Another inaccurate article on assault weapons.

[Polaris]

Anybody noticed how some people are trying to make the case that their ignorance about firearms in a gun control debate is actually a virtue?

My impression is that the stronger one's opinions about gun control, the less one knows about guns. But mostly I only encounter people who want more gun control. Perhaps people who want less gun control are more moderate in their ignorance.

Sometimes they have a point, when pro-gun people go into full-nerd mode and start hashing out technical minutia.

But there is a wide streak of ignorance-as-virtue - not in this thread as I can tell, but I have seen it in others, particularly just after Sandy Hook, where it went like:

Anti-gun person: Nobody needs a semi-automatic machine gun!

Pro-gun person: There's no such thing. Semi-autos only fire one round per trigger-pull.

Anti-gun person: Who cares?! You're just trying to change the subject and derail the thread!

It's like if someone kept referring to a Hawker Hurricane as a "fighter jet" and got highly upset at being corrected.

 

[lobosrul5]

Shotguns greater than a half inch bore can be owned by those without a license at the whim of the Attorney General of the United States as they are deemed acceptable for sporting use.

18 U.S. Code § 921 - Definitions

Even a 20 gauge has a bore size over half an inch. The legal conundrum is rifle-barreled 12 gauges. Are they really shotguns? They are of course mainly used to fire slugs, not shot.

 

[lobosrul5]

Are these new laws? Got a link? I can own a machine gun without a license, no problem provided I buy one made before May 1986. If I want newer, I can just get an FFL/SOT.

Please provide a link to the federal law banning many firearms.

You are quite simply misrepresenting what an FFL/SOT is.

http://www.firearmlicense.org/if-i-...full-auto-guns-that-were-made-after-1986.php/

Civilian ownership of full auto firearms made after 1986 is virtually banned in the USA.

As for pre-86. Technically you're correct, its not called a license, sure sounds like one though. The guy commenting on this website sure sounds like he knows what he's talking about, but as with anything he could be full of it (he does mix up type 3 with class 3). Do you own any full auto guns?

I am a legal NFA owner. And member of the Alaska Machine Gun Association.

To buy a machine gun, you first go find a class 3 dealer and pay him the $16,000 for a M16. Then you fill out a NFA Form 4, include your photo, fingerprint cards, and have the local Chief of police sign it – and then mail it off with a check for $200. After 5 months (thanks to Obamma) it will come back approved so long as you don’t have any felonies or a record for any firearms misconducts.

The Class 3 is for dealers. $500 a year, same type of form and hoops as above – except the BATF will shut you down unless you are showing $78,000 per year in profits or $680,000 in gross receipts – otherwise they consider it a ‘hobby. Any firearms you bought or acquired during your license period you will need to sell asap at a loss, or, give them to the government for free. Class 3 is a busienss license. Getting one to have a machine gun is about as smart as buying a Ford Dealership to get a Focus to drive to work.

http://www.firearmlicense.org/i-want-a-class-3-firearm-license-i-live-in-ma-how-do-i-get-one.php/

 

[Bob001]

So firearms were muzzleloaders? As in muzzleloaders were state of the art and nothing better was around in 1791; the date the first ten amendments were ratified?

Breech loading weapons have been around for a long time. The Ferguson rifle was used since 1772. Arguing that muzzle loading guns were the limit of the imagination of the framers is misleading at best.

Maybe they existed, but they weren't common. According to this, the primary firearms during the Civil War were muzzle-loaders, spurring the government to solicit proposals for breech-loaders.

The experience of the Civil War had shown the need for such weapons, and at the close of the war the United States Government advertised for proposals for a breech-loading weapon - one that could be made by converting the vast supply of old muzzleloaders already on hand.

https://www.nps.gov/spar/learn/historyculture/evolution-of-the-breechloader.htm

And I doubt that even breechloaders used 30-round magazines and fired 900 rounds a minute.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/20...lets_an_ar_15_fire_900_rounds_per_minute.html

Semi-autos with high-capacity magazines have no legitimate civilian purpose.

 

[Ranb]

You are quite simply misrepresenting what an FFL/SOT is.

I am not misrepresenting anything. I am a former licensed dealer (FFL), never paid the special occupational tax (SOT) though. If I want to own or make any NFA registered firearm I simply fill out the ATF form 4 or form 1 and pay the tax. Simple as that, except in the case of MG's I'm limited to those registered prior to May 1986.

If I want to make MG's I need to pay the SOT class 2. Importers pay the class 1 tax and dealers pay the class 3 fee. An FFL is given to anyone who fills out the application properly; there is vetting including a visit from the BATFE (I'm told, didn't happen that way in 1990) and is only issued to those who intend to be in the business of making, selling or importing guns. Not for people who intended to merely amass a personal collection.

It is 100% legal in the USA to buy, sell and possess a machine gun without a license provided you live in a state that allows it. In fact for 21 year old law abiding person it can be easier than getting a driver's license; just costs more.

Civilian ownership of full auto firearms made after 1986 is virtually banned in the USA.

I disagree. Demand exceeds supply though. Pre-86 MG's are for sale online.

As for pre-86. Technically you're correct, its not called a license, sure sounds like one though.....Do you own any full auto guns?

The ATF forms 1 and 4 are merely proof that the tax was paid. I don't own MG's, need an FFL/SOT in WA to do that since 1994 if I remember correctly.

I am a legal NFA owner....

This is out of date. 41P changed several things including elimination of the CLEO signature. Now it is merely notification.

 

[Ranb]

Even a 20 gauge has a bore size over half an inch. The legal conundrum is rifle-barreled 12 gauges. Are they really shotguns? They are of course mainly used to fire slugs, not shot.

I agree. Since they have a stock and a rifled bore, they are legally rifles. But no one seems to make a big deal about it. I'm sure when the wrong people start making a fuss, the AG is going to have a say.

 

[Ranb]

Maybe they existed,....

No maybe about it at all; they existed. We're not talking about what was common but rather what the framers of the constitution knew. Surely they were not so short sighted as to feel their peers had no technological advances to make in the future, near or otherwise.

 

[3point14]

No maybe about it at all; they existed. We're not talking about what was common but rather what the framers of the constitution knew. Surely they were not so short sighted as to feel their peers had no technological advances to make in the future, near or otherwise.

What makes you so sure of their infallibility?

 

[Ranb]

What makes you so sure of their infallibility?

I'm not that sure. But some of the people who wrote and approved of the constitution took part in stealing the colonies from one of the greatest powers in the world at the time. When I read uninformed claims that the type of guns available were only muzzle loading black powder, it's like the person making the claim thinks the early Americans were just that stupid. I don't think they were that stupid.

 

[3point14]

I'm not that sure. But some of the people who wrote and approved of the constitution took part in stealing the colonies from one of the greatest powers in the world at the time.

Well, they did have an utterly massive amount of assistance from the one of the greatest powers in the world at the time. This seems to be forgotten. A lot. I would expect any reasonably competent set of revolutionaries to prosper in that situation. I certainly don't think that makes them infallible.

When I read uninformed claims that the type of guns available were only muzzle loading black powder, it's like the person making the claim thinks the early Americans were just that stupid. I don't think they were that stupid.

I don't think one needs to be stupid to fail to consider unintended consequences. I certainly think we absolutely cannot rule out that the people that wrote the document made a mistake.

 

[Bob001]

No maybe about it at all; they existed. We're not talking about what was common but rather what the framers of the constitution knew. Surely they were not so short sighted as to feel their peers had no technological advances to make in the future, near or otherwise.

1/ What percentage of firearms in use by Americans at the time the Constitution was written were anything other than muzzleloaders? Half? 10 percent? 1 percent? Less? That would heavily influence what the Founders meant by "arms."

2/ Is it your position that the 2nd Amendment allows civilian possession of any weapon that is or could be used by the military? Machine guns? Hand grenades? Mortars? Cannons? Mines? Bombs? Missiles? If you recognize any restrictions, then you acknowledge that legislators are entitled to say some "arms" have no purpose in civilian hands.

 

[Ranb]

Well, they did have an utterly massive amount of assistance from the one of the greatest powers in the world at the time. ....

That's why I said they took part. The war was much more than America and GB fighting.

I don't think one needs to be stupid to fail to consider unintended consequences. I certainly think we absolutely cannot rule out that the people that wrote the document made a mistake.

Mistake or not, I think they were not really thinking of only the most primitive weapons around at the time.

 

[Ranb]

1/ What percentage of firearms in use by Americans at the time the Constitution was written were anything other than muzzleloaders? Half? 10 percent? 1 percent? Less? That would heavily influence what the Founders meant by "arms."

I'm certain the percentage of anything other than muzzle loading weapons was very small.

Are you willing to accept that breech loading rifles were around in the 1790's? Or is "maybe" the best you can do?

2/ Is it your position that the 2nd Amendment allows civilian possession of any weapon that is or could be used by the military? Machine guns? Hand grenades? Mortars? Cannons? Mines? Bombs? Missiles? If you recognize any restrictions, then you acknowledge that legislators are entitled to say some "arms" have no purpose in civilian hands.

As it is written it appears to not allow infringement of ANY weapons. It should be changed and made more clear.

 

[Bob001]

I'm certain the percentage of anything other than muzzle loading weapons was very small.

Are you willing to accept that breech loading rifles were around in the 1790's? Or is "maybe" the best you can do?

Great. If there was more than one anywhere in the world, then they "were around."

....
As it is written it appears to not allow infringement of ANY weapons. It should be changed and made more clear.

No, the Second Amendment requires interpretation as to the meaning of "well-regulated," "militia," "the people," "keep and bear," "arms" and "infringed" (just as the First requires interpretation of an "establishment" of religion and the Fourth requires interpretation of an "unreasonable" search). The intent of the "militia" clause is particularly important. For most of U.S. history, the courts have recognized restrictions on civilian possession and use of firearms. It is only the downright craziness of the NRA that has resulted in recent reinterpretions. And even the most recent decisions have never prohibited most limitations at the federal, state or local levels. The assault weapons ban was never ruled unconstitutional.

 

[sadhatter]

Anybody noticed how some people are trying to make the case that their ignorance about firearms in a gun control debate is actually a virtue?

Constantly and it drives me insane.

No other topic do people think this way on.

 

[3point14]

Great. If there was more than one anywhere in the world, then they "were around."

Wikipedia tells me the Ferguson Rifle was about four times the cost to produce as a regular musket and that they were in use by the British at the time of independence. The proto-Americans would certainly have been aware of them. Almost certainly would have liberated more than a few, I would guess. Further reading would seem to indicate that this last bit is unlikely.

 

[lobosrul5]

Wikipedia tells me the Ferguson Rifle was about four times the cost to produce as a regular musket and that they were in use by the British at the time of independence. The proto-Americans would certainly have been aware of them. Almost certainly would have liberated more than a few, I would guess.

The British deployed just a single company during the war I believe, so aware yeah probably, first hand experience, not likely. And while an interesting idea it was problematic. It didn't solve the problem of black powder fouling like the Minnie ball rifle did, it suffered from gas leaks, and it's ROF was still only about 8rpm. The first really successful breach loader was the Dreyse need gun, and even it had some issues.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

So how inaccurate is this article about the AR 15?
https://www.rollingstone.com/politi...became-mass-shooters-weapon-of-choice-w451452

 

[Parsman]

Well Yeggster, before you are legally allowed to drive you must pass a test, have insurance and register your vehicle. You won't be allowed to drive if you have certain health problems. It certainly isn't a right under the constitution to drive a vehicle. In order to try and curb deaths on the roads there are laws in place such as speed limits and drink driving. In fact driving is pretty heavily controlled by legislation. So shouldn't the same be done to guns? Heck, they could even have a registration system like the DMV for guns instead of only being allowed to keep paper records, now wouldn't that be an idea.

 

[Ranb]

Great. If there was more than one anywhere in the world, then they "were around."

It isn't that they were around in any certain numbers. It is whether or not the framers considered anything other than muzzle loading weapons like you suggested. I'm suggesting they did know of more technologically advanced weapons as I don't have any reason to believe they had their heads up their asses.

No, the Second Amendment requires interpretation....The intent of the "militia" clause.... the courts have recognized restrictions on civilian possession and use of firearms..... has resulted in recent reinterpretions..... The assault weapons ban was never ruled unconstitutional.

So yes, the 2nd is just crying out for improvement.