BHMCruiser

It's a tightrope because it's frowned upon to pepper the thrower.

No, what has happened is that California requires dual micro-stamping for any handguns that will be added to the roster. The firing pin of the firearm must imprint a unique code on each primer of each round that is fired, and the bullet itself must be micro-stamped as well, so it can be identified and matched with the firing handgun if it is recovered. Since the technology does not exist to do this, no manufacturers will be adding firearms to the list. I can assure you no manufacturer is boycotting the biggest firearms market in the world. There is pending litigation involving these issues.

Rogen was funny in Freaks & Geeks and The 40 Year Old Virgin. Otherwise, he sucks.

It's Coming to America 2, not Citizen Kane. I doubt the plot is really all that critical.

lol

Yes but that happens all the time (like when you are arrested). There's a balance between the exigency of the circumstance and the interest in predeprivation process. The real devil is in the details here. Everything that happens AFTER the petition is heard ex parte is what the concern should be. I'm not trying to be condescending, but "ex parte" is just lawyer talk for "only one side is heard."

Like I said, some do, and some don't. It varies by jurisdiction.

No need to apologize. I started it with the "you ever say anything" line. It's cool. This is a touchy topic and we need to remember that we're all here for the same reason: unyielding loyalty to Alabama football.

try me

You may as well have just said "no." What exact problem are you trying to solve? Murder? Mass shootings? Domestic shootings? Illicit arms exports? Straw purchases? Each of these would require a different approach and you have yet to articulate the problem you see, and how what you are proposing would solve or even improve it.

the dynasty is over (tm)

The lack of process is all in the details, and it varies by jurisdiction. If you have a red flag law that requires a sworn statement with a penalty for lying, is actually temporary, is actually of a short duration, AND automatically returns the firearms when it expires or is terminated, then you are pretty close to something that deals with a serious problem with sufficient respect for the due process rights of the respondent. As long as gun rights are not terminated, or the guns permanently withheld, or the respondent has to actively litigate their return ($$$$$$$), then it may be alright. Most ERPO states do not work that way. The liberty and property rights are divested without an opportunity to be heard, and then the litigation that ensues is a circus. Very tough. And there are places where it is extremely easy to get a temporary observation in place. In PA, for example, all you have to do is have a doctor sign a form and you can be held for up to five days. Your Second Amendment rights also happen to be terminated permanently at that point. You can have your firearms and ability to use them restored by legislative grace, but the actual right ceases to exist.

You ever actually say anything?

I am sorry for your loss. You are remarkably reasonable in discussing these issues given your personal background and that's very impressive.

Okay I will bite. Why is any of this a problem? If they just required a background check for every sale of a firearm, would that satisfy you?

Hey I think I've CR'ed this thread up too much. Anybody want to talk can DM me and I'm happy to discuss further.

lol @ "completely erroneous" I have no idea why you are even TALKING ABOUT the world arms market. I didn't say anything about the world arms market. You did. You asked me if I knew how many were legally exported and I said "no," so that has hardly anything to do with my "gut feelings" on things. If that whole sentence was separate thoughts, like you were insinuating that I do not know about statistics of production or offending rates domestically, NOR do I know anything about the world arms market, then you are wrong on both counts. If you have statistics that show me that gun owners are as a whole less law-abiding than non gun owners, I'd love to see those. It would strike me as pretty amazing, since violent crime has generally fallen over the past 30 years while firearm ownership has generally increased. What situations you just mentioned? Did I miss one of your posts where you listed situations that are not sustainable? What are the issues you want to be aware of and not hide from? Maybe it would be better to start over so you can stop relying on dogma and half-articulated concepts. What are your rights you do not want stepped on? How do you define them?

Got it. Actually they thought no normal person would pay that much and they didn't think they had the power to ban the firearms outright. The original legislative history is interesting. They picked the firearms that were being used during the crime spree at the time by organized crime and tried to get them regulated and registered. Handguns were included in the original proposal but recognition that so many normal people used them for lawful purposes that they were pulled from the legislation. The test has always been whether people who have them tend to use them for lawful purposes. That's why you can ban, say, brass knuckles, but you cannot ban handguns. It has nothing to do with lethality.

No, how many? Anyway, I don't think it matters WHY it's the most popular rifle sold today. All that matters is that it IS the most popular rifle sold today. Which means there is a demand for it. Which means it is commonly kept for lawful purposes by responsible, law-abiding citizens. Which means it is protected by the Second Amendment and cannot be banned.

The playbook is to make more and more laws that make it more and more expensive and less and less convenient to acquire firearms and ammunition. The barriers are incrementally increased to survive lax Second Amendment judicial scrutiny with the goal of having people just say "fuck it I'm out"

The NFA is basically meaningless compared to routine gun control laws like "may issue" concealed carry permits and AW and LCM bans. Pre-purchase licenses like the FOID in Illinois or Maryland's HQL definitely hit minorities harder, but the NFA does not really impact firearms that are commonly kept for lawful purposes. I'm not arguing for the NFA, but it's not the minority-impacting law that the others are.

Not true. There are hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people in gun control states like California, New Jersey, New York, Maryland, etc. who feel like the laws are completely unjust. They follow them anyway. Because gunowners tend to be the most law-abiding people in America. Concealed carry permittees are at the very top of the list.

That's not totally true. All you have to do is require all transfers to occur at a FFL with a Form 4473 and a NICS check. No registration is necessary. If you're saying you cannot enforce it because there are so many people who will just ignore the law, that's not really true either. Firearms owners tend to be the most law-abiding group of citizens in America. If you're saying that criminals will simply ignore the law, well that's true now as well. Most gun control laws really restrict and regulate the behavior of the law-abiding and do little to stop criminals from getting firearms.

Of course it did. Manufacturers stopped making them. That changed the market place considerably. Anyway, the federal government isn't really where the problem lies (although the ATF and arbitrary regulation can cause a real headache). The real problem is the state and local governments and some of their restrictions. The courts are pretty uniform in applying a watered-down "intermediate scrutiny" to gun laws of every kind, and Everytown (backed by Bloomberg) is providing them with all sorts of support, including pro bono legal services from the best firms in the country to defend the laws. Without Supreme Court intervention, we're all just arguing in circles anyway.

It’s a very fun round to shoot.