Jump to content
 
Sign in to follow this  
kuhla

Gun Laws

Recommended Posts

California specific news.  Last Friday 3/29/19 a major provision of prop 63 was struck down.  Specifically the provision that limited the procession of magazines larger than 10 rounds.  Prior to 2000 these magazines were legal in California, and there was a grandfather provision set in place for anyone that owned magazines prior to 2000 when new gun restrictions were put in place.  Prop 63 has many different aspects but one of them was to strike the grandfather provision, which means anyone possessing these 10+ capacity magazines would need to turn them into the police or destroy (no compensation for this of course). 

Judge Robert Benitez ruled that this portion of prop 63 is unconstitutional.  The California gun owners decided to go absolutely nuts and bought a substantial amount of magazines over the last few days - in fact so much that most common magazines (5.56 and glock mags) are totally sold out of major retailers.  I've seen some retailers mention selling over 350,000 magazines over the weekend.  Of course the California AG is trying his best to stop this portion being ruled unconstitutional and asking for a stay.  If this stay was granted anyone who purchased/owned these 10+ mags would be criminals - and so several firearms merchants that sold these magazines are offering to testify to the Judge regarding the recent sales of these magazines to California residents  - which would undermine some of the arguments the California AG has made for this stay. 

https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_63,_Background_Checks_for_Ammunition_Purchases_and_Large-Capacity_Ammunition_Magazine_Ban_(2016)

Even more fun, the ammo purchase elements of prop 63 are also being challenged... and the judge who's handling the case... Judge Robert Benitez. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

City of LA is currently trying to have any contractors/lobbyists that have any connection to the NRA to make specific disclosures.  The NRA is now suing LA over this particular ordinance:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-los-angeles-nra-lawsuit/nra-sues-los-angeles-over-disclosure-law-for-contractors-idUSKCN1S01XF

There are some supreme court rulings that should prevent this type of discrimination against political groups.  Note that the website Reason is right leaning:

Quote

But the Supreme Court has made clear that the First Amendment generally bans (see O'Hare Truck Service, Inc. v. City of Northlake (1997)) the government from "retaliat[ing] against a contractor, or a regular provider of services, for the exercise of rights of political association"—precisely what the ordinance implicitly threatens.

https://reason.com/2019/02/13/los-angeles-demanding-that-city-contract/

As a followup.  The ACLU is currently suing Texas and Arizona for a similar laws that requires disclosure of any relations to the BDS movement.  Seeing as federal courts have been striking down these state laws, many expect that the NRA will have an easy time overturning this particular ordinance in LA. 

https://www.aclu.org/blog/free-speech/rights-protesters/laws-targeting-israel-boycotts-fail-again-court

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mixed messages from the current California government about current gun laws are becoming increasingly common.  You have the California Governor talking about the requirements for Real-ID to purchase ammunition and then the California DOJ comes out and says the Governor is wrong.

https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article231938023.html

Part of this problems stems from not just new laws taking effect, but the state itself imposing "emergency regulations" which can totally change the current legal landscape.

There's also questions regarding the prior legality of COE+FFL03 holders being able to purchase ammunition normally.  Several major online retailers have completely shut down online sales to California outside of shipping to full FFLs.  I'm not a legal expert but the new laws taking effect on 7/1/19 make no specific mention of new restrictions preventing COE+FFL03 holders from purchasing ammunition, but most online retailers don't seem interested in taking the risk of fighting with California.

I don't expect anything too fancy to happen on 7/1/19 other than the California system being garbage and not working properly (it's a feature not a bug).  I also expect that as these additional restrictions come into play there may be additional vendors that pull out completely from selling ammunition, but I could just be fearmongering.

There's a webinar happening about these new laws hosted by CRPA tomorrow, I suspect they'll post a condensed/text version eventually but that might all change shortly after 7/1/19 rolls around and legal theory crashes into reality.

Here's the current flowchart for ammo purchasing in California:

Ammo-Check-Options-CPRA-Logo-copywrite.j

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is some nice logic on that third column. "Is your personal info in our registration database? No? That's perfectly fine, not an issue, but you will have to pay 20x the fee until you we have that info."

(sarcasm)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"California's new ammo background check law blocked 100 sales in first month"

article - https://www.cbsnews.com/news/californias-new-ammo-background-check-law-blocked-100-sales-in-first-month/

So I guess this went into effect.

Quote

 

....

"Guns don't kill people," Newsom said, noting that it also requires ammunition.
....

 

Sidenote: I laughed out loud when I read this.

Quote

 

California's new ammunition background check law in its first month stopped more than 100 people from buying bullets illegally, officials said late Monday as they struggled to deter more of the mass shootings that have roiled California and other states over the last week.
....

Aside from the more than 100 who were prohibited, the state's filing says nearly 11,000 prospective buyers were denied immediate approval but were not determined to be barred from owning guns or buying ammunition. The state processed more than 57,000 such transactions in the first month, approving nearly 47,000 of them.

 

So 17% of sales were denied? That seems awfully high.

Not exactly a surprise. This seemed like it was going to be a mess since it was originally proposed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not suggesting reading all of this but obviously NPR and many news outlets are heavily focusing on gun laws and mass shootings right now. 
I want to give NPR credit, they're not mentioning the shooters name often, and they're taking the extra step of mentioning the victims and providing brief remembrances of their lives.  I think that's basically the ideal way to handle reporting on this issue, I noticed they adopted this policy during a previous mass shooting and they deserve respect for it. 

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2019/08/06/748767807/mass-shootings-can-be-contagious-research-shows

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2019/08/06/748607679/lawmakers-push-for-red-flag-laws-to-take-guns-away-from-people-in-crisis

Note about the red flag laws, California is one of 17 states that currently have red flag laws.  The Ohio governor is pushing his state to adopt them. 
California Governor Newsom is currently talking about widening the number of potential people that can report a person for a gun violence restraining order.  Gun rights activists are heavily against this, but joining them is the ACLU.  The ACLU is not a gun friendly organization, in fact they specifically mention that they do not believe the 2nd amendment is an individual right to bear arms (they focus on the militia component) but they're filing motions because they realize that broadening the red flag laws is a very slippery slope that does not provide any due process for the individual that is "flagged." 

Quote

So-called “red flag laws,” which provide for protective orders to remove guns from people who pose a significant risk to themselves or others, can also be a reasonable way to further public safety. To be constitutional, however, they must at a minimum have clear, nondiscriminatory criteria for defining persons as dangerous and a fair process for those affected to object and be heard by a court.

https://www.aclu.org/blog/mobilization/aclus-position-gun-control

When the ACLU is actively pushing back against gun control, the laws are bad. 

I'm not going to get into the bickering revolving around this tweet, but it is factually accurate.  The timing and tone however... wasn't in particularly good taste. 

https://twitter.com/neiltyson/status/1158074774297468928

Finally, as I do whenever there is a mass shooting.  I listen to any proposed new law regarding gun control and ask the simple question of: "Would this new law have prevented the recent mass shooting?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i honestly neil tweet doesn't bother me. but yeah timing prob the issues. and he posted in twitter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fresh off the presses, here's Uncle Joe talking out of his ass about gun confiscation or mandatory buyback? He doesn't fucking know either...
Note that Colion Noir is a major member of the NRA. 

While I don't completely buy into the argument that people should own guns in case we need to overthrow the government, I absolutely buy into the idea that people should own the most effective tools to protect themselves and their families. 
Secondly, many people currently dislike the Trump administration, and these are the same people that are suggesting we should strip people of their right to own guns.  I can't tell if they haven't thought that position all the way through, or if they feel certain that the Government will always be one that they agree with. 

Also as a sidenote, you absolutely can own a flamethrower in the united states, there's no federal laws against it - California and Maryland have state laws banning them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

im curious how do you guys feel about 2nd amendment. is it perfect do you think? is it clear? how its worded the way it is now ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not a fan of Colion Noir. Every once in a while I go back and re-read my original thread-starting-post from back in 2013. My views really have not changed. They clash heavily with his opinions.

I'm always surprised at the lack of discussion about gun laws in other countries. People love to post stats about lower gun deaths in western, modern countries like Germany but seemingly no one wants to actually talk about what their laws actually are.

Compared to California, in some ways, gun laws in Germany are less restrictive.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i dont think i did this but heres what im at

  • i don't own firearms would love to own one
  • expensive hobby but if i owned one i would have to go practice . to use it properly and be responsible about it.
  • kuhla took me shooting once and i enjoyed it
  • i think it should be like a car if you owned one you need a license and you need to prove it that you are capable to use it including safety, maintenance etc.
  • transfer? this is a hard one and i might not know all the current rules, loopholes, etc ... (i dont know)
  • you should not allowed to own a firearm if you have mental issues, past criminal records.
  • magazine capacity. i think most standard ar15 30 bullets magazine is fine. 
  • calibers im not sure i think they all can be lethal. sooo ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • im aware of many lame laws. 
  • bumpstock prob should be banned if we ban automatic fire.
  • ccw. is this true ? its pretty hard to get in california ? like ive seen video some one documenting how hard it is to get one. hindered.
  • 2nd amendment. it clearly says shall not be infringed. should it be changed ? im not sure on this one. changed one or take away some?  what about my other freedoms?
  • NRA ? ... too much money going on in there.
  • I think we can do more on the mental issues, social economic problems, educations, horrible parenting, and many other factors. we always had guns, violence and in-fact less firearms laws.
  • thats it for now

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, T1no said:

im curious how do you guys feel about 2nd amendment. is it perfect do you think? is it clear? how its worded the way it is now ?

Anytime somebody starts going off about "the 2nd amendment protects us from the government going mad" I just cannot take them seriously.

If we are going to play that mental game, I can only envision something like that happening in one of two ways: (1) the military absolutely demolishes everyone else because they have tanks, bombers, artillery, etc. or (2) the military refuses to turn on their fellow citizens. In both situations personal gun ownership makes zero real difference.

I would kind of like to see the 2nd updated with more specific language that maybe talks about defending oneself, ones property, ones family but removes references to "militias" but any changes would become political firestorm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've changed my opinion on gun laws from when this thread first started.  I'm probably more in favor of what most people would describe as rather loose gun laws. 

My main issues with many gun laws, such as the red flag laws and the german gun laws is that there are steps in the process that involve no real oversight. 
These laws are written as though there are no bad actors, they assume all parties are behaving rationally - which I don't think is very realistic. 
Example 1: German citizen wants to own guns, has to go to his doctor so they can write a note saying his mental health is not compromised, if the doctor does not act in good faith and decides owning guns is wrong/crazy/unneccessary, that person just lost the ability to own a firearm - and asking for a second opinion might not even be an option. 
Example 2: A family member or police officer do not like you (you were up playing video games late and night and were too loud) they could claim you represent a danger and this goes before a judge.  You are not told that this case is being handled, you don't get a chance to defend yourself against these claims.  If you are then "red flagged" police will show up to your door armed and ready (which can be dangerous) to take your guns away.  You then have to spend your own time and money to prove that you're innocent (this is the opposite of the American justice system) to get your guns back, and even then they might be destroyed by the police force during the time they've confiscated them. 

As far as the 2nd amendment, I'm willing to implement changes, but I also believe the constitution is a living document and we should be passing amendments on a regular basis. 

I think two proposals I would absolutely get behind are changing how we handle background checks for firearm purchases and implementing a tiered system for firearm ownership. 

Currently the NICS system is used when you purchase a firearm from an FFL, it's not a perfect system and people with common names can get screwed.  [Sidenote - our SSN system is jacked, we need proper national id]  One major suggestion for background checks is to provide a system that all citizens can access, so that it would cover private firearms sales as well as FFL/dealer sales.  Ideally a person should run their information into the system, and be given a sheet of paper that says "this person is not prohibited" they should provide this printout to the person who's selling the firearm and the seller should be able to verify the authenticity (think public/private encryption keys) and that "background check" should be good for 30 days.  The idea is that the government isn't storing a firearms database, and private sellers would be able to verify if the person they're selling to is allowed to own a firearm.  It's very similar to the proposal by Senator Colburn, and something resembling a system used in other European countries (Swiss I think?). 

The second proposal would be a tiered firearm ownership.  New Zealand has a similar class system, although much more restrictive.  The idea is that a normal citizen should be allowed to own basic firearms in normal calibers - ex rifles over with 16"+ barrels, shotguns, pistols etc.  Going up a class would provide access to more extensive options - short barreled rifles/shotguns, binary triggers/bumpstocks, magazines over 30 rounds (or over the standard capacity for the firearm), and finally the top tier would involve fully automatics and firearms over .50cal even weird stuff like restricted ammunition etc.  I think the average person should still be able to exercise their rights within reasonable limits, while more serious hobbyists should be able to enjoy their hobby with some additional checks involved.  Possibly getting live scanned and going through basic background checks, for higher licenses these checks would need to be redone on a regular basis to maintain them. 
I also dislike the idea of having to be a member of a gun club, I think that's just a barrier to entry, especially for more rural individuals.  I know many countries have that requirement and I just dislike it.  I also hate the idea that guns shouldn't be used for self defense, that seems like a tremendous issue with German gun laws, and quite honestly makes no sense. 

@ Tino
Firearms are expensive, mostly the ammo cost.  You'll end up shooting through the cost of the gun in ammo very quickly, but you should practice on a regular basis.  Safety is key and if you're not willing to take it seriously, don't own a gun. 
Yea CCW is tough to get in different parts of California, currently the Sheriff's department needs to interview you and you need to have "good cause" for why you need to carry a gun concealed.  While some people have tried to come up with some creative reasons, the sheriff's department can decide to deny you.  In general, you can get one, but there are certainly hoops to jump through, beyond the basic requirements.  Other states don't have these restrictions. 
I would like a federal license, standardized and not requiring good cause, but I know a bunch of states would go apeshit if that was proposed. 

The NRA is a terrible organization.  I generally dismiss them as an arm of the Republic party and not a gun rights organization, the Gun Owners of America seems to be a better organization that some people are migrating towards. 

@ Kuhla
Yea I don't always agree with Colion Noir, and sometimes I find him overly abrasive.  But he's also one of the few people in the NRA I have reasonable respect for.  I also believe we need minority gun owners to take a more prominent position to help normalize what gun ownership is.  I want to see every race and sexual orientation owning guns because it shuts down some of the major criticizes of the NRA and gun owners being old white dudes from the country. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wanted to post a clip from the podcast/show Left Right & Center, they focus primarily on politics but because of the recent shootings they had a discussion about gun laws, what's been proposed and what might be effective.  Honestly a large portion of this episode is worth listening to, but I've clipped a specific segment talking about proposed gun policy. 

Clip - (8:18 - 12:41): https://www.listennotes.com/clips/trump-says-hes-ready-for-gun-measures-73689gfK-Tu/

The conservative commentator brings up several points which I've heard before. 

  • First -  The expanded background checks being proposed would not have stopped the recent shooters from purchasing their firearms.  All of them were capable of passing background checks and acquired their guns legally. 
  • Second -  The AR-15 platform is the most widely sold rifle in this country and banning it simply for it's cosmetic looks isn't effective, there are other rifles with similar characteristics. 
  • Third - High-capacity magazine bans have limited efficacy.  Larger-capacity magazines have an increased risk of jamming/failing, and the parkland shooter specifically avoided large capacity magazines for this reason. 
    As an addendum, the Aurora shooter used a high capacity drum magazine, and it jammed on him.  The shooter was so flustered instead of trying to clear the jam, he abandoned the firearm entirely and switched to something else. 
    Source: https://www.cnn.com/2012/07/22/us/colorado-shooting-investigation/index.html

The liberal commentator believes that even with the Heller decision, that there's legal room to implement additional gun control.  The conservative commentator suggests an assault weapons ban might not pass the Heller decision.  Note the last time we had an assault weapons ban was in 1994, it lasted for 10 years.  But this was passed before the Heller decision created several rules regarding gun legislation one in particular, is that guns that are "in common use" have protections under the 2nd amendment.

At one point in the clip the conservative commentator mentions that the RAND corporation has reviewed options for gun legislation and determined they would not provide tangible benefits. 
Here's the RAND Corporation study: https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy.html
As a note, the RAND corporation has a centrist political leaning, and has received ~90% of their funding from democratic sources: https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/totals.php?id=D000036957&cycle=2018

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This article from the LA Times about San Diego's city attorney aggressively using red flag laws to seize guns from "dangerous individuals."
As a note this article appears to have a heavy gun-control bias, mentioning how the California attorney general is "defend[ing] against the firearms lobby"

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2019-08-11/skelton-gun-control-california-san-diego-city-attorney

While red flag laws can absolutely be used as a valid tool to take guns away from individuals that may pose a threat to themselves or others, the current laws need to take into account due process. 
If someone was "red flagged" they should be able to quickly have their case brought in front of a judge, otherwise there's a possibility of people losing their rights and property without due process. 
When these gun violence restraining orders are issued, it's followed up by an armed response from police - which could be compared to swatting.  This does carry a risk of causing a violent police confrontation. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...