The Biden Gun Plan

Regarding the pistol braces. The AR pistol is very hard to shoot accurately. I was all about mocking people who bought them instead of making/registering an SBR if they lived in a state that allows them without a license. But then I was reminded about the regulation requiring that the ATF be informed anytime the SBR (SBS, MG, DD) is moved across state lines. So it seems an AR pistol has its place. The few AR pistols I've seen at the range were being used on the shoulder with an arm brace or a small foam pad on the back of the buffer tube. Was the owner using it as an unregistered SBR? Maybe.

My "stockpile" of guns has been accumulated at a rate of under three a year.

I really do not want to lose the ability to buy gun parts and ammo components online. There is really no difference between advertising online and in a newspaper or magazine. All gun laws still apply. A prohibited person buying face to face is just as illegal as buying online and through the USPS/UPS/FedEx.
 
Chris Rock had the most practical gun control proposal: You can have all the guns you want, but bullets should cost $5000 each. This was some years ago, so let's call it $10 grand now. One AR15 magazine would cost more than a couple year's salary for most people.
 
theprestige said:
The second amendment explicitly acknowledges a right to bear arms. Having been to many of these rodeos, I've come to the following conclusions:

- Once the Constitution recognizes a right, that genie can't be put back in the bottle.

- It is not necessary to make an exhaustive list of all the reasons to not infringe on a right. The fact that the right exists is reason enough.

- Listing one reason to not infringe on a right does not invalidate any other possible reasons.

- Invalidating the one listed reason does not mean the right may now be infringed without justification.
Click to expand...


A "right" is always subject to interpretation. The First Amendment has been subject to almost continuous revision and interpretation. The current extreme interpretation of the 2A is a fairly recent development, and even Justice Scalia acknowledged limits.
“We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. ‘Miller’ said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those ‘in common use at the time.’ 307 U.S., at 179, 59 S.Ct. 816. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’”
Click to expand...
https://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/12/11/justice-scalias-gun-control-argument/
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/antonin-scalia-guns_n_1715969
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/the-secret-weapon-gun-con_b_8758012

And Chief Justice Warren Burger said:
In a PBS News Hour interview in 1991, former Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Burger referred to the NRA Second Amendment myth as “one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American people by any special interest group that I have ever seen in my lifetime.”
Click to expand...
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/the-nras-fraud-fabricatio_b_3103358
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/how-nra-rewrote-second-amendment
 
Bob001 said:
A "right" is always subject to interpretation. The First Amendment has been subject to almost continuous revision and interpretation. The current extreme interpretation of the 2A is a fairly recent development, and even Justice Scalia acknowledged limits.

https://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/12/11/justice-scalias-gun-control-argument/
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/antonin-scalia-guns_n_1715969
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/the-secret-weapon-gun-con_b_8758012

And Chief Justice Warren Burger said:

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/the-nras-fraud-fabricatio_b_3103358
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/how-nra-rewrote-second-amendment
Click to expand...

It takes a lot of balls to say that interpreting "shall not be infringed" as a ban on infringement as extreme.
 
Before I get worried about Ghost Guns, I would need to know how prevalently they are used in crimes.

Seems to me that people able to make them know far more about guns than than the average bloke, who sees them as nothing but a way to make up for shortcomings in their sense of security and/or virility.
 
BobTheCoward said:
It takes a lot of balls to say that interpreting "shall not be infringed" as a ban on infringement as extreme.
Click to expand...

Define "infringed." Also, "well-regulated," "militia," "the people," "bear" and "arms."
 
Last edited:
crescent said:
They are evading the intent of the regulation by doing a thing that was not conceived of when the regulation was developed. Note that I did not say they were breaking the regulation.
Click to expand...

It isn't clear that they are violating the intent. Putting aside my objections to the idea of intent in a regulation....the intent seems to be that you don't have to do X if you are below threshold Y. This is still the same 80% as before.

I think a better word than "intent" is "aspire." They aspired with a yearning that the regulation was sufficiently onerous that people wouldn't often do that. But the individual behavior being done still meets the intent of the expected individual behavior.

ETA: here is what I would see as an intent violation: if there was some method by which a third party was machining....then finishing the machining for you....but someone it was *yours" the whole time.

But in the actual case, it just seems people have gotten better at making them.
 
Last edited:
crescent said:
They are evading the intent of the regulation by doing a thing that was not conceived of when the regulation was developed. Note that I did not say they were breaking the regulation.
Click to expand...
I disagree. Home built firearms have always been a thing, just more so now. The intent was to regulate manufacturers. Manufacturers are defined in the CFR and federal law and they do not include hobbyists.
 
Ranb said:
I disagree. Home built firearms have always been a thing, just more so now. The intent was to regulate manufacturers. Manufacturers are defined in the CFR and federal law and they do not include hobbyists.
Click to expand...

What does "home built" mean? If you have a machine shop in your basement, and you start with steel ingots, that might be one thing. But assembling finished parts from a kit UPS dropped at your door is something else, as is making guns from 3D printers. And if manufacture and sale of firearms can be regulated, why not the manufacture and sale of essential firearms parts? The end product is the same.
 
Last edited:
arthwollipot said:
Mods, please move to Politics if you deem it more appropriate.

Biden turns to limited executive actions on gun control with Congress at a standstill



The actions as far as I am aware are:

  • a crackdown on self-assembled "ghost guns"
  • a rule change to classify pistols with stabilising braces as short-barreled rifles
  • promises to provide more data on firearms trafficking
  • Investing in community violence intervention programs

This is a limited set of actions (Biden's full plan to address gun violence is still on his website), but my question to Americans is this: Is this announcement likely to affect you greatly?
Click to expand...
Ghost guns will be hard to control because America isn't the only country where these weapons are made. Labeling handguns as "short barrelled rifles" is ludicrous. Guns are either rifles, carbines or handguns.

While I do approve of a waiting time this will not prevent the criminal element or the mentally defective from getting their hands n firearms. The rifle used to commit the Sandy Hook massacre was stolen from his family. That was not his gun and he was unable to buy a weapon already because of psychiatric issues,

Nothing short of a national home by home search of homes in America would be effective against gun crime. Bad guys will get guns. Guns can't be controlled anymore than the narcs can control drugs.
 
Bob001 said:
What does "home built" mean? If you have a machine shop in your basement, and you start with steel ingots, that might be one thing. But assembling finished parts from a kit UPS dropped at your door is something else, as is making guns from 3D printers. And if manufacture and sale of firearms can be regulated, why not the manufacture and sale of essential firearms parts? The end product is the same.
Click to expand...

People were getting 80% receivers in the mail before. That isn't new
 
Bob001 said:
What does "home built" mean? If you have a machine shop in your basement, and you start with steel ingots, that might be one thing. But assembling finished parts from a kit UPS dropped at your door is something else, as is making guns from 3D printers. And if manufacture and sale of firearms can be regulated, why not the manufacture and sale of essential firearms parts? The end product is the same.
Click to expand...
Both. With my cheap hobby lathe and mill I can start with steel tubing and bar stock to make a primitive firearm. With a better mill than I have right now I can turn a block of aluminum into an AR-15 receiver.

In the last decade it has simply become easier to do this kind of machining for people without extensive training.

The essential parts are controlled today. The gun receiver is the essential part right now. You can also include auto sears and silencer parts which are controlled by the NFA34. To make it harder for a criminal hobbyist to make a ghost gun, then including barrels in the regulated parts would probably be the way to go.
 
Cainkane1 said:
Ghost guns will be hard to control because America isn't the only country where these weapons are made. Labeling handguns as "short barrelled rifles" is ludicrous. Guns are either rifles, carbines or handguns.
Click to expand...
The US Code defines rifles, shotguns, handguns, silencers, machine guns, short barreled rifles, destructive devices, short barreled shotguns and any other weapons (gadget guns). Ludicrous or not, that is how it is.

You can thank the likes of Clyde Barrow for the SBR stuff. Back in the early 1930's when the 44 Russian and 45 ACP were near the tops in power and 32 and 38 caliber pistols were common, Barrow cut down various rifles and shotguns to conceal under his coat. They were called his "whipit" guns. An SBR BAR rivals the 500S&W in power.
 
Bob001 said:
Chris Rock had the most practical gun control proposal: You can have all the guns you want, but bullets should cost $5000 each. This was some years ago, so let's call it $10 grand now. One AR15 magazine would cost more than a couple year's salary for most people.
Click to expand...
It's an interesting idea, but I don't think it's very practical.

For one thing, it unfairly penalizes law abiding gun owners, who are priced out of being able to practice their hobby and improve their skill.

For another, it unfairly penalizes legitimate sellers of ammunition, whose prices are wildly inflated. They'll go out of business, because...

... For yet another thing, the inflated price doesn't reflect the actual production costs. This creates a powerful incentive for a black market, selling bullets at something much closer to their actual value. So the black marketers will make money hand over fist, while the legitimate sellers go out of business. And the black marketers will make money because...

...For yet another thing, they'll be selling to same people who are getting all the black market guns. Most gun crime involves illegally obtained guns. If you can't stop the black market in guns, you can't stop the black market in bullets, either.

Last thing: People aren't stupid. The same people who are cockblocking your hopes of a gun ban are going to see right through this clever ruse. They'll cockblock your soft ban on bullets just as easily. And if you could beat them, you wouldn't need to put a sin tax on bullets. You could just ban guns.
 
arthwollipot said:
Mods, please move to Politics if you deem it more appropriate.

Biden turns to limited executive actions on gun control with Congress at a standstill



The actions as far as I am aware are:

  • a crackdown on self-assembled "ghost guns"
  • a rule change to classify pistols with stabilising braces as short-barreled rifles
  • promises to provide more data on firearms trafficking
  • Investing in community violence intervention programs

This is a limited set of actions (Biden's full plan to address gun violence is still on his website), but my question to Americans is this: Is this announcement likely to affect you greatly?
Click to expand...


It made me laugh a little bit, that's about it. I see a crackdown on guns and accessories that would have stopped approximately zero shootings. Same ol' nothing. But I don't blame Biden for that.

People need to decide it is time for a change. That may never happen. No executive orders or gun bans will change anything until the vast majority of people want it that way.
 
Bob001 said:
A "right" is always subject to interpretation. The First Amendment has been subject to almost continuous revision and interpretation. The current extreme interpretation of the 2A is a fairly recent development, and even Justice Scalia acknowledged limits.

https://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/12/11/justice-scalias-gun-control-argument/
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/antonin-scalia-guns_n_1715969
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/the-secret-weapon-gun-con_b_8758012

And Chief Justice Warren Burger said:

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/the-nras-fraud-fabricatio_b_3103358
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/how-nra-rewrote-second-amendment
Click to expand...

And?

It seems like the Supreme Court has consistently ruled in a way that upholds the right independently of the militia clause, subject to the same burden of proof for infringement that all the other Constitutional rights enjoy.

It's hard to address (or even care) about Burger's statement without knowing the context. And even then, I'd be more interested in his legal opinions as a Justice, than in his soundbites on a talk show.
 
mgidm86 said:
It made me laugh a little bit, that's about it. I see a crackdown on guns and accessories that would have stopped approximately zero shootings. Same ol' nothing. But I don't blame Biden for that.
Click to expand...

That's not fair. Yes, the first two points are exactly as you describe. The last two, on the other hand, show some promise.

The last one eases into looking at where the majority of gun crime is actually occurring, and thinking about ways to reduce that. The second-to-last one starts gathering data about where all the guns used in gun crime are coming from, and where they're going.

More data is good.

It'll be interesting to see what the Biden Administration's idea of "community violence intervention programs" looks like, what kind of investment he intends to make, whether that investment gets made, and whether it pays off.

Put VP Harris in charge of the Administration's investment in community violence intervention programs - Good Idea, or Bad Idea?
 
theprestige said:
And?

It seems like the Supreme Court has consistently ruled in a way that upholds the right independently of the militia clause...
Click to expand...

And? Done only recently, in an exercise of bad linguistics and poor logic designed to reach a desired conclusion. One of the least impressive judicial decisions ever.

As to a point made earlier: Basically originalists are in a terrible bind. The right is to bear muzzle loaders using black powder. But drop the originalism, and an entire, larger agenda is suddenly in jeopardy. Damned if you do, screwed if you don't...

As for the right to self-defense, the basis on which the 2ndA is most often argued for today,* (in lieu of using, oh, say, slave hunting as justification), if so interpreted, the 2ndA also violates this broader right, discriminating against the unarmed in public spaces. At least have the decency to authorize the unarmed to disarm via first strike, then stand their ground. Make things even, or is that a bad thing? Why should anyone have an easy leg up? Why should anyone else tolerate a Proud Boy anywhere in shooting distance of themselves or their loved ones? I say take them down, proactively, Florida stand-your-ground style, no holds barred whatsoever, including lethal force, as the open carry constitutes a clear and present danger. While you're at it, make the 2ndA apply to all non-military personal weapons and means of self-defense, why not? What's with the sudden love for popguns?

Wait, suddenly, open carrying would be dangerous... you'd have to keep your back to the wall, eyes peeled. Never know who's rounding the corner...

Best everyone leave guns at home, on the range, or on hunting grounds, and leave the public sphere to law enforcement. Has the distinct advantage of being known to work (assuming good faith, another issue). Get some new judges and return the constitutional right to regulate the use of firearms to the states, with no cross-border shenanigans. Fine by me if good ole boys want to blow each other away, as long as it is nowhere near decent folk, and they are not sticking shotguns in minority bellies.

--
* A tacit admission that making and interpreting law follows a logic. Unfortunate, for if logic is to be brought into play, all bets are off, as Scalia's nearly unrestricted right to bear is not the optimal outcome in terms of self-defense and the preservation of life and liberty.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom