Another inaccurate article on assault weapons.

[BStrong]

Or get one like you can with WWI-WWII heavy machine guns and have it converted to semi auto. Try naming what those are.

Seriously what the hell do you call a semi auto conversion of a vickers?

In the U.S., the semi auto versions of the various WWI and WWII belt-feds fall into a grey area due to the fact that outside of the German MG08/15, Browning 1919 A6 and the MG 34's/42 the pieces in question do not have buttstocks, and can't be legally classified as rifles.

The barrel length and overall length are well within the legal requirements for rifles and so they are classified as standard Title 1 firearms.

 

[Information Analyst]

It would be much easier, surely, to discuss manual, semi-automatic and automatic weapons? and maybe on top of that, calibre and FPS?

Nice, easy, well identified boundaries. The whole 'assault rifle' thing just seems to be an utterly massive red herring and just an excuse for a massive, US wide media and political derail on "which of these two is an assault rifle and which is a hunting firle?".

Quite. After Hungerford, the UK simply banned semi-autos in anything other than .22 LR. Today you can buy a .22LR semi-auto AR-15 clone, or a straight-pull version of just about any battle or assault rifle in any other calibre. You can even have a repro of a (bolt action, pistol calibre) silenced de Lisle Carbine, if you want.

 

[BStrong]

Show leadership.

Australia had a ******** of semi-automatics. None now, in civilian hands at least.

That you can't comprehend something like this says a lot about you and the US in general. It takes political and moral courage, both absent in the US today.

Oh, can posters stop talking about the use of semi automatics for hunting. Proper hunters do not need to tear their prey in two with weapons like this.

The number that's associated with Australia's surrender law is 650,000 firearms, but what was the estimated number of firearms in private hands before the law was enacted?

 

[Information Analyst]

He, he... Then what?

Enforce the law. If you can ban certain drugs, you can ban certain firearms.

 

[Reheat]

Enforce the law. If you can ban certain drugs, you can ban certain firearms.

Sure you can make laws to your hearts content, then how to you actually enforce that except by taking via force for those unwilling to surrender them voluntarily. Might I remind you that the US is not Great Britain nor is it Australia.

 

[Information Analyst]

Sure you can make laws to your hearts content, then how to you actually enforce that except by taking via force for those unwilling to surrender them voluntarily. Might I remind you that the US is not Great Britain nor is it Australia.

So basically you're saying that Americans are less likelly to respect the law?

And to think, it was Australia that was once a penal colony....

 

[Bob001]

If you were the only one and no other individual or politician had ever used the term "A good first step" wrt firearms restrictions you'd have a point.

As it is, you're one of many supporters of gun control that have made it clear that any compromise on the issue boils down to what you'll settle for taking away today and what you're willing to wait to take away later.

Come at it from the other direction. What legitimate rights of gun owners cannot be fulfilled by bolt-action rifles, double-barrel shotguns and revolvers? Where does the Constitution guarantee everybody a right to possess and carry AR15s and other semi-auto rifles and handguns with high-capacity magazines? When the Constitution was written, "firearms" were black powder muzzleloaders, and for most of U.S. history until the '70s, there was never any doubt that authorities are entitled to regulate the sale, possession and use of firearms. That's when the slippery slope started -- in the wrong direction.

 

[lobosrul5]

Enforce the law. If you can ban certain drugs, you can ban certain firearms.

Enforce how? We don't have a national registration list. So the only option to make sure no one has a banned firearm in their home is to have law enforcement go door-to-door. Most states in the South and western USA (except the Pac coast & Colorado) would most likely forbid their police from doing this. So now we have federal agents, going door to door searching people's homes.

You probably underestimate just how big a faction would violently resist such things. At best probably a few 1000 dead, at worst a 2nd US Civil War.

The other option is to just wait it out. No searching, just whats found is confiscated. As the older generation dies out, at least some of their kids would turn in banned firearms. Maybe in a century or so most would be gone.

 

[Bob001]

Sure you can make laws to your hearts content, then how to you actually enforce that except by taking via force for those unwilling to surrender them voluntarily. Might I remind you that the US is not Great Britain nor is it Australia.

As noted previously, there would be no taking by force. People keep and do all kinds of illegal stuff and get away with it for awhile. But when they get caught, as they often are, they pay a steep price. If AR15-style rifles were restricted, an illegal owner could never use it for hunting or target shooting without risking jail. If he used it against an intruder he'd go to jail. If a visitor saw it in his house and reported it, he'd go to jail. Just as most of us refrain from tax evasion and shoplifting because we don't wanna get caught, most responsible citizens would not risk keeping something that could land them in jail. For the others, it would just be a matter of time.

 

[Reheat]

So basically you're saying that Americans are less likelly to respect the law?

And to think, it was Australia that was once a penal colony....

Not exactly, but I expected a distortion. The law in this regard is the Constitution and currently as interpreted by the Courts the 2nd Amendment is the law. Neither Congress nor the President can change that. So, in essence if Congress banned any firearm or by decree the President declared anything banned, THEY would be breaking the law. I wouldn't expect most outsiders to understand and this thread established that clearly.

 

[Hellbound]

Wrong!

Uh, you can't, for example, go to say Nevada and buy something that is illegal in California and then bring it back to California. In fact dealers are required to check ID and not sell to someone that can't legally purchase in their state. Of course you could go to a gun show, and bring it home, and risk getting in serious trouble.

Yeah, I was wrong on that part (you can tell I've never gone out of state to buy a gun)

My main point, though, was that the info I was responding to didn't have anything to do with purchasing or obtaining a gun, just with getting a concealed carry permit.

 

[lobosrul5]

Not exactly, but I expected a distortion. The law in this regard is the Constitution and currently as interpreted by the Courts the 2nd Amendment is the law. Neither Congress nor the President can change that. So, in essence if Congress banned any firearm or by decree the President declared anything banned, THEY would be breaking the law. I wouldn't expect most outsiders to understand and this thread established that clearly.

But plenty of firearms are already banned at the federal level. By law, not decree.

 

[Bob001]

....
The other option is to just wait it out. No searching, just whats found is confiscated. As the older generation dies out, at least some of their kids would turn in banned firearms. Maybe in a century or so most would be gone.

That is exactly what would happen, as is the case now with other prohibited objects and substances. I doubt that it would take 100 years.

An alternative would be to license semi-autos the same way full machine guns are licensed now. You can buy one and keep it and take it to the range, but it's registered and you pay a tax and pass a background check. People who really feel strongly about it would be able to follow a legal path.

 

[Reheat]

Enforce how? We don't have a national registration list. So the only option to make sure no one has a banned firearm in their home is to have law enforcement go door-to-door. Most states in the South and western USA (except the Pac coast & Colorado) would most likely forbid their police from doing this. So now we have federal agents, going door to door searching people's homes.

You probably underestimate just how big a faction would violently resist such things. At best probably a few 1000 dead, at worst a 2nd US Civil War.

The other option is to just wait it out. No searching, just whats found is confiscated. As the older generation dies out, at least some of their kids would turn in banned firearms. Maybe in a century or so most would be gone.

You didn't mention the 4th Amendment which would make what you've outlined clearly unconstitutional.

It would take more than a Century, I'd guess.

What outsiders also don't recognize is that the military in the US swear loyalty to the Constitution, not a King or Queen, nor a President. Which side the military would support is anyone's guess. Perhaps, like the Civil War loyalties would be split, so indeed Civil War is quite possible...

 

[Fast Eddie B]

“detachable magazine and has at least 2 of--
``(i) a folding or telescoping stock;
``(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath
the action of the weapon...”

This is how arbitrary it al becomes...

Illegal:

Legal:

 

[Reheat]

But plenty of firearms are already banned at the federal level. By law, not decree.

True, but I think the line has been drawn in the sand or dirt. I don't think any further bans would go across very well at all.

Edit to add: There really are not many firearms of any type banned, they're just difficult to acquire and license. At least I can think of none that are actually outright banned....

 

[Hellbound]

But plenty of firearms are already banned at the federal level. By law, not decree.

Actually, I think just automatic weapons and non-metallic guns are banned at the federal level (FOPA in 1986 and Undetectable Firearms Act in 1988). They banned a few with the AWB, but it's been repealed.

But either way, you are correct that there is precedent for banning some types of firearms.

 

[lobosrul5]

You didn't mention the 4th Amendment which would make what you've outlined clearly unconstitutional.

It would take more than a Century, I'd guess.

What outsiders also don't recognize is that the military in the US swear loyalty to the Constitution, not a King or Queen, nor a President. Which side the military would support is anyone's guess. Perhaps, like the Civil War loyalties would be split, so indeed Civil War is quite possible...

Pfft the 4th Amendment is dead and buried. It'd be a thread derail but I'll give you plenty of examples if you like.

 

[lobosrul5]

Actually, I think just automatic weapons and non-metallic guns are banned at the federal level (FOPA in 1986 and Undetectable Firearms Act in 1988). They banned a few with the AWB, but it's been repealed.

But either way, you are correct that there is precedent for banning some types of firearms.

Yes Full auto made after '86. Also anything greater than 50 cal with a rifled barrel (which makes 12 ga shotguns with rifled barrels a weird exception). Rifles with barrel lengths under a certain length, and certain other exceptions.

 

[Fast Eddie B]

Actually, I think just automatic weapons...are banned at the federal level...

Not banned.

Just requires it be bought from a Class 3 dealer. And, in practice the ones on the market are outrageously expensive.

As an aside, right up the road from me is McCaysville Gun & Drug, a Class 3 dealer.