The Gun Owner’s thread

[Doc Reeves 6434]

10 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

Is this a joke?  There are tens of thousands of firearm laws at the national, state, and local levels.  What does this even mean?  As stated, we cannot effectively enforce the current gun laws on the books today.  

Un-regulation means there are areas that have little to no regulation so it greatly reduces the effectiveness and enforcement of the laws we have. Don’t get me wrong, I love gun shows but we simply don’t have the national apparatus to enforce the wildly different laws between regions we have and it’s extremely easy to transport guns between states. 

Contrast that with trying to buy an AR in a different country. 

[Izhmash 581]

15 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

So, anybody done a Form 1 silencer build?

What's your question?  (edit: what is that you trying to figure out / learn about the process?)

Edited February 3, 2021 by Izhmash
clarification...

[BabaYaga 15629]

19 minutes ago, Doc Reeves said:

Un-regulation means there are areas that have little to no regulation so it greatly reduces the effectiveness and enforcement of the laws we have. Don’t get me wrong, I love gun shows but we simply don’t have the national apparatus to enforce the wildly different laws between regions we have and it’s extremely easy to transport guns between states. 

Contrast that with trying to buy an AR in a different country. 

Then you support a national gun registry.  Just lead with this.  

[Doc Reeves 6434]

5 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

Then you support a national gun registry.  Just lead with this.  

Fair enough 

[BHMCruiser 1828]

39 minutes ago, Doc Reeves said:

Un-regulation means there are areas that have little to no regulation so it greatly reduces the effectiveness and enforcement of the laws we have. Don’t get me wrong, I love gun shows but we simply don’t have the national apparatus to enforce the wildly different laws between regions we have and it’s extremely easy to transport guns between states. 

Contrast that with trying to buy an AR in a different country. 

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?

[Bozo_Casanova 26882]

44 minutes ago, Izhmash said:

What's your question?  (edit: what is that you trying to figure out / learn about the process?)

Sure - ATF Form 1 is an application to make and register a firearm. So, you file a Form 1, ATF approves it, and then you buy a set of parts and build yourself a gun or suppressor from a kit you can buy with an approved Form 1. The advantage, supposedly, is that the turnaround is much faster than the turnaround to file a Form 4 and take delivery of a completed suppressor, like a couple of weeks compared to as much as a year. 

Edited February 3, 2021 by Bozo_Casanova

[Bozo_Casanova 26882]

54 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

Then you support a national gun registry.  Just lead with this.  

Background checks do not necessarily lead to a national firearm registry. Come on, man.  I get a background check every time I buy a gun in retail already. I got a background check Saturday when I bought that Kel-Tec .22. What's the big deal?

That being said, red flag laws would do a lot more good than background checks. It's bad enough that it's close to impossible* to get a loved on help during a mental health crisis because we'd rather pretend like mental illness is a character flaw than an actual illness that requires treatment and often  intervention. At the very least we could give their family and friends a tool to disarm them before they hurt themselves or others, rather than after. 




*And I've got 2 dead uncles and a dead mother to prove it.
 

Edited February 3, 2021 by Bozo_Casanova

[BabaYaga 15629]

3 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Background checks do not necessarily lead to a national firearm registry. Come on, man.  I get a background check every time I buy a gun in retail already. I got a background check Saturday when I bought that Kel-Tec .22. What's the big deal?

That's for a purchase from a licensed FFL dealer.  The registry comes into play when the requirement is made to also require this on private sales between citizens.  Without a national registry, this would be all but impossible to enforce.  Which is why every nation that has strict gun laws has one.

Red flag laws have no mechanism for due process and very, very opaque guidelines for "mental illness".  Under many proposals ADHD is a mental illness.  "Anxiety" is a mental illness.  So before I took my SAT's back in the day, I had a mental illness.  As I did on the day my wife was admitted for the birth of both children, etc.  This doesn't even touch on the constitutionality of them, which I also question.  

 

[Doc Reeves 6434]

47 minutes ago, BHMCruiser said:

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?

I guess you’re right, there is no problem.   

[Bozo_Casanova 26882]

21 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

That's for a purchase from a licensed FFL dealer.  The registry comes into play when the requirement is made to also require this on private sales between citizens.  Without a national registry, this would be all but impossible to enforce.  Which is why every nation that has strict gun laws has one.

Red flag laws have no mechanism for due process and very, very opaque guidelines for "mental illness".  Under many proposals ADHD is a mental illness.  "Anxiety" is a mental illness.  So before I took my SAT's back in the day, I had a mental illness.  As I did on the day my wife was admitted for the birth of both children, etc.  This doesn't even touch on the constitutionality of them, which I also question.  

 

On background checks, I think there are other ways to accomplish the goal. But, fair enough.  And for the record, I personally wouldn't be super worried about a national registry, but either way. 
 

Where I really disagree is the lack of due process argument. It's the exact same argument people make against all involuntary mental health interventions - for the sake of liberty and human dignity we give mentally ill people the right to suffer, untreated, until they hurt themselves or others. I don't buy it. In every state where enacted extreme risk order requires a family member or law enforcement officer to petition a court and present evidence in order to temporarily remove their weapons and there are penalties for abuse of the process by petitioners. Where's the lack of process?

Edited February 3, 2021 by Bozo_Casanova

[BHMCruiser 1828]

32 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Background checks do not necessarily lead to a national firearm registry. Come on, man.  I get a background check every time I buy a gun in retail already. I got a background check Saturday when I bought that Kel-Tec .22. What's the big deal?

That being said, red flag laws would do a lot more good than background checks. It's bad enough that it's close to impossible* to get a loved on help during a mental health crisis because we'd rather pretend like mental illness is a character flaw than an actual illness that requires treatment and often  intervention. At the very least we could give their family and friends a tool to disarm them before they hurt themselves or others, rather than after. 




*And I've got 2 dead uncles and a dead mother to prove it.
 

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

[BHMCruiser 1828]

18 minutes ago, Doc Reeves said:

I guess you’re right, there is no problem.   

You ever actually say anything?

[BabaYaga 15629]

2 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

On background checks, I think there are other ways to accomplish the goal. But, fair enough.  And for the record, I personally wouldn't be super worried about a national registry, but either way. 
 

Where I really disagree is the lack of due process argument. It's the exact same argument people make against all involuntary mental health interventions - for the sake of liberty and human dignity we give mentally ill people the right to suffer until they hurt themselves or others. I don't buy it. In every state where enacted extreme risk order requires a family member or law enforcement officer to petition a court and present evidence in order to temporarily remove their weapons and there are penalties for abuse of the process by petitioners. Where's the lack of process?

What "evidence" - the initial suggested literature was so vague and open to interpretation "evidence" can take many forms.....often just the word of the one making the accusation.  It's not evidence, but how compelling is your argument.  Big difference.

Further, what is the reconciliation process?  Due process of a constitutionally granted right?  As with a no-fly list, how do you get off it?  Can we apply the same standards to other amendments?  He-said, she-said testimony that can strip people of their rights.  Do you now see how quickly this would be weaponized?

[BHMCruiser 1828]

3 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

On background checks, I think there are other ways to accomplish the goal. But, fair enough.  And for the record, I personally wouldn't be super worried about a national registry, but either way. 
 

Where I really disagree is the lack of due process argument. It's the exact same argument people make against all involuntary mental health interventions - for the sake of liberty and human dignity we give mentally ill people the right to suffer, untreated, until they hurt themselves or others. I don't buy it. In every state where enacted extreme risk order requires a family member or law enforcement officer to petition a court and present evidence in order to temporarily remove their weapons and there are penalties for abuse of the process by petitioners. Where's the lack of process?

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. 

[Bozo_Casanova 26882]

Just now, BHMCruiser said:

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

That's kind of you, thanks. 

[fattyflattie 4640]

33 minutes ago, Doc Reeves said:

I guess you’re right, there is no problem.   

Why dodge the question?  Would you be satisfied with a background check for the sale of every firearm?

[Bozo_Casanova 26882]

3 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

What "evidence" - the initial suggested literature was so vague and open to interpretation "evidence" can take many forms.....often just the word of the one making the accusation.  It's not evidence, but how compelling is your argument.  Big difference.

Further, what is the reconciliation process?  Due process of a constitutionally granted right?  As with a no-fly list, how do you get off it?  Can we apply the same standards to other amendments?  He-said, she-said testimony that can strip people of their rights.  Do you now see how quickly this would be weaponized?

Any legal process can be weaponized. So can involuntary hospitalization orders.  As for the evidence, that's for judges to assess, but it's more than just accusations: it's evidence of threats, violent acts, violation of restraining orders and protective orders, brandishing weapons. There's a standard of proof that varies by state and in all cases there are processes to fight it.  Not sure what's so uniquely worrisome about this. You can lose your driver's license for less. 

[fattyflattie 4640]

8 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

You can lose your driver's license for less. 

A driver's license doesn't help me protect my family. 

[Jkwellborn 7044]

Sure - ATF Form 1 is an application to make and register a firearm. So, you file a Form 1, ATF approves it, and then you buy a set of parts and build yourself a gun or suppressor from a kit you can buy with an approved Form 1. The advantage, supposedly, is that the turnaround is much faster than the turnaround to file a Form 4 and take delivery of a completed suppressor, like a couple of weeks compared to as much as a year. 

E filed form 1s were turning around in a month or so for a while.

[Johnny Sack 8397]

On 2/2/2021 at 11:13 AM, Bozo_Casanova said:

The slope is not slippery. Universal background checks and Red flag laws are supported by broad majorities in both parties and by gun owners. Huge drop off in all groups for everything else. 

And the party view:
 

 

 

Can the people answering the survey articulate what a UB check is?

[Bozo_Casanova 26882]

3 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

A driver's license doesn't help me protect my family. 

No? Ever take your kid to the ER in the middle of the night? Do you depend on a car to get to work? Ever have to retrieve a teenager from a party they couldn't get home from safely?  
Armed people in the paranoid schizophrenic crisis aren't protecting their families. 

[Johnny Sack 8397]

On 2/2/2021 at 11:13 AM, Bozo_Casanova said:

The slope is not slippery. Universal background checks and Red flag laws are supported by broad majorities in both parties and by gun owners. Huge drop off in all groups for everything else. 

And the party view:
 

 

 

Can the people answering the survey articulate what a UB check is?

[BabaYaga 15629]

15 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

A driver's license doesn't help me protect my family. 

Nor is it a constitutionally protected right

[Doc Reeves 6434]

32 minutes ago, BHMCruiser said:

You ever actually say anything?

Nothing you’ll hear

[Bozo_Casanova 26882]

Just now, BabaYaga said:

Nor is it a constitutionally protected right

In the time of the framers, mentally ill people were routinely disarmed and locked up on a a completely discretionary basis by local authorities. 

[fattyflattie 4640]

9 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Ever take your kid to the ER in the middle of the night?

Yes.  But I can uber there.  Or have my wife drive me.  

9 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Do you depend on a car to get to work?

I do not. 

9 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Ever have to retrieve a teenager from a party they couldn't get home from safely?  

You have misjudged my age terribly.  But I'm certain I will, if they are anything like their mother. 

10 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Armed people in the paranoid schizophrenic crisis aren't protecting their families.

1000% agreed.  The hole in your argument is my wife can't call a judge and ask him to take my drivers license away because she met my girlfriend.  On my own actions (DWI, reckless driving, etc) I can, and should lose it.   Just as if I decide to go on a gun toting rant at a school/public/whatever, I would lose access to my firearms.   I don't think anyone would have an issue about that.  It's the whole scorned lover/employee/friend issue that's the issue.  By the time the judge even determines it's bullshit, some mouth breathing cop has already dinged up my custom stocked Weatherby's/70's/everything and who's going to fix that?  At that point you've ruined a 4-5 figure property of mine over some bullshit. 

[BabaYaga 15629]

8 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

Can the people answering the survey articulate what a UB check is?

Of course the answer is a minimal amount, as evidenced by the later decrease in support once the details emerge.  

[Bozo_Casanova 26882]

3 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

Of course the answer is a minimal amount, as evidenced by the later decrease in support once the details emerge.  

Really? Let's see that evidence of decrease. Let's see a before and after.

Edited February 3, 2021 by Bozo_Casanova

[BabaYaga 15629]

4 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

In the time of the framers, mentally ill people were routinely disarmed and locked up on a a completely discretionary basis by local authorities. 

And certain people were counted at 3/5's?  This is your argument?

[BabaYaga 15629]

1 minute ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Really? Let's see that evidence of decrease. Let's see a before and after.

Yes, there are so few bills over the last decade that were drafted on the premise of "common sense" talking points that died along the way when the specifics came to light...

[Bozo_Casanova 26882]

4 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

1000% agreed.  The hole in your argument is my wife can't call a judge and ask him to take my drivers license away because she met my girlfriend.  On my own actions (DWI, reckless driving, etc) I can, and should lose it.   Just as if I decide to go on a gun toting rant at a school/public/whatever, I would lose access to my firearms.   I don't think anyone would have an issue about that.  It's the whole scorned lover/employee/friend issue that's the issue.  By the time the judge even determines it's bullshit, some mouth breathing cop has already dinged up my custom stocked Weatherby's/70's/everything and who's going to fix that?  At that point you've ruined a 4-5 figure property of mine over some bullshit. 

Why would the judge take their word for it in your scenario? Injustice happens every day. What makes your scenario more likely than any other abuse of process?

[Johnny Sack 8397]

6 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Really? Let's see the evidence of decrease. 

People will support "Universal Background Check".  It sounds great.  Like they would support the Equal Rights Amendment or the Violence Against Women Act.  I mean who can be against that?

Ask if they support requiring you to go to a FFL dealer to transfer each of granddad's shotguns and paying a fee for each?  And having to wait 7 days because half the time the fucking NICS doesn't work.

Here is what I support - a national id.  Present it when buying a gun.  You get an instant up or down when run through the computer or smart phone.  Can also be your voter ID and proof of eligibility to vote.

Edited February 3, 2021 by Johnny Sack

[Bozo_Casanova 26882]

2 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

And certain people were counted at 3/5's?  This is your argument?

No, that's YOUR argument. I'm saying the framers understood, as we have throughout our history, that the 2nd Amendment does not recognize an unlimited right. 
The gun fight at the OK corral was about disarming the Cowboys when they came into town.  Were the Cowboys the good guys?

[Bozo_Casanova 26882]

3 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

Here is what I support - a national id.  Present it when buying a gun.  You get an instant up or down when run through the computer or smart phone.  Can also be your voter ID and proof of eligibility to vote.

works for me

[fattyflattie 4640]

8 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

works for me

Me too.   

[Doc Reeves 6434]

47 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

Why dodge the question?  Would you be satisfied with a background check for the sale of every firearm?

I’m not going to get pigeon holed into fighting a policy argument someone else wants to fight.

im saying the reality is that some sort of national system is necessary to coordinate state and regional laws to make them more efficient and protect our rights. I can’t say how to get there better than anyone else but I’d like it if we could all hold hand and figure some shit out together instead of letting someone tell us later down the road. 

if you don’t agree that’s cool, we can agree to disagree.

Edited February 3, 2021 by Doc Reeves

[Armybrat 41422]

23 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

Yes.  But I can uber there.  Or have my wife drive me.  

I do not. 

You have misjudged my age terribly.  But I'm certain I will, if they are anything like their mother. 

1000% agreed.  The hole in your argument is my wife can't call a judge and ask him to take my drivers license away because she met my girlfriend.  On my own actions (DWI, reckless driving, etc) I can, and should lose it.   Just as if I decide to go on a gun toting rant at a school/public/whatever, I would lose access to my firearms.   I don't think anyone would have an issue about that.  It's the whole scorned lover/employee/friend issue that's the issue.  By the time the judge even determines it's bullshit, some mouth breathing cop has already dinged up my custom stocked Weatherby's/70's/everything and who's going to fix that?  At that point you've ruined a 4-5 figure property of mine over some bullshit. 

Remember what happened with the hundreds of firearm confiscations in Louisiana after Katrina?

[fattyflattie 4640]

8 minutes ago, Armybrat said:

Remember what happened with the hundreds of firearm confiscations in Louisiana after Katrina?

No.  I just learned about that a week or so ago.  I wasn't exactly paying attention at the time.  More worried with school and had Rita barreling right up my ass.  

[BabaYaga 15629]

10 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

No, that's YOUR argument. I'm saying the framers understood, as we have throughout our history, that the 2nd Amendment does not recognize an unlimited right. 
The gun fight at the OK corral was about disarming the Cowboys when they came into town.  Were the Cowboys the good guys?

Nobody made the claim it's an unfettered right.  But again, the concern with these is due process.  I can lose my right because of "erratic" behavior.  You are ok with that?  I can lose my right because of a temporary ex parte order issued with no more "evidence" than a compelling argument made to a judge.  Are there penalties for false claims?  Not that I know of.  There are just so many holes in these such as vague language, due process gaps and separation of powers issues: Local enforcement both conducted the investigation and decided whether the case should go to a hearing.  Do you even know if you are "on the list"?  Police arriving unannounced at a gun owner’s home demanding that he turn over his firearms is a recipe for tragedy. 

Hard pass.

[Armybrat 41422]

Interesting statistics for numbers of conviction and rates rates of Texas LTC holders vs total convictions in 2019:

https://www.dps.texas.gov/sites/default/files/documents/rsd/ltc/reports/convictionratesreport2019.pdf

[workswithseed 2204]

8 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

Nobody made the claim it's an unfettered right.  But again, the concern with these is due process.  I can lose my right because of "erratic" behavior.  You are ok with that?  I can lose my right because of a temporary ex parte order issued with no more "evidence" than a compelling argument made to a judge.  Are there penalties for false claims?  Not that I know of.  There are just so many holes in these such as vague language, due process gaps and separation of powers issues: Local enforcement both conducted the investigation and decided whether the case should go to a hearing.  Do you even know if you are "on the list"?  Police arriving unannounced at a gun owner’s home demanding that he turn over his firearms is a recipe for tragedy. 

Hard pass.

Didn't already die to a red flag law?

https://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2018/11/05/fatal-officer-involved-shooting-in-anne-arundel-county/

Looks like it.

[TexasGary 867]

21 hours ago, fattyflattie said:

Apparently I wasn't fast enough.  12 minutes after you posted.

Okay, how about Winchester Super-X Ammunition 300 Winchester Magnum 180 Grain Power-Point Box of 20 for $31.99? In stock as of this minute.

https://www.midwayusa.com/product/2900281024

[Bozo_Casanova 26882]

14 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

Nobody made the claim it's an unfettered right.  But again, the concern with these is due process.  I can lose my right because of "erratic" behavior.  You are ok with that?  I can lose my right because of a temporary ex parte order issued with no more "evidence" than a compelling argument made to a judge.  Are there penalties for false claims?  Not that I know of.  There are just so many holes in these such as vague language, due process gaps and separation of powers issues: Local enforcement both conducted the investigation and decided whether the case should go to a hearing.  Do you even know if you are "on the list"?  Police arriving unannounced at a gun owner’s home demanding that he turn over his firearms is a recipe for tragedy. 

Hard pass.

Serious question. Do you think there's a greater or lesser risk of losing rights as the result of an ERPO or through dishonorable discharge?

 

[fattyflattie 4640]

13 minutes ago, TexasGary said:

Okay, how about Winchester Super-X Ammunition 300 Winchester Magnum 180 Grain Power-Point Box of 20 for $31.99? In stock as of this minute.

https://www.midwayusa.com/product/2900281024

On it.  Appreciate that.

 

eta: Went thru!!!!  Thanks.  I owe you.

Edited February 3, 2021 by fattyflattie

[Gatorubet 30751]

And certain people were counted at 3/5's?  This is your argument?

Worst logic attempt ever.

[BHMCruiser 1828]

1 hour ago, Doc Reeves said:

Nothing you’ll hear

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. 

[BHMCruiser 1828]

1 hour ago, Doc Reeves said:

Nothing you’ll hear

try me

[Doc Reeves 6434]

1 minute ago, BHMCruiser said:

try me

Fair. My post was bitchy. Sincere apologies, that was condescending and I honestly do have respect for you as a poster, gun owner and American.

[BHMCruiser 1828]

6 minutes ago, Doc Reeves said:

Fair. My post was bitchy. Sincere apologies, that was condescending and I honestly do have respect for you as a poster, gun owner and American.

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. 

[BabaYaga 15629]

1 hour ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Serious question. Do you think there's a greater or lesser risk of losing rights as the result of an ERPO or through dishonorable discharge?

 

How much do you really know about DD's?  Are you advocating for a similar civilian processing and vetting program to qualify someone for an ERPO as does the military for processing a DD?  For starters, one has a defined due process and one does not.