Gun Laws

[kuhla]

It looks like this issue is going to heat up in the near future. Briefly skimming over what I have posted previously in this thread, I think I mainly feel the same way now that I did then.

 

source - http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-33646704

 

 

President Barack Obama has admitted that his failure to pass "common sense gun safety laws" in the US is the greatest frustration of his presidency.

 

In an interview with the BBC, Mr Obama said it was "distressing" not to have made progress on the issue "even in the face of repeated mass killings".

 

He vowed to keep trying, but the BBC's North America editor Jon Sopel said the president did not sound very confident.

 

However, Mr Obama said race relations had improved during his presidency.

 

Hours after the interview, a gunman opened fire at a cinema in the US state of Louisiana, killing two people and injuring several others before shooting himself.

....

 

But with just 18 months left in power, he said gun control was the area where he has been "most frustrated and most stymied" since coming to power in 2009."

 

If you look at the number of Americans killed since 9/11 by terrorism, it's less than 100. If you look at the number that have been killed by gun violence, it's in the tens of thousands," Mr Obama said.

....

 

"For us not to be able to resolve that issue has been something that is distressing," he added.

Mr Obama has pushed for stricter gun control throughout his presidency but has been unable to secure any significant changes to the laws.

[Malaphax]

Generally these issues are mostly mental health related. Although the issue with the Charleston shooter was in fact a very badly written law that only allowed 3 days for an FBI background check. That particular law is quite frankly abysmally written and a very large factor in why that tragedy occurred.

 

If people have mental health issues they can do harm, if they happened to have access to a firearm this increases their ability to do harm.

 

On the other end of the spectrum was the recent news about a deceased man's house containing over 1200 firearms and 2 tons of ammunition.

http://www.laweekly.com/news/1-200-guns-2-tons-of-ammo-found-at-dead-mans-house-5825193

 

This is where I get annoyed. The man owned these weapons legally (so far no reports have claimed otherwise), and while I admit that the amount of weapons he owned could have armed an african militia, I'm not on board with the LAPD deciding to seize his personal property. I don't believe that there's proper legal grounds for the seizing of his property, unless the police have credible evidence that he used one of these firearms to commit a crime. What's worse is I've heard reports that a significant number of the firearms were still in their original manufacturers packaging with price tags still attached.

[ren]

I think the main reason they seized was because the man is deceased, thats what I got from it at least.

[Malaphax]

His death was found to be from natural causes. If the man had a will, or heirs or family his property should be given to them. If you die the government does not suddenly receive the right to seize your assets, and even if he had no will and no family there would be probate proceedings not wholesale asset seizure.

The LAPD claims they did this to "secure" his property and keep these firearms from being stolen. My issue with this claim is that the man himself was sitting dead in an SUV for almost 2 weeks, and the vast majority of his firearms were located in a garage or in his backyard. Once again I'm not sure where they're claiming to find the legal jurisdiction to go into a persons residence (deceased or not) and actively seize/inventory all of his firearms. I also don't think this would fly in nearly any other state. What's worse is that the LAPD will most likely destroy the majority of these guns or charge an inordinate amount of fees to release them to his family if they request it.

[Jedi2155]

Weren't we talking about transfer of ownership for guns recently? If you die, then your right to own the gun becomes null and void especially if it was a pre-ban weapon. Its ownership cannot be transferred to a new owner and thus the only option would be to destroy it?

[Malaphax]

http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/Inheriting_firearms,_both_within_California_and_Interstate

 

If the gun is inherited legally they just need to file with the DOJ, no paperwork and no FFL is needed. The exception is assault weapons which cannot be transferred by inheritance, this is to do with the ban. Also you can still legally sell the assault weapon to an authorized dealer, you do not have to destroy it.

 

Also, let's assume this man did not have a will, these items would be part of his estate and subject to probate, they would be handled by the court appointed administrator/executor. They would value the firearms and seek to equitably transfer the firearms to family members that have legal standing to inherited them, or sell them and provide a cash value of the firearms.

 

The short answer is that this is a rather large overreach by the LAPD. I haven't heard what legal basis they're using for the seizure other than: to check that all these (dangerous) firearms are lawfully owned and have not been used in connection with any crimes. They wouldn't have given a flying shit if this guy had only a handful of guns on his property, but because he had a very large cache of firearms it's suddenly necessary for the LAPD to seize and check his estate's property.

 

If you're still wondering why I consider this crazy, imagine if you owned a car collection, and you had your entire garage filled with them, do you think it would be reasonable after you died that the authorities should come in and seize your cars and check if they were all appropriately registered and had not been used in any hit and run accidents? No that would be complete bullshit and a huge overreach, but this is California and we have a very negative bias towards firearms here.

[Jedi2155]

Oh no, I entirely consider it crazy, but the question now is there family who would be willing to fight for possession of such arms to resale. I agree that it is over reach but the question is if there is relatives who would be willing to fight it.

[kuhla]

Interesting note I have come across. With the recent shootings at Umpqua Community College there has been a wealth of new discussion about gun laws. I'm seeing a lot of people citing that the shooter passed background checks so the current ones are really kind of worthless so they need to be better or there is not point in them, etc.

 

However I have found only a small handful of sites citing that fact but none of the major ones seemed to word it quite like that. There is one statement from the FBI that he "legally owned/accessed" all the firearms used. Nothing about background checks and they have not been required on all types of purchases (private vs retail) until very recently (some of the changes having happened this year).

 

Some weird playing around with details on that point....

[Malaphax]

Here's a recent Poll from Gallup that suggests 56% of Americans sampled believe an increase in concealed carried permit holders would make the US more safe.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/186263/majority-say-concealed-weapons-safer.aspx

 

The interesting breakdowns I saw were the very large shift in the male vs female view (females not as strongly for, much closer spread) and the skew towards younger Americans.

[Jedi2155]

Interesting how now 86% support stronger background checks.

[kuhla]

With everything that happened yesterday in San Bernadino there is a lot of talk about a push for new gun laws since even the president alluded to it in one of his press conferences. He mentioned banning people from owning who are on the no-fly list which is kind of odd. It's a pretty nebulous list that has a very checkered history. Early reports are saying all the firearms involved in the attack were purchased legally but looks like some of them were purchased by "other parties" outside the area.

[kuhla]

malaphax and I had a chance to talk about this a little yesterday offline but at the time I had not read any of the details yet. Now that I have...

 

source - http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-35229294

 

....

 

Under the plan announced on Monday evening by the White House:

• All sellers must be licensed and conduct background checks, overturning current exemptions to some online and gun show sellers
• States must provide information on people disqualified due to mental illness or domestic violence
• FBI will increase workforce processing background checks by 50%, hiring more than 230 new examiners
• Congress will be asked to invest $500m (£339m) to improve access to mental healthcare
• The departments of defence, justice and homeland security will explore "smart gun technology" to improve gun safety

....

 

 

....I'm actually OK with all of that (provided there is no devil-in-the-details) but I would still prefer it not happen because it's another example of ham-fisted executive actions to "get around" the legislature. I realize that, compared to recent presidents, the number of executive orders is not that much higher with this president but I still don't like them and would prefer to see less of them.

[Malaphax]

The full announcement should be coming later today. I expect plenty of devil in the details issues.

 

I don't have any issues with increased background checks or indeed with hiring more FBI examiners. Frankly this is an easy sell and I doubt even NRA or other gun advocacy groups would oppose this.

Where I get a little bit worried is how some of these federal mandates start clashing with existing state gun laws. Certain states have laws that background checks have to be completed in 3 days, and if the check is not completed it is essentially ignored. I'm of the opinion that the FBI should have a workforce capable of meeting those time limits, but right now I'm not sure that's the case.

 

I would also love to see the NIH and CDC bans on gun research removed. While there's certainly a chance of researcher bias, I would rather we had solid data to reference than the piecemeal research we currently have. For some reason the government seems to be cutting back funding for data gathering in several areas, not just gun research, I dislike this trend immensely.

 

I fully expect nearly everything the president tries to enact to be challenged in court. I also expect further weirdness in state gun laws to continue unabated.

 

Above all this, I expect a continued increase in gun purchases and prices for the foreseeable future.

[kuhla]

I expect plenty of devil in the details issues.

....

 

The whitehouse.gov document - https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2016/01/04/fact-sheet-new-executive-actions-reduce-gun-violence-and-make-our

 

People on reddit are pointing to the sections about mental health and noting that this is essentially creating an equivalent to the no-fly list for firearm ownership.

 

The doc even mentions HIPAA concerns in passing:

 

 

....

 

Some State officials raised concerns about whether such reporting would be precluded by the Privacy Rule issued under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA). Today, the Department of Health and Human Services issued a final rule expressly permitting certain HIPAA covered entities to provide to the NICS limited demographic and other necessary information about these individuals.

....

 

...but just like the criticism of the no-fly list: What gets a name on that list? Why? How? How much is HIPAA undermined by this? Will people avoid seeking mental health support if they are afraid of getting on this list?

 

It's all very vague and I have to wonder if that is entirely intentional.

[kuhla]

source - http://www.courthousenews.com/2016/03/01/calif-lawmakers-tackle-guns-with-trio-of-bills.htm

 

3 more laws being worked on for CA.

 

 

....

 

Three Democratic-sponsored proposals cleared the Assembly Public Safety Committee 5-2 on a party-line vote. The gun-control measures move next to an appropriations board where lawmakers will vote on the laws' fiscal impact.

....

 

... Assembly Bill 1674, is crucial to closing a loophole on long-gun purchases - rifles and shotguns - and slowing gun sales in California. [limit Californians to one long-gun purchase per month]

....

 

Another bill to prohibit gun manufacturers from selling weapons with a "bullet button" also passed the committee Tuesday. Assemblyman Marc Levine, D-San Rafael, said AB 1664 prevents the current practice of gun manufacturers exploiting state laws by creating ways for users to quickly detach magazines.

....

 

The committee also advanced AB 1663, which too addresses guns manufactured with "bullet buttons." The proposal requires semi-automatic rifles sold in California to be built with magazines that can't be detached.

....

 

If you don't know what a "bullet button" is - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullet_button

 

Firearm enthusiasts can be quick to exaggerate things but I find it really hard not seeing AB 1663 as an attempt, just one step short, of banning all rifles in CA.

[kuhla]

With recent events there has obviously been renewed interest in gun laws. I agree with most of the pundits that the mood is shifting and I think we will see stricter gun laws here in the near future. That being said, what form they will take I think is not so sure yet. Keep in mind that backgrounds checks, sales through licensed dealers, waiting period rules all vary a lot between states before we even get to "feature limitations" (bullet buttons, magazine capacity, etc.).

 

source - https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2016/06/20/senate-heads-for-gun-control-showdown-likely-to-go-nowhere/?wpisrc=al_alert-COMBO-politics%252Bnation

 

 

The Senate on Monday voted down four competing gun control proposals, allowing Democrats and Republicans to stake out political turf around a controversial, emotional issue that promises to play big in a campaign year.

The votes, which fell mostly along party lines, came as the debate over gun laws has been reinvigorated following the recent mass shootings at an Orlando nightclub popular with the gay community.

Despite both parties presenting proposals to tighten certain restrictions on buying a firearm, attempts to craft any compromise ran aground last week leading to Monday’s series of votes that served as a way for both sides to send political messages.

[...more at source...]

[kuhla]

source - http://www.reuters.com/article/us-hawaii-gun-law-idUSKCN0ZA3IP

Hawaii's governor signed a bill making it the first state to place its residents who own firearms in a federal criminal record database and monitor them for possible wrongdoing anywhere in the country, his office said.

The move by gun control proponents in the liberal state represents an effort to institute some limits on firearms in the face of a bitter national debate over guns that this week saw Democratic lawmakers stage a sit-in at the U.S. House of Representatives.

Hawaii Governor David Ige, a Democrat, on Thursday signed into law a bill to have police in the state enroll people into an FBI criminal monitoring service after they register their firearms as already required, his office said in a statement.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation database called "Rap Back" will allow Hawaii police to be notified when a firearm owner from the state is arrested anywhere in the United States.

"As you can imagine, the NRA finds this one of the most extreme bills we've ever seen," said Amy Hunter, a spokeswoman for the National Rifle Association's institute for legislative action.

The law could affect gun owners outside Hawaii, because the state requires visitors carrying guns to register, Hunter said.

As a result, they could be added to "Rap Back" because they arrived in the state with a gun, she said. The Hawaii attorney general's office said a weapon-carrying visitor should be able to petition for removal from the national database after leaving the state.

Hawaii state Senator Will Espero, a Democrat who co-authored the law and owns a gun, called it "common sense legislation that does not hurt anyone."

The law, which takes effect immediately, allows police in Hawaii to evaluate whether a firearm owner should continue to possess a gun after being arrested.

[...more...]

 

 

That's a new one (to me).

[Malaphax]

I find it amusing that federal databases always scare the shit out of some people, while others act like these databases will act as a catchall for wrongdoers. I think the truth about the databases is that they're very ineffective and only act as a means of control, often limiting otherwise lawful people from exercising their rights.

What crimes constitute enough of a danger that a person who owns a firearm should have their firearms taken away? Is this going to be a list of specific crimes or is it solely up to the discretion of the police departments? Who will confiscate these weapons and what will happen to them?

 

To my understanding in California if you get "flagged" for certain mental/medical issues the state can and will take away your firearms. Of course this creates several issues. It dissuades people who might need medical/mental health assistance from pursuing it because they might lose their rights. It creates a burden on police/state agencies to monitor and enforce/confiscate these weapons from people on the list (how is this paid for, how is it handled etc.) Last I heard anything about this particular effort in California there was a huge number of cases (20,000 - 30,000+) that had yet to be processed and were sitting in limbo:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2015/05/05/california-discovers-its-really-expensive-to-confiscate-peoples-guns/

 

Also I sincerely wish that any politician who used garbage talking point arguments were actually held accountable. I wish just once there was a reporter will the balls enough to ask "what makes this legislation 'common sense'?" or "how many shootings or gun related crimes would this new bill have prevented if it was enacted previously?" It really chaps my ass that legislators always seem to slide by without anyone throwing a halfway decent question at them.

[Jedi2155]

 

Of course this creates several issues. It dissuades people who might need medical/mental health assistance from pursuing it because they might lose their rights.

So you'd rather have an individual who needs mental/medical assistance to be still have the right to own firearms that may potentially injure others because of their issues?

 

I believe this legislation is absolutely common sense. If an individual committed an act that warranted the need to record the act in the database, another enforcement in the same COUNTRY should be able to access this information to determine if the individual is indeed dangerous rather than having that information be limited to a single state.

[Malaphax]

Just as an example. Many ex-service members of the military often suffer from depression, anxiety, and even PTSD. Some of these individuals might be low on the spectrum of mental illness and are capable of being normal functioning members of society, others might need some basic prescriptions in order to keep themselves on an even keel. If someone says to their doctor: "I've been feeling depressed lately" where does that rank on the spectrum? Once the doctor notes this in a person's file should that individual receive a lifetime ban? Can you at least understand this actively contributes to people keeping information from their doctors? I'd much rather people disclose possible mental health issues and seek treatment than worry about losing their rights just because they've been under stress or feel depressed.

 

I wasn't speaking about people who have been involuntarily committed to psychiatric care, I believe that anyone would agree with the fact that those people should be banned permanently from owning firearms. But what if you take a leave of absence from work because of stress? Should that ban you from firearm ownership for life?

 

Unfortunately every single system I've seen needs hard rules in order to be enforceable, and I've yet to see a clear set of rules beyond "involuntarily committed to a mental institution" that I would be willing to support lifetime firearms bans for. I know there has also been talk about domestic violence offenders being banned as well, does that mean every single violent offense should result in a ban? Felonies only? Violent felonies only?

Also just to be clear, the number one gun related death is suicide. While I'm not suggesting that suicide is a great course of action, the statistics would suggest that the majority of people who might be suffering from a mental issue and owning a firearm are more likely to use it on themselves than other people.

 

I don't pretend to offer great solutions, but I firmly believe you need to have very strong and defensible guidelines for when you take away a person's rights. But then again, I also believe previously convicted felons should still be able to vote.

[kuhla]

source - http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-sac-essential-politics-updates-gov-brown-signs-six-gun-control-bills-1467394282-htmlstory.html

I wish I could find a nicely formatted, comprehensive list but I can't so I'm chopping up the article and posting some parts here.

Gov. Jerry Brown on Friday signed six gun-control bills into law, including a requirement that ammunition purchasers undergo background checks. The governor vetoed five other measures, including an expansion of the use of restraining orders to take guns from people deemed to be dangerous.

 

 

I'm not exactly sure how the background checks on ammo purchases would work. Is Walmart going to run background checks now?

Brown approved bills that would ban the sale of semiautomatic rifles equipped with bullet buttons allowing the ammunition magazines to be easily detached and replaced.

 

 

So the sale is banned ..... but what about ownership?...

Bills the governor signed will:

— Require an ID and background check to purchase ammunition and create a new state database of ammunition owners

— Ban possession of ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 bullets.

— Restrict the loaning of guns without background checks to close family members.

Bills the governor vetoed would have:

— Clarified that theft of a firearm is grand theft and is punishable as a felony.

— Require those who make guns at home to register them with the state and get a serial number so the weapons can be tracked.

— Required stolen or lost guns to be reported within five days.

— Limited Californians to the purchase of one rifle or shotgun per month

 

 

I thought magazine capacities over 10 were already banned.... I don't get it.... maybe this was a sale and ownership thing....

[kuhla]

So it's 2017 which means some new gun laws just went into affect. Long story short, the thing to do now if you live in California and want to own a rifle is to make it "featureless" (unless you really want to get bent over twice instead of just once) which means:

1. Modify the current grip so that you cannot wrap your thumb around it (like this) or change it out for one that only allows the web of your thumb to be "above" the trigger (like this or this).
2. No forward grips of any kind.
3. No flash suppresser/hiders of any kind but muzzle breaks are ok (because they just so very different).
4. If you have an adjustable stock, it needs to be modified so it is not adjustable.

[Jedi2155]

My buddy alex said he had to send his rifle to the shop to get it legalized....I'm sickened by the sight of the mods but what can one do?

[T1no]

this soon be no longer in serious discussion.

[Malaphax]

California gun laws are serious, in the sense that the state restricts your constitutional freedoms. But also ridiculous because the legislators seem to be trying their best to ban guns by banning every component that makes up a gun.

 

I have a feeling that the newest Supreme court justice will be conservative leaning and that if we see cases like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peruta_v._San_Diego_Countywill make their way to the supreme court and have a strong likelihood of being struck down. I think considering the ages of several of the other justices, there's a strong chance that many of these arbitrary restrictions could be sent up the courts and eventually be struck down in favor of more reciprocal gun laws.

Then again there's a possibility that we'll see a resurgence in states rights rather than more national policy. Either way, I'd like to see some basic federal guidelines for what restrictions are acceptable and what infringe upon the citizens rights rather than the obnoxiously restrictive system we have in California.