Worldwide gun control disscussion

[MKSheppard]

Latest from GOAL (one of two state level gun groups in MA -- the other is Commonwealth Second Amendment (Comm2A) ):

Without any prior notice or public hearings and while the legislature is on break for national conventions the Massachusetts Attorney General, Maura Healey, has issued an "Enforcement Notice" to firearm retailers throughout the Commonwealth of Massachusetts changing the longstanding definition of so-called "Assault Weapons".

For nearly 18 years since the passage of the 1998 Gun Control Act firearm retailers, gun owners and state agencies have been operating under the same interpretation. Now, suddenly, without warning or any due process a single person with a clear political agenda decides to change the rules. All Massachusetts residents should be alarmed!

GOAL is currently trying to decipher the enforcement letter, but with as much information that it contains, it is not very clear what it means. Statements such as the following make it very convoluted: "... a weapon is a Copy or Duplicate, for example, if the operating system and firing mechanism of the weapon are based on or otherwise substantially similar to one of the Enumerated Weapons."

Virtually every semi-automatic that utilizes a detachable magazine has the same operating system or firing mechanism, so what does this mean? The short answer is we simply don't know. Our best advice to firearm retailers for now is to err on the side of caution. These new rules may cover a lot more than just what we might think.

GOAL is working with people and groups around the State and the nation to clarify these new interpretations and decide the best course of action. One thing is certain that this new interpretation is purely a political stunt and has nothing to do with public safety or real law.

Jim Wallace
Executive Director

EDIT

Forum grapevine is:

I am already hearing of FFLs here in MA who won't be selling anything semi-auto after midnight because they don't want to be the test case for the new rules.

[Simon_Jester]

Massachusetts is proving that when Massachusetts says it, it's a total lie.

I don't actually think it is a lie when spoken by the left as a whole. When I said things like that once upon a time, I meant them. But there's a significant chunk of the left which is willing to lie and ignore the Second Amendment in an attempt to stealthily ban/confiscate broad categories of guns.

This realization was, again, the thing that caused me to start sympathizing a lot more with the gun rights lobby.

[Lonestar]

Yeah. It sounds like Massachusetts wrote a poorly designed gun ban that focused on superficial features of the guns, thus making it entirely possible to market "Massachusetts-compliant" guns that were functionally identical to the guns they'd intended to ban.

So now they get to essentially ban all semi-automatic longarms, and probably more than a few manually loaded ones.

"That Troy pump action rifle you have can use standard AR grips and stocks! It's an assault weapon!"



NY and Cali have very clearly wanted to ban all semiautos, but have hesitated(probably because it would get thrown out in the courts) looks like the Mass AG is doing so by fiat now.

[Lonestar]

Massachusetts is proving that when Massachusetts says it, it's a total lie.

Come on now. Most of the "reasonable gun restrictions" folks in the US have been doing the moving goal post thing with what is and what is not a assault weapon since the end of the Federal AWB. No one on the pro-RKBA side believes them when they say they just want to compromise, in their minds "compromise" is "I am altering this deal, pray that I do not alter it further".

Of course most of them are lying. They are especially emboldened now that the Presumptive DNC nominee, and likely POTUS, has expressed a desire for confiscation/mandatory buyback. I can't imagine if the Mass AG would have tried this is Rubio was the GOP nominee and there was a non-insane person running against Hill-dawg.

[Simon_Jester]

That is... an unfortunate fact.

I suspect that if you actually polled people who want to restrict guns, a lot less than you might think would favor this sort of passive-aggressiveness. They desire that guns be restricted, that ownership be limited, but they don't necessarily want this kind of treacherous ban-by-stealth.

The problem is that when you give the power to act on this desire to a politician, you start getting "I am altering the deal; pray I do not alter it futher " Which totally validates every slippery slope argument the NRA has ever advanced. It gives basically everyone in the country who even thinks that owning a weapon CAN be a right cause to oppose literally every possible gun control measure. Because it's impossible to predict which seemingly harmless restrictions will later be expanded into full-on confiscation of large numbers of what are, under the law, legal firearms in the hands of law-abiding citizens.

I mean, this sort of thing extremely bad practice in lawmaking, given how it violates basic principles like "don't alter the way the law affects the citizenry without a proper debate in the legislature" and "don't pretend you're writing a law that restricts narrow things, then let people spend years following the letter of your law, then arbitrarily declare that the law extends to other things it was never written to cover."

But on top of that, it also subverts efforts to enact more moderate gun control regimes in other states. I mean, in and of itself something like a national firearm registry, similar to the one we have for cars, is not such an unreasonable thing. But we already have precedents like this suggesting that such a registry WOULD be used to fuel mass confiscations of guns, so it's simply not a politically practical thing that the gun lobby and its tens of millions of supporters would ever sit still for.

If cars had historically NOT been registered with the state, and then one day one of the few states that did such registration started taking away every car capable of driving over seventy miles an hour or something... Yeah, movements to require mandatory registration in the other states would lose popularity in a hurry. Even people who believe that drivers are legally obliged to be responsible and that legitimate car owners shouldn't have to hide their ownership of cars from the state would have reason to oppose a registry that they knew was going to be used for confiscation.

Likewise I oppose allowing the state to make people register guns, given that the state is likely to try to round up the guns later.

Ironically, if a state like Texas proposed a gun registry law I would feel less inclination to oppose it, precisely because I'm not worried about the Texas legislature trying to round up all the guns at some future date...

[Lonestar]

That is... an unfortunate fact.

I suspect that if you actually polled people who want to restrict guns, a lot less than you might think would favor this sort of passive-aggressiveness. They desire that guns be restricted, that ownership be limited, but they don't necessarily want this kind of treacherous ban-by-stealth.

I have no doubt.

But, you know, when some of the loudest voices for "reasonable gun control"(sitting President, Clinton, Feinstein) have all expressed a desire for confiscation/mandatory buy backs.

This is ignoring the moving goalposts of how "you can keep what you have" has turned into "owning 30 rounders is a bigger felony than being a kiddy diddler" as soon as the previous law has been on the books for a some years.

The problem is that when you give the power to act on this desire to a politician, you start getting "I am altering the deal; pray I do not alter it futher " Which totally validates every slippery slope argument the NRA has ever advanced. It gives basically everyone in the country who even thinks that owning a weapon CAN be a right cause to oppose literally every possible gun control measure. Because it's impossible to predict which seemingly harmless restrictions will later be expanded into full-on confiscation of large numbers of what are, under the law, legal firearms in the hands of law-abiding citizens.

I mean, this sort of thing extremely bad practice in lawmaking, given how it violates basic principles like "don't alter the way the law affects the citizenry without a proper debate in the legislature" and "don't pretend you're writing a law that restricts narrow things, then let people spend years following the letter of your law, then arbitrarily declare that the law extends to other things it was never written to cover."

But on top of that, it also subverts efforts to enact more moderate gun control regimes in other states. I mean, in and of itself something like a national firearm registry, similar to the one we have for cars, is not such an unreasonable thing. But we already have precedents like this suggesting that such a registry WOULD be used to fuel mass confiscations of guns, so it's simply not a politically practical thing that the gun lobby and its tens of millions of supporters would ever sit still for.

I know it's a fallacy, but the well is freakin' poisoned. The hardcore gun people, even those who might agree in principle with some expanded forms of control, now take the "not one more step" in fear of being frog-in-potted.


No kidding, I've floated some universal background check ideas that aren't "backdoor registry" and it's a pretty good litmus test of which people really are seeking some form of "reasonable gun control" and who is pissed off at it because it doesn't significantly impact law abiding gunowners/help with confiscation down the road.

Similarly, I get blank stares if I ask what's being offered when gun control advocates say they just want a "compromise"(after decades of it).

[Simon_Jester]

Honestly, claiming "slippery slope" is often NOT a fallacy when talking about politics, because slippery slopes occur in politics all the time. Politicians are very good at securing 'minor' concessions and then using them for leverage to gain lots of power over a situation.

And in everyday life, "slippery slopes" routinely happen to people- think about any case of drug or alcohol addiction.

The only reason "slippery slope" arguments get a bad reputation is because they can be used in cases where there is no plausible mechanism for the slipping to occur. If politicians, addiction, or hidden ideological agendas are involved... there's a mechanism all right.

[Grumman]

That is... an unfortunate fact.

I suspect that if you actually polled people who want to restrict guns, a lot less than you might think would favor this sort of passive-aggressiveness. They desire that guns be restricted, that ownership be limited, but they don't necessarily want this kind of treacherous ban-by-stealth.

Or they don't want to admit it. It should come as no surprise that stealth is a useful tool in a treacherous ban-by-stealth - the longer they can push the narrative that you're just being paranoid about the slippery slope, the less opposition they will face as they lay the groundwork.

[Simon_Jester]

Having actually talked to a bunch of people who favor 'a little more' gun control, at a time in my life when I agreed with them, I am quite confident in saying that not every, and probably not even most advocates of gun control, are in favor of treacherous creeping bans like this.

It's like how a lot of people who think taxes should probably be higher don't think that taxes should be 100%, or that they should be subject to random capricious increases whenever the IRS feels like it.

The problem is, again, what happens when a large number of gun control voters elect a politician who is a gun control advocate without necessarily understanding the thing they want to ban.

[Zixinus]

It is possible that a minority of politicians are but speak for the idea of reasonable gun control for public image.

[General Zod]

No kidding, I've floated some universal background check ideas that aren't "backdoor registry" and it's a pretty good litmus test of which people really are seeking some form of "reasonable gun control" and who is pissed off at it because it doesn't significantly impact law abiding gunowners/help with confiscation down the road.

Similarly, I get blank stares if I ask what's being offered when gun control advocates say they just want a "compromise"(after decades of it).

Here's an idea, why not just ban private sales? That would eliminate a significant chunk of the loopholes that exist for felons to get weapons. If you want to sell your guns as an individual, you need to go to a licensed dealer or pawn shop to sell them.

[Elheru Aran]

Here's an idea, why not just ban private sales? That would eliminate a significant chunk of the loopholes that exist for felons to get weapons. If you want to sell your guns as an individual, you need to go to a licensed dealer or pawn shop to sell them.

I want to say that's not Constitutional and that there was a case somewhere that someone was trying to make a private sale of something or other (not a gun) but he got into trouble for it, it went to court, and they decided that it was against some amendment or other... unfortunately I only get stuff on private sales of guns when I google it and subtract Facebook.

[General Zod]

Here's an idea, why not just ban private sales? That would eliminate a significant chunk of the loopholes that exist for felons to get weapons. If you want to sell your guns as an individual, you need to go to a licensed dealer or pawn shop to sell them.

I want to say that's not Constitutional and that there was a case somewhere that someone was trying to make a private sale of something or other (not a gun) but he got into trouble for it, it went to court, and they decided that it was against some amendment or other... unfortunately I only get stuff on private sales of guns when I google it and subtract Facebook.

It doesn't restrict your ability to purchase firearms legally, it only restricts who you can sell them to after you buy from a dealer. Not entirely unlike prescription medications.

[Elheru Aran]

Here's an idea, why not just ban private sales? That would eliminate a significant chunk of the loopholes that exist for felons to get weapons. If you want to sell your guns as an individual, you need to go to a licensed dealer or pawn shop to sell them.

I want to say that's not Constitutional and that there was a case somewhere that someone was trying to make a private sale of something or other (not a gun) but he got into trouble for it, it went to court, and they decided that it was against some amendment or other... unfortunately I only get stuff on private sales of guns when I google it and subtract Facebook.

It doesn't restrict your ability to purchase firearms legally, it only restricts who you can sell them to after you buy from a dealer. Not entirely unlike prescription medications.

Mm, yes. The problem is that if you make it illegal to privately sell firearms between individuals, you'll then see some obvious work-arounds like "I'm *giving* him the firearm, this money is just to pay him back for the time and gas it took him to get to my place". Similar tricks are done in the cosplay business when someone makes reproductions of licensed props "for their own non-commercial use" but they're actually selling them to customers.

[General Zod]

I want to say that's not Constitutional and that there was a case somewhere that someone was trying to make a private sale of something or other (not a gun) but he got into trouble for it, it went to court, and they decided that it was against some amendment or other... unfortunately I only get stuff on private sales of guns when I google it and subtract Facebook.

It doesn't restrict your ability to purchase firearms legally, it only restricts who you can sell them to after you buy from a dealer. Not entirely unlike prescription medications.

Mm, yes. The problem is that if you make it illegal to privately sell firearms between individuals, you'll then see some obvious work-arounds like "I'm *giving* him the firearm, this money is just to pay him back for the time and gas it took him to get to my place". Similar tricks are done in the cosplay business when someone makes reproductions of licensed props "for their own non-commercial use" but they're actually selling them to customers.

So change it to "transfer" instead of sell. Easy peasy.

[Elheru Aran]

It doesn't restrict your ability to purchase firearms legally, it only restricts who you can sell them to after you buy from a dealer. Not entirely unlike prescription medications.

Mm, yes. The problem is that if you make it illegal to privately sell firearms between individuals, you'll then see some obvious work-arounds like "I'm *giving* him the firearm, this money is just to pay him back for the time and gas it took him to get to my place". Similar tricks are done in the cosplay business when someone makes reproductions of licensed props "for their own non-commercial use" but they're actually selling them to customers.

So change it to "transfer" instead of sell. Easy peasy.

And then you run into cultural issues. Giving a gun to your kids isn't uncommon when the kids get old enough, at least in rural areas, for just one example. Or inheriting guns from a relative who passes away-- for example, my grandfather has about twenty, thirty firearms. Would it be illegal for him to pass one or two of those to me in his will? And that's not even getting into loans. Say some guy goes hunting with his buddies, but one of the guys forgot his gun at home, so the first guy lends him a spare for the hunt. Is that a 'transfer'? That's actually been a problem in some states which recently forbade exactly such 'transfers'.

[General Zod]

And then you run into cultural issues. Giving a gun to your kids isn't uncommon when the kids get old enough, at least in rural areas, for just one example. Or inheriting guns from a relative who passes away-- for example, my grandfather has about twenty, thirty firearms. Would it be illegal for him to pass one or two of those to me in his will? And that's not even getting into loans. Say some guy goes hunting with his buddies, but one of the guys forgot his gun at home, so the first guy lends him a spare for the hunt. Is that a 'transfer'? That's actually been a problem in some states which recently forbade exactly such 'transfers'.

Honestly, if you're too dumb to remember to bring a gun when you go hunting, you probably don't deserve to have one.

[Elheru Aran]

And then you run into cultural issues. Giving a gun to your kids isn't uncommon when the kids get old enough, at least in rural areas, for just one example. Or inheriting guns from a relative who passes away-- for example, my grandfather has about twenty, thirty firearms. Would it be illegal for him to pass one or two of those to me in his will? And that's not even getting into loans. Say some guy goes hunting with his buddies, but one of the guys forgot his gun at home, so the first guy lends him a spare for the hunt. Is that a 'transfer'? That's actually been a problem in some states which recently forbade exactly such 'transfers'.

Honestly, if you're too dumb to remember to bring a gun when you go hunting, you probably don't deserve to have one.

Well, possibly, but that's not the point, and you're not responding to the rest of my post.

Look, I do agree that private sales are a weak point, but unilaterally banning 'transfers' isn't going to help because there are a number of legitimate and reasonably harmless 'transfers' that happen on a fairly regular basis.

[General Zod]

Well, possibly, but that's not the point, and you're not responding to the rest of my post.

Look, I do agree that private sales are a weak point, but unilaterally banning 'transfers' isn't going to help because there are a number of legitimate and reasonably harmless 'transfers' that happen on a fairly regular basis.

Are they reasonable? Or do we just accept them as reasonable because that's how we've always done it?

[Elheru Aran]

Well, possibly, but that's not the point, and you're not responding to the rest of my post.

Look, I do agree that private sales are a weak point, but unilaterally banning 'transfers' isn't going to help because there are a number of legitimate and reasonably harmless 'transfers' that happen on a fairly regular basis.

Are they reasonable? Or do we just accept them as reasonable because that's how we've always done it?

Bit of column A, bit of column B.

The current situation in general (I make no claims of knowing specific situations in various states, and IANAL), as I understand it:

Say someone's grandfather makes a gift of a hunting rifle to his 15-year-old grandson. The grandson's father is responsible for making sure his son knows how to use the gun in a responsible manner, and for storing it in a safe manner if it's kept at their house. When the kid comes of age, it's his business.

In the hunting situation, legality of loaning aside, generally the individual hunter is responsible for using a firearm in a safe manner, whether or not it's actually theirs. If loaning the gun is illegal (and it has been held to be such in one or two states, I think Washington comes to mind, thanks to ill defined regulations) then the loaner and loan-ee are both liable.

Now if a guy in the city passes on a pistol to a gang member or something, the gang member kills someone with it and the serial number is traced back to the first guy, he might be held liable as an accessory before the fact; IANAL.

The fact of the matter is that if a responsible gun owner 'transfers' a firearm to another responsible gun owner, it shouldn't be an issue at all, and isn't usually viewed as such by most states. This is considered 'reasonable'.

Now something that *could* make sense, but would probably get turned down post-haste by the pro-gun lobby, is a 'title' for guns. You buy a gun, you get a piece of paper with its serial number and your name as the first owner. You sell or give the gun to someone else, they put their name on it, and so on. If the gun is reported stolen, you give a copy to the police so they can return the firearm to you if it's found later.

[MKSheppard]

Here's an idea, why not just ban private sales? That would eliminate a significant chunk of the loopholes that exist for felons to get weapons. If you want to sell your guns as an individual, you need to go to a licensed dealer or pawn shop to sell them.

Guess what, Zod?

Maryland did that in 1996 for Handguns, the statistically most significant murder weapon:

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/20 ... s/table-20

190 of 208 firearms murders in Maryland for 2014 were with handguns.

Before banning private sales in 1996; Maryland instituted a 7 day wait period and registration of all handgun sales from dealers back in 1966.

Is Baltimore a safe place, despite 20+ years of:

1.) Ban on Private Handgun sales (all transfers must be through a FFL or be logged at a Maryland State Police Barracks)
2.) Total handgun registration (all private and dealer sales must be put on the Maryland State Police Form 77R and mailed to MSP)

And a further 50 years of registration of all dealer sales on Form 77R (or it's immediate precedessors) since 1966?

[General Zod]

Turns out banning private sales is unenforceable unless everyone does it? Who fucking knew.

[MKSheppard]

Turns out banning private sales is unenforceable unless everyone does it? Who fucking knew.

1968 called and said "well, um about that...we kind of banned all out-of-state sales for handguns forty-seven years ago."

[General Zod]

Turns out banning private sales is unenforceable unless everyone does it? Who fucking knew.

1968 called and said "well, um about that...we kind of banned all out-of-state sales for handguns forty-seven years ago."

No dingus, I'm saying that if neighboring states don't enforce the ban too it's a meaningless gesture.

[Elheru Aran]

Turns out banning private sales is unenforceable unless everyone does it? Who fucking knew.

1968 called and said "well, um about that...we kind of banned all out-of-state sales for handguns forty-seven years ago."

Do you have a point, considering he pretty much noted what you were getting at with your last post, or are you just continuing your usual style of trolling by data-dumping about your little slice of the States without any relevant analysis and acting like it applies across the board to everything?

Frankly all through this thread, Shep, you've been dumping sheets and sheets of data about Maryland and Baltimore. That's fine, and some of it's actually useful... but you're acting like it's demonstrating that gun control is useless in general, and not bothering to do any analysis apart from picking terminology to little wee quivering bits.

How about you start talking about what you think would actually work as far as gun control goes?