

 

[Bozz10mm]

Many laws were written after an offense has been committed. Nobody cared about bump stocks until after Vegas. Fully auto weapons were banned due to the gangsters using them against the cops. We used to be able to buy guns through the mail. Nearly every one of the thousands of federal gun laws were written in response to a crime, to say nothing of the state and local laws. You get searched before you fly and what you can bring on the plane because of 9/11. Federal AWB was written and passed based on criminal actions, as politicians never stopped telling us.

Thank you for listing just a few of the many, many, gun laws that have slowly eroded our 2nd amendment rights over the years. Every new gun control law or rule that is passed slowly eats away at our rights. You say you don't care if they ban ghost guns, bump stocks, or pistol braces. But what happens when it gets to the point that they start coming after your revolvers and bolt action rifles?

 

[kbm6893]

Thank you for listing just a few of the many, many, gun laws that have slowly eroded our 2nd amendment rights over the years. Every new gun control law or rule that is passed slowly eats away at our rights. You say you don't care if they ban ghost guns, bump stocks, or pistol braces. But what happens when it gets to the point that they start coming after your revolvers and bolt action rifles?

I don't believe that will happen, with over 400,000,000 guns in this country. That's not to say that it won't. I don't have a crystal ball. But I'm not gonna worry about it. There are far more pressing things for me to worry about than bumpstocks and pistol braces.

I bought my first AR during the AWB. Colt took the flash hider and the bayonet lug off and renamed the Match Target. I was no less armed and protected. 18 years after that ban ended people still think it had an impact. I shot that gun a lot with 30 round pre-ban mags. I wasn't affected by it in the least, other than higher prices on mags.

That's all these new laws and EO's are: posturing from a politician to get support and votes. More states than ever have CCW permits now. Guns aren't going anywhere. I'll cross that bridge when I come to it.

 

[kbm6893]

An EO in favor of your Constitutional rights? Am I supposed to apply moral relativism and support rules that violate my rights just because I support rules that uphold my rights? This is diseased, disordered thinking.


edit: I may have misunderstood your point and if I did I apologize.

My point was posters here call it tyranny and dictatorship when the president uses an EO against guns, but would cheer it if it was for guns.

And your interpretation of your rights is different than the Supreme Court's interpretation, and their interpretation is really all that matters. That's why we can't mount .50 cal weapons to the roof of our cars or put claymore mines on our lawns. The 2A doesn't allow us to buy Stinger missles.

I don't view outlawing pistol braces, bumpstocks, or now Ghost guns as an infringement of my 2A rights. Those were all created to get around restrictions which I find to be perfectly reasonable, and continuing to fight for them only adds more people to the anti-gun side of the argument. I'm sure there are people here who would say I am on that side, but my 4 guns safes say otherwise.

There are limitations placed on all our constitutional rights. If the spirit of the 2A is to allow a citizen to possess weapons in case he needs to confront a tyrannical government, the four gun safes I have prove I am capable of doing that if the need arises, and there is only one bolt gun in the mix, and it's a .22 I bought for my son to teach him shooting. One look in my safe would cause an anti-gunner to have a heart attack.

 

[AlHunt]

Oh please! You're comparing guns to knives? How about baseball bat makers? Hammer makers? Ironing board makers? They're all lethal too.

The english pretty well took guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens.

Did you that now you can't buy pointy knives in England? Because outlawing guns wasn't enough.

 

[Paul in Nevada]

My point was posters here call it tyranny and dictatorship when the president uses an EO against guns, but would cheer it if it was for guns.

Ah, so I didn't misunderstand your post.

 

[kbm6893]

The english pretty well took guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens.

Did you that now you can't buy pointy knives in England? Because outlawing guns wasn't enough.

Yes. I'm aware of that. This isn't England. Different culture and no 2A, so I really don't waste time worrying about that, either. Gun ownership is through the roof in this country. The politicians throw a bone to the anti-gunners so they get their points and get re-elected, and life will continue on.

 

[StakeOut]

If the Feds would just stay out of the Gun Rights argument and give the whole mess to the individual states then things might be a whole lot less complicated.
Again and again the laws or Executive Orders will have little or no affect on reducing crimes committed with firearms or keeping guns out of the hands of criminals.
It's all about playing to a political base for votes.
If "Ghost Guns" laws were up to your state's legislature and not the Feds how would the law be or not be?Are you happy with your state laws governing firearms?

 

[ladder13]

My head hurts.

 

[HeyJoe]

Did you that now you can't buy pointy knives in England? Because outlawing guns wasn't enough.

that is not true.

 

[kbm6893]

If the Feds would just stay out of the Gun Rights argument and give the whole mess to the individual states then things might be a whole lot less complicated.
Again and again the laws or Executive Orders will have little or no affect on reducing crimes committed with firearms or keeping guns out of the hands of criminals.
It's all about playing to a political base for votes.
If "Ghost Guns" laws were up to your state's legislature and not the Feds how would the law be or not be?Are you happy with your state laws governing firearms?

I feel the other way. It should be a federal issue. The constitution is a federal document, so how could individual states have their own rules? You're retired from NY. You know cops and the politically connected are virtually the only ones who can get a permit to carry in NYC. You can live in gun friendly PA and then commit a felony by making a wrong turn into NY or NJ. The fact that every state has there own rules makes it even more confusing.

Not to mention the state laws are generally based on the major cities. Much of NYS is very gun friendly, but the voters in NYC set the tone. When Governor Cuomo passed the Safe Act in 2013, a direct result of Sandy Hook, much of NYC rejoiced. The rest of the state did not. It became the law anyway. They forgot to even exempt cops so initially every cop in NYS became a criminal for possessing his duty magazines.

Residents of Illinois did not want the FOID card. They got it anyway. DC had an outright ban of handguns until Heller.

 

[Borderboss]

My point was posters here call it tyranny and dictatorship when the president uses an EO against guns, but would cheer it if it was for guns.

And your interpretation of your rights is different than the Supreme Court's interpretation, and their interpretation is really all that matters. That's why we can't mount .50 cal weapons to the roof of our cars or put claymore mines on our lawns. The 2A doesn't allow us to buy Stinger missles.

I don't view outlawing pistol braces, bumpstocks, or now Ghost guns as an infringement of my 2A rights. Those were all created to get around restrictions which I find to be perfectly reasonable, and continuing to fight for them only adds more people to the anti-gun side of the argument. I'm sure there are people here who would say I am on that side, but my 4 guns safes say otherwise.

There are limitations placed on all our constitutional rights. If the spirit of the 2A is to allow a citizen to possess weapons in case he needs to confront a tyrannical government, the four gun safes I have prove I am capable of doing that if the need arises, and there is only one bolt gun in the mix, and it's a .22 I bought for my son to teach him shooting. One look in my safe would cause an anti-gunner to have a heart attack.

And this, my friends, is what they call an enemy inside the wire. When someone thinks it's ok to outlaw some guns, they've already lost all their rights.

 

[RCL-09]

I feel the other way. It should be a federal issue. The constitution is a federal document, so how could individual states have their own rules? You're retired from NY. You know cops and the politically connected are virtually the only ones who can get a permit to carry in NYC. You can live in gun friendly PA and then commit a felony by making a wrong turn into NY or NJ. The fact that every state has there own rules makes it even more confusing.

Not to mention the state laws are generally based on the major cities. Much of NYS is very gun friendly, but the voters in NYC set the tone. When Governor Cuomo passed the Safe Act in 2013, a direct result of Sandy Hook, much of NYC rejoiced. The rest of the state did not. It became the law anyway. They forgot to even exempt cops so initially every cop in NYS became a criminal for possessing his duty magazines.

Residents of Illinois did not want the FOID card. They got it anyway. DC had an outright ban of handguns until Heller.

I agree. Ultimately there has to be federal control/oversight and guard the Constitution.

50+ sets of piecemeal laws would be a nightmare and would be disastrous. Some places, where large populous cities outnumber rural/small city populations would see pre-Heller DC type laws enacted. No thank you.

 

[Doc in Pa]

Thank GOD for the 2nd Amendment. Too many *******s want to take our guns away. If it wasn't for the 2nd Amendment, the USA Would been invaded by now!

 

[Gamecock]

I had the chance this morning to discuss gun tracing with the top law enforcement agent in my county.

He said that gun tracing was useless (my word) in general murder and mayhem. No criminal is going to use a gun traceable to himself.

However, he had high value for it in domestic violence/crimes of passion. In such cases, they almost have a suspect. The gun trace enables them to confront the suspect, who virtually always confesses on the spot, when he finds out the cops know it was his gun. The trace didn't help them find the suspect, it just helped convict them.

 

[Catbacker88]

And this, my friends, is what they call an enemy inside the wire. When someone thinks it's ok to outlaw some guns, they've already lost all their rights.

Nonsense. Restricting or even banning ridiculous gimmicks like pistol braces, bumpstocks and forced reset triggers (non of which are guns) are no more an infringement of my 2A rights than establishing speed limits or defining an age of majority. Every last one of the Bill of Rights can only be exercised within restrictions that balance freedom with potential for abuse. IMHO, gimmicks created and marketed to get around reasonable restrictions are not, even collectively, a hill anyone should want to die on. It seems clear to me that "ghost guns" are an issue that needs to be deliberately and rationally addressed.

 

[StakeOut]

Nonsense. Restricting or even banning ridiculous gimmicks like pistol braces, bumpstocks and forced reset triggers (non of which are guns) are no more an infringement of my 2A rights than establishing speed limits or defining an age of majority. Every last one of the Bill of Rights can only be exercised within restrictions that balance freedom with potential for abuse. IMHO, gimmicks created and marketed to get around reasonable restrictions are not, even collectively, a hill anyone should want to die on. It seems clear to me that "ghost guns" are an issue that needs to be deliberately and rationally addressed.

I couldn't agree less.
They don't stop with just the firearms, ammo purchases in some locations are regulated.
How about Hazmat Fees and restrictions?Are they OK?
Because you don't want a brace,special stock and triggers that doesn't mean I should be restricted from ownership.

United We Stand and need to dig in to hold every inch of ground from the enemy within and those trying to get in.

You sir sound like the enemy within.

 

[Catbacker88]

I couldn't agree less.
They don't stop with just the firearms, ammo purchases in some locations are regulated.
How about Hazmat Fees and restrictions?Are they OK?
Because you don't want a brace,special stock and triggers that doesn't mean I should be restricted from ownership.

United We Stand and need to dig in to hold every inch of ground from the enemy within and those trying to get in.

You sir sound like the enemy within.

OK, thanks for clearing that up for me. I feel so liberated now.

 

[HeyJoe]

OK, thanks for clearing that up for me. I feel so liberated now.

Some of the erstwhile staunch defenders of the constitution, mostly involving the second amendment, seem to have lesser regard for the first amendment.

 

[Heinz]

Some of the erstwhile staunch defenders of the constitution, mostly involving the second amendment, seem to have lesser regard for the first amendment.

I have seen no one attempting to stop some other member from voicing their opinion. So, the First Amendment seems alive and well in this discussion.

There seems to be a difference of opinion on whether the Second Amendment allows for a person to "'make" his own firearm. The film flam about "bump stocks" and "pistol braces" has little to do with the discussion of home made firearms and more to do with attempting to define what is "reasonable".

I do not use or like either bump stocks or pistol braces, but I think their restriction may well fall under "the right of the people to keep and bear arms"

It is so easy to allow rights to be undermined by taking the position that a specific use is ridiculous and ought to be restricted. Is there any evidence that laws against machine guns and sawed off shotguns had any effect on gang violence? Or did they just give the FBI another crime they could use to bully suspects into confessions or information on others?

 

[Bill Lear]

First they came for....

We are long past time for ALL gun owners to wake up and stop buying into the BS about "common sense" gun legislation.
On the day in 1963 that someone shot Kennedy and a surplus Carcano rifle was held up, across the country no one else who had recently purchased a surplus Carcano rifle killed anyone!

The 1968 GCA was taken verbatim from the NAZI gun control scheme save for the translation from German to English...and was the beginning of "common sense" gun legislation yet, through it all the FACT remains that someone intent upon committing murder has no regard for whatever "gun law" is broken in the process!

EVERY time we see and hear the breathless reporting about the latest spree killer, and the ever-present call for MORE GUN CONTROL, what is IGNORED is that the spree killer also broke EVERY OTHER LAW ON THE BOOKS including the one against MURDER!
What is also forgotten by all the "gun apologists" is that on ANY given day when some police chief holds up a "Ghost Gun" and demands we all buy in to the latest scheme to get them off the street, 500,000 OTHER "Ghost Guns" were NOT used in a crime!

In all of these spree shootings we discover the FBI already KNEW the killer and had just recently "close the file" on them...***? So why should the law abiding give up ANY right or gun access for ANY political agenda?

Right now they're coming for so-called Ghost guns and a LOT of gun owners are perfectly okay with that, because it's not THEIR gun....and so they cheer it on without ever ONCE considering the real purpose of ALL gun law is disarmament of the people. A disarmed people is a SLAVE populace that can be easily pushed and shoved and force to obey because the government fears no pushback.

The man who only cares about single-barrel shotguns cares not if the government bans EVERYTHING else.
The man who only cares about double-barrel shotguns cares NOT if the government bans pump actions.
The man who only cares about pump-action shotguns cares not if the government bans semiautomatic shotguns - and so it goes.

The Glock fanboy cares not one iota if the government "reclassifies" 80% firearms as guns because he resents the fact that others are "violating" what he sees as the purity of Glock owndership!

The problem with gun owners is that so many are self-absorbed, and only care about THEIR particular choice in firearms and everyone else be da***d!

There are millions of gun owners who sat by and cheered as AR15s were effectively banned in California...because they are in total agreement with the government without ever ONCE considering the pure and simple truth that those who are willing to commit murder and mayhem are NOT going to obey ANY gun laws!

A few years back a maniac in France murdered over 70 people using a dump truck. Did they outlaw dump trucks. I've not seen any body counts from gun murders to rival that of dump truck murders.

If the clown who opened fire on the subway in NY had not had a Glock with 33 round mag, he would have found other weapons...such as pressure cooker bombs perhaps? The Boston bombers killed and maimed far more using pressure cookers they bought in Walmart than they ever would have using guns stolen, or built at home with mail order parts!

The government is targeting 80% frames because they've done the research and know that most gun owners won't care....won't understand the far reaching implications, just as they still don't understand the effects of the 1968 GCA.

Just a few months before Polymer 80 frames hit the market, a guy had developed a set of three, formed sheet metal parts that could be welded together on a supplied alignment jig to produce a Glock frame. It never took off because Poly80 frames pushed it off the market, but I built a Glock frame using sheet metal parts, welded together and it worked 100% from shot number one! (photos attached). That "technology" didn't evaporate, and those who enjoy building their own firearms will continue to do so, even if from SCRATCH, as it was just 20 years ago!

As long as criminals have unrestricted, UNREGISTERED access to firearms, then so too should the people...and beyond. The Second Amendment has been interpreted as an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT which means ANY law that interferes with that right is ILLEGAL! ANY law! But the media has conditioned the average Joe Sausagehead into agreement with the notion that LAW ABIDING people should just GIVE UP THEIR RIGHT while the politicians let the thugs roam free, release mentally ill thugs from prison....basically allow and ENCOURAGE criminals to engage in criminal actions, while turning to the cameras of a WILLING media to tell hard-working, LAW ABIDING AMERICANS why THEY should bend over and let the government STEAL their God-given right to own firearms ON PAR with those the military and police have...

All you gun apologists are selling your children's birthRIGHT down the river, and pushing the nation that much closer to armed conflict.

 

[ladder13]

If they are backed up, it's because no one works. Last I knew it could take two days to get through to get an authorization. Perpetual busy signal. They probably sit there drinking coffee and laugh at the phones ringing. ( all those yahoo's trying to buy guns) And when they do pick up, you'll be talking to some of the most miserable sounding women on the planet.

No one in Middletown cares. Thats where they answer the calls too, ( when they feel like it) for the authorizations.
(DPS- Middletown) Maybe it got easier over the months, I don't know.
They seem to get done what they WANT to though. You were smart to get away from the Northeast. I'm tied here now, and probably never will. It got to be a miserable place, with even more miserable people.

Interestingly, my CT permit arrived yesterday. They must have read this thread.

 

[HeyJoe]

I have seen no one attempting to stop some other member from voicing their opinion. So, the First Amendment seems alive and well in this discussion.

There seems to be a difference of opinion on whether the Second Amendment allows for a person to "'make" his own firearm. The film flam about "bump stocks" and "pistol braces" has little to do with the discussion of home made firearms and more to do with attempting to define what is "reasonable".

I do not use or like either bump stocks or pistol braces, but I think their restriction may well fall under "the right of the people to keep and bear arms"

It is so easy to allow rights to be undermined by taking the position that a specific use is ridiculous and ought to be restricted. Is there any evidence that laws against machine guns and sawed off shotguns had any effect on gang violence? Or did they just give the FBI another crime they could use to bully suspects into confessions or information on others?

Besides the fact that the first amendment doesnt apply to a privately run forum like this, referring to someone who doesnt pass some kind of personally made up purity test as the enemy within, is counterproductive at best. The person he refers to is a gun owner, are we really in the position to be alienating people who most likely agree with 90% of what we do.

I have unfortunately, run into many very staunch supporters of the second amendment who have no problem with or actively support government decreed book bans in libraries or schools as an example of what i was referring to in the previous post, as well as government restrictions on freedom of assembly and freedom of association.

 

[ladder13]

I've had some heated discussions with kbm6893 in the past. We smoothed things out, I do not consider him my enemy in any way.

I think my 2A stand is equal to anyone on this forum.

I'm a dreamer.

 

[bushmaster1313]

My point was posters here call it tyranny and dictatorship when the president uses an EO against guns, but would cheer it if it was for guns.

"Extremism in the name of liberty is no vice" may be a topic open for rational debate amongst thinking people.

"Extremism in the name of decreasing liberty" is not open for debate — it's tyranny plain and simple.

 

[biku324]

How does requiring every firearm to have a serial number infringe one's right to keep and bear arms?

 

[bushmaster1313]

How does requiring every firearm to have a serial number infringe one's right to keep and bear arms?

In the context of fundamental rights, government action that has a chilling effect on the exercise of a right can be considered an infringement of that right.

Tell certain people that the items they keep and bear in exercise of their Second Amendment rights must have a serial number could have a chilling effect insofar as some people will not want to keep and bear arms that risk being recorded in a government registry.

 

[biku324]

Hmmmm.

So if the kits had a numbered upper and lower, would they sell as quickly and at the same volume?