Gun Control Laws And Opposition

[GURPS]

‘Ghost gun’ legislation passes in Montgomery Co.


The term ghost gun has been used to describe firearms that can be assembled and manufactured with the help of a 3D printer. Police and legislators who’ve targeted the firearms said they’re concerned because of the lack of serial numbers and that the components — plastic — make them hard to detect.

The move passed by the Montgomery County Council also bars having ghost guns within 100 yards of a “place of public assembly,” like schools, churches or parks, and prohibits making a ghost gun with a 3D printer in the presence of a minor.

“This will give both our police department another tool in the toolbox to address issues of gun violence and do so in a way that helps keep all of our residents safe” said County Council Vice President Gabe Albornoz.



I must have missed the epidemic of Ghost Gun Crimes in Montgomery County

 

[GURPS]

No, Chuck Todd. The GOP Isn’t ‘Extreme’ For Opposing Gun Control




“Universal background checks” can’t be universal unless a registry is established. That means the government knows what you own, how long you’ve owned it, and how many firearms are in your possession. It also eliminates Private Party Transfers (PPTs), which typically take place between family members.

The National Research Council found that the 1994 assault weapons ban “did not reveal any clear impacts on gun violence outcomes.” Reinstating something that didn’t work is useless.

“Red Flag” laws allow designated people, like law enforcement, teachers, family, and coworkers to petition the court for a person’s firearms to be confiscated. The problem is the lack of due process. The gun owner doesn’t get a day in court and they are on the hook for clearing their name, assuming it’s even possible.

Chuck Todd can say the GOP is extreme for wanting to preserve the right to keep and bear arms, but they’re not. They’re doing what’s in the best interest of the Constitution – and the American people.

 

[Gilligan]

‘Ghost gun’ legislation passes in Montgomery Co.


The term ghost gun has been used to describe firearms that can be assembled and manufactured with the help of a 3D printer. Police and legislators who’ve targeted the firearms said they’re concerned because of the lack of serial numbers and that the components — plastic — make them hard to detect.

The move passed by the Montgomery County Council also bars having ghost guns within 100 yards of a “place of public assembly,” like schools, churches or parks, and prohibits making a ghost gun with a 3D printer in the presence of a minor.

“This will give both our police department another tool in the toolbox to address issues of gun violence and do so in a way that helps keep all of our residents safe” said County Council Vice President Gabe Albornoz.



I must have missed the epidemic of Ghost Gun Crimes in Montgomery County

And I seem to be missing a 3D printer... what a total crock. Pass laws not knowing the first little thing about the facts of the issue. They just banned something that does not even exist. Lmao. Meanwhile....everyone in Montgomery county that wants to can continue to build firearms from 80% lowers.can do so.

 

[black dog]

Ugo Gussalli Beretta, ''There always seems to be a problem with Maryland.'"

 

[Kyle]

Political Cartoon of the Day: 'Deadly Compassion'

www.foxnews.com

 

[glhs837]

"Make a ghost gun in the presence of a minor"?

 

[Kyle]

 

[DEEKAYPEE8569]

TN lawmakers have passed; and the Governor has signed Permitless Carry into law. The new law takes effect 1JUL2021.

 

[DEEKAYPEE8569]

The new Constitutional Carry Law will cost Tennessee "about $20 Million." I think the state will be okay.

 

[Kyle]

 

[GURPS]

Reality check on gun control


The great challenge of gun control advocates is convincing enough people, or their representatives in Congress, that the next policy will do the trick and put a giant dent in gun violence. Unfortunately, most of the advocated proposals have three issues to overcome:

1. They typically target legal activity. The overwhelming number of gun owners follow federal and state laws. Criminals do not. New regulations on gun ownership would burden lawful owners while doing little to combat crime.
2. The proposals themselves would have minimal, if any, impact on gun violence.
3. The new ideas don't address the problem of enforcement, particularly as it relates to background checks.

[clip]

The three most significant policies gun control advocates hope to pass are the "assault weapons" ban, a limit on magazine capacity, and background checks for any sale or transfer that falls outside the already required law for such purchases.

The ban on scary-looking rifles is all theater. The reality is, more people are murdered every year by someone with a knife or their bare hands. No data or research shows that limiting the capacity of magazines has any sizable effect on gun violence. The same goes for "assault weapons" that incorrectly get labeled as "weapons of war" or "military weapons." More than any other firearm, handguns are used in the majority of crimes in the United States.

As for background checks on private sales, advocates cite the high approval such policies get in public opinion polls. Still, it's another idea that does little to stop criminals from committing crimes. The Chicago Tribune reviewed 19 mass shootings going back to 2012 and found that in only one did the perpetrator obtain the firearm through a private transaction. All the other perpetrators passed a federal background check.
Studies about universal background checks have shown little impact on crime. A study by researchers at the University of California, Davis and Johns Hopkins examined California's misdemeanor violence prohibition and comprehensive background check policies and concluded they "were not associated with changes in firearm homicides in California."

 

[GURPS]

Mental Health Objections are a Canard IMHO - yet AGAIN Another Mass Shooter everyone ' knew ' was nuts - His on family notified police and he was INTERVIEWED by the FBI

LEGALLY Purchased the 2 weapons at the end of 2020

 

[GURPS]

USA Today Notes That FedEx Shooter Acquired Guns 'Legally,' Accidentally Makes a Key Gun Rights Point



In a clear attempt to make what the left considers a key point in its never-ending quest for stricter gun laws in America, USA Today on Friday gleefully noted that alleged FedEx shooter Brandon Hole used two “legally” purchased rifles to kill eight people and himself at the FedEx Ground Operations Center in an Indianapolis suburb on Thursday night.

Instead, USA Today and other media outlets inadvertently and ironically made a key point that gun-rights advocates have been making for years.



Here’s how USA Today described it — the beginning of which is an irrelevant and obvious lie — but a lie just the same (emphasis, mine).

Indianapolis police said late Saturday that Hole used two assault rifles in the massacre.
Police said that a trace of the two guns revealed that Hole legally bought the rifles in July and September last year.
Police said officials could not share where Hole bought the guns at the time, citing the ongoing investigation.

Nonsense. I live here. I’ve seen every major news conference relative to the shooting. Police did not say anything about “assault rifles” — and why would they? Why would a law enforcement official, who knows full well that “assault rifles” don’t exist, use a term to identify weapons that don’t exist? For the umpteenth time, semiautomatic rifles are not “assault rifles,” or my fave, nonsensical hyperbolic term — “weapons of war.”


Here’s just a partial list of other attackers who obtained their firearms by complying with gun control laws, as compiled by Breitbart News:

• Parkland high school attacker (February 14, 2018)
• Texas church attacker (November 5, 2017)
• Las Vegas attacker (October 1, 2017)
• Alexandria attacker (June 14, 2017))
• Orlando attacker (June 12, 2016)
• UCLA gunman (June 1, 2016))
• San Bernardino attackers (December 2, 2015)
• Colorado Springs attacker (October 31, 2015)
• Umpqua Community College attacker (October 1, 2015)
• Alison Parker’s attacker (August 26, 2015)
• Lafayette movie theater attacker (July 23, 2015)
• Chattanooga attacker (July 16, 2015)
• Alleged Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal attacker (Jun 17, 2015)
• Muhammad Carton Contest attackers (May 3, 2014)
• Las Vegas cop killers (June 9, 2015)
• Santa Barbara attacker (May 23, 2014)
• Fort Hood attacker (April 2, 2014)
• Arapahoe High School attacker (December 13, 2013)
• D.C. Navy Yard attacker (September 16, 2013)
• Aurora movie theater attacker (July 20, 2012)
• Gabby Giffords’ attacker (January 8, 2011)
• Fort Hood attacker (November 5, 2009)
• Northern Illinois University attacker (February 14, 2008)
• Virginia Tech attacker (April 16, 2007).

In fact, noted Breitbart, the overwhelming majority of high-profile attackers acquire their guns by complying with background checks, rather than circumventing them, which makes a critical point. People with bad intentions, particularly when desperate, do bad things; regardless of which hoops they must jump through to be in a position to do them.

 

[BOP]

And I seem to be missing a 3D printer... what a total crock. Pass laws not knowing the first little thing about the facts of the issue. They just banned something that does not even exist. Lmao. Meanwhile....everyone in Montgomery county that wants to can continue to build firearms from 80% lowers.can do so.

Boating accident?

 

[Hijinx]

The crazy thing is that these people who got their guns by following the laws only encourages the gun-banners to make more restrictive laws. More laws that do not stop any person who has their mind set on killing someone to getting it done.

Laws only stop those who obey them.
They do nothing to stop anyone bent on violence.

 

[GURPS]

Poll: Americans Not Buying Into Democrats' Anti-Gun Panic Rhetoric


The anti-gun lobby is loud, well-funded, and a darling of the mainstream media. If someone were to awaken from a long coma and begin paying attention to the gun conversation in the American MSM, he or she would undoubtedly believe that most Americans are overwhelmingly in favor of much stricter gun laws or even abolishing the Second Amendment altogether.

That’s not really what is going on in the real world, which is a place that the MSM doesn’t travel to very often.

The anti-gun lobby is just one of the many puppet masters pulling the strings of the empty vessel occupying the Oval Office. They made their intentions known quite early and leaned on Biden to do something quickly. He obeyed his masters via executive action earlier this month. He had to do it that way because federal gun control legislation rarely gets passed (more on that in a moment).

Despite the overwhelming rhetoric machine that the anti-2A people have, a new poll shows that the American public’s taste for new and stricter laws has dropped a bit.

 

[GURPS]

Support For Gun Control Dropped After Parkland Shooting And Continues To Decline, Study Finds


Support for comprehensive gun control, according to a new study, has been declining since 2018 after reaching a peak following the mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida — and it hit a new low just this week.

The Washington Post reported Wednesday that a poll, conducted by the Post in connection with ABC News, found support for gun control at its lowest in years, despite a recent string of highly publicized mass shootings. Support for gun protections, notably, is up.

“The poll found that 50% of Americans support passing laws to reduce gun violence, down from 57% in 2018. 43% of Americans say the government should prioritize protecting the right to own guns, up from 34% in 2018,” according to Axios. “ The poll, conducted between April 18 and April 21, comes after a series of mass shootings in the U.S.: one that left eight people dead in several Asian spas in the Atlanta area, another that left eight dead at an Indianapolis FedEx warehouse, and one that killed 10 people in Colorado.”

 

[Hijinx]

Too many gun control laws now. Just use the ones we have and stop turning outlaws out early and giving them easy sentences.

 

[GURPS]

Joe Biden’s Gun Lie


They keep saying it, so we have to keep pointing out it’s not true. Joe Biden’s address tonight had plenty of falsehoods about guns, but one that might not get enough attention is his claim about the “assault weapon” ban. After lamenting recent mass shootings, Biden said (from the prepared text):

In the 1990s, we passed universal background checks and a ban on assault weapons and high—capacity magazines that hold 100 rounds that can be fired in seconds.
We beat the NRA. Mass shootings and gun violence declined.
But in the early 2000s, that law expired and we’ve seen the daily bloodshed since.

Biden is insinuating that once the Federal Assault Weapons Ban sunsetted in 2004, gun violence skyrocketed. It simply wasn’t so. The rate of gun homicide continued falling for more than a decade after the ban ended, even though gun ownership exploded. From 2006, overall homicides fell ten out of 14 years. Twenty-one years after a gun violence peaked in 1993, and a decade after the assault-weapon ban ended, homicides by firearms hit a historic low. By that time, the AR-15 had become the most popular rifle in the country. In 2004, there were 14,536 overall homicides in the United States. In 2019, the last year on record, there were 14,185. During that span, Americans bought north of 100 million new guns. That trend has only accelerated the past two years. Even in years gun homicides didn’t fall, the spikes had little to do with “assault weapons,” since the rifle is used in only fraction of gun crimes. And “assault weapons” had even less to do with gun violence when the ban was passed in the 1990s. Though there is no question mass shooters tend to gravitate towards AR-15s today, there is also no evidence that mass shooting themselves increased after the ban lifted, either.

 

[GURPS]

ATF's Proposed Rules Threaten a Legal Mess but No End to Ghost Guns


There is a lot of verbiage in here, but from the perspective of DIY gun makers, one key term is "readily be converted," as in "weapon parts kits that are 'designed to' or 'may readily be converted' to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive are 'firearms' under the [Gun Control Act of 1968]." And yes, the ATF explicitly refers to 80 percent receivers in this context.

So, what does "readily be converted" mean? According to the ATF, "readily" describes "A process that is fairly or reasonably efficient, quick, and easy, but not necessarily the most efficient, speedy, or easy process." The ATF defines "readily" by eight factors "with no single one controlling" including time, ease, expertise, equipment, availability of additional necessary parts, expense, scope, and feasibility.

That's a pretty wide-ranging set of criteria that potentially encompasses an awful lot, including kits based around AR-15 upper receivers that have not previously been regarded as firearms. The rules can have a far broader reach than that, though, given that the ATF has previously claimed that toy airsoft guns can be turned into firearms. In an age of jigs, online instructional videos, CNC machines, home workshops, 3D printers, and other conveniences that put many projects within reach of hobbyists, it's not obvious where a line will be crossed with the legally fraught goulash of factors that make something readily convertible into a firearm by ATF definition.

An industry insider told me that the ATF obviously is trying to give itself latitude to determine whatever it wants about what constitutes a firearm without objective standards. This way it can evoke any interpretation that seems politically expedient at the moment.

But there are limits even to vague language. The ATF allows that an object must be "clearly identifiable as an unfinished component part of a weapon" to be subject to regulation and that "frame or receiver molds that can accept metal or polymer, unformed blocks of metal, and other articles only in a primordial state would not—without more—be considered a 'partially complete' frame or receiver." At some point, by necessity, a component stops short of being a firearm part and escapes regulation.