Jump to content

Gun Laws


kuhla
 Share

Recommended Posts

I watched the whole video and I don't like it. He talks about no longer having regular communication with the NRA but then goes on to practically trip over his own feet to apologize/justify what they have done so far to date. At this point in history, people need to make it clear if they are connected with the NRA or not and anything less than that feels decieving. Beyond that, the facts that he presented did not convince me Mulford Act was not primarily created and passed in reaction to the armed Black Panthers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
  • Replies 167
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

21 hours ago, Malaphax said:

I'd heard anecdotally that gun sales were way up, especially among first time buyers, but this article includes some ATF statistics which confirm that fact. 

https://www.npr.org/2020/07/16/891608244/protests-and-pandemic-spark-record-gun-sales

I saw a lot of anecdotes on reddit too about that.

In many ways I feel it is a positive sign but there is a part of me that is a little concerned with the idea of a huge influx of first time buyers. It was a panic purchase for them so do they have any sort of plan to be responsible with their new purchase? Are they going to go to the range periodically and practice? Are they going to store it safely?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yea it's a mixed bag.  On the one hand, I have a strong feeling that 40% of recent purchasers in more restrictive states like California, just got a taste of all the hoops they needed to jump through: Firearms Safety Certificate, 10 day (or more) DROS, background checks for ammo, safe storage requirements, etc.  I'm hoping that most of these people suddenly came to the realization that buying a gun was a long and somewhat onerous process.  I'm also hoping that since these new buyers had to take the firearms safety exam before purchasing that they now have at least the bare minimum of safety knowledge and safe storage knowledge - but I recognize that's probably me being way too optimistic. 

I suspect that since most ranges are shut down or providing limited service, and ammo prices are sky high, that very few of these new buyers were spending any significant time at the range practicing.

I sincerely and truly hope, that the majority of these gun sellers and range operators take extra care to be kind and cordial towards these new gun buyers because this could honestly be a make or break for gun legislation in California and Federally.  If new gun owners are treated with respect and given some basic education we could genuinely see a large shift away from some of the more onerous gun control laws that are currently being considered (and possibly even relax some current laws).  I know this is me basically making a wish upon a star, but I do believe that new gun owners are crucial in helping take away some of the more common stigmas about gun owners (predominantly white, rural and politically conservative) and help pressure legislators to stop creating new and unnecessary gun laws. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Minor bit of news, the New York AG is currently attempting to dissolve the NRA. 

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/08/06/new-york-nra-lawsuit-ag-james-accuses-gun-group-execs-of-self-dealing.html

There are multiple issues with the NRA, not the least of which is their leadership.  There are other better organizations like the 2nd amendment foundation or the gun owners of America and others that would increase in size if the NRA is shut down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Duncan vs Bacerra was ruled by the 9th circuit court of appeals today that standard capacity magazines are protected under the second amendment. 
There currently IS NOT a "freedom week" situation.  However a new order from Judge Benitez could open up a new freedom week, although that is extremely unlikely. 

Current estimates is that this will be immediately appealed and go to an en banc panel from the 9th circuit.

One key element is that the 9th circuit judges ruled that "strict scrutiny" should be applied to the 2nd amendment.  That's the harshest form of scrutiny and if this does become precedent it could have large implications on how future 2nd amendment legislation is handled by the judiciary. 

This breakdown is provided by the Firearms Policy Coalition:
https://www.firearmspolicy.org/9th-circuit-holds-large-capacity-firearm-magazines-protected-2nd-amendment

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

There's an increasing likelihood that the Supreme Court is going to need to rule on magazine capacity. 

Currently the 9th circuit federal appeals court (3 judge panel) ruled that standard capacity magazines were protected by the 2nd amendment.  This is pending an en banc review and could theoretically be overturned. 

The 3rd circuit court has now ruled that standard capacity magazines are NOT protected by the 2nd amendment. 
https://reason.com/2020/09/01/3rd-circuit-federal-appeals-court-says-large-capacity-magazine-bans-are-ok/

When a circuit split like this happens we see the cases get bumped up to the Supreme Court.  But none of this will move quickly, and I suspect even if this does end up in the supreme court it's going to be another 2-3 years from now. 

Ranting/Ravings under the spoiler

Spoiler

The supreme court and more specifically chief justice roberts pulled some grade A political bullshit and declined to hear 10 fucking cases back in June because he believed that ruling on a divisive issue during the current political turmoil wasn't a good look. 
So all these cases that had been piling up for 5-10 years were dismissed, and considering how often this stuff keeps coming up we're most likely going to see another 2nd amendment case come up to SCOTUS sometime in the next few years. 
I think his move was cowardice.  He didn't want to "give a big win" to conservatives and possibly helping out the trump campaign, or "switch sides" and join the liberals which would have incensed the republicans and possibly led to even more court stacking or even more aggressively conservative justices being nominated in the future.  I get that the Supreme Court tries to be politically neutral and that's incredibly hard when they have to make extremely difficult decisions that affect the entire nation - but that's literally their fucking job.  There's basically no chance the 2nd amendment is going to get changed, so they need to sack up and rule on it.  I'm sick of this goddamn patchwork of bullshit that literally makes you a felon depending on the state you're in, and sometimes even the city. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
On 7/16/2020 at 12:09 PM, Malaphax said:

I'd heard anecdotally that gun sales were way up, especially among first time buyers, but this article includes some ATF statistics which confirm that fact. 

https://www.npr.org/2020/07/16/891608244/protests-and-pandemic-spark-record-gun-sales

Another article talking about the huge increase in gun sales, up 91% year over year for March-September period. 

https://news.yahoo.com/u-voters-agree-one-thing-190444273.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Malaphax said:

Another article talking about the huge increase in gun sales, up 91% year over year for March-September period. 

https://news.yahoo.com/u-voters-agree-one-thing-190444273.html

After the vaccine is deployed widely I almost want to continue to avoid the local indoor range for a while. The idea of so many first timer owners possibly going to the range for the first time scares me a bit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

So the ATF is considering going after the "pistol brace" it's-really-not-a-shoulder-stock market that was skirting around barrel length requirements. I'm not sure if the precedence is a good one but these things have been a pretty blatant example of people trying to find ways around a particular law for a while now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

straight from the source - https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/04/07/fact-sheet-biden-harris-administration-announces-initial-actions-to-address-the-gun-violence-public-health-epidemic/?fbclid=IwAR2D_i9ygUU6XPTVR4zp_Rfz0wOcy2Z0930kjzKgplWZX7v_3eI3CpwIjV8

It might very well turn into something bigger later but this initial statement is smaller than I think people are making it out to be. I'm going to laugh if this is all he does and people start praising him for being "tough on gun violence".

  1. The Justice Department, within 30 days, will issue a proposed rule to help stop the proliferation of “ghost guns.”
    • This the "80%" builds. I think a lot of people have seen the writing on the wall for a long time that something was probably going to be done about them eventually. It probably will not (and can not) address true made-at-home-from-scratch builds which I bet will still leave room for 3D printed stuff.
  2. The Justice Department, within 60 days, will issue a proposed rule to make clear when a device marketed as a stabilizing brace effectively turns a pistol into a short-barreled rifle subject to the requirements of the National Firearms Act.
    • My last post in this thread is about that. Another item that has been kind of obviously trying to play with a loophole. Strict definitions have a funny way of back-firing though....
  3. The Justice Department, within 60 days, will publish model “red flag” legislation for states.
    • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_flag_law
    • These already exist in multiple states including CA. I would not be surprised if they even use the CA law as the "model". Lots of conversation can be had on this one item alone. There is a risk of it being abused.
  4. The Administration is investing in evidence-based community violence interventions.
    • Something to throw money into. Maybe just political pork.
  5. The Justice Department will issue an annual report on firearms trafficking.
    • Good? Maybe? I'm not sure what the downside of this would be. Trafficking is a problem.
  6. The President will nominate David Chipman to serve as Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms.
    • No idea what this means long term but the whole thing about having this positions that are just perpetually empty just seems stupid.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, kuhla said:

straight from the source - https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/04/07/fact-sheet-biden-harris-administration-announces-initial-actions-to-address-the-gun-violence-public-health-epidemic/?fbclid=IwAR2D_i9ygUU6XPTVR4zp_Rfz0wOcy2Z0930kjzKgplWZX7v_3eI3CpwIjV8

It might very well turn into something bigger later but this initial statement is smaller than I think people are making it out to be. I'm going to laugh if this is all he does and people start praising him for being "tough on gun violence".

  1. The "ghost guns" situation is more virtue signaling than real legislation.  My limited understanding of existing legal precedent is that you are allowed to make your own guns.
    "Best case" would be they ban the sale of 80% kits that include everything needed to manufacture in a single purchase, maybe you need to buy multiple parts individually. 
    "Worst case" they try to actively ban 80% builds - do they set a new threshold? Are we just going to move the goal posts to 50% or something along those lines?  None of that stops 3d printing lowers and buying parts. 
    "Unthinkable case" they try to heavily restrict, with background checks, the sale of firearm components - California is currently trying this.  I think you run into serious issues because you either need to completely redefine what a firearm is or you just open yourself up to major lawsuits (can you ban barrels? ejectors? springs? a piece of metal? what's the cutoff?).
    I would imagine any of these barring simple banning of 80% kits will end up in front of the Supreme Court and have a decent chance of winning. 
  2. The brace thing is dumb, it's about as dumb as the bump stock thing.  One point to consider, I saw some estimates of ~4 Million braces currently in circulation in US - which could theoretically make a large number of people felons overnight.  More likely they'll do the bumpstock thing and have a window for people to "turn them in" which still raises a lawsuit issue of not providing compensation for previously lawful purchases.  Also you could theoretically argue that those parts are in "common usage" under Heller.  I don't think that's a great argument and I would prefer ATF update the NFA and their stupid rules regarding barrel lengths and what is and isn't a pistol. 
    I'm not going to start screaming slippery slope, because I do believe braces are a loophole, but my concern is that we start seeing other "dangerous" parts get banned - in before they go full California and start banning pistol grips.
  3. Speaking of slippery slopes.  Red Flag laws are a very slippery slope.  The current rules in California allow a large number of people that aren't friends or close relationships to ask for these restraining orders.  A coworker or teacher/instructor that you never talk to could overhear something about you going to a gun range and report you.  I can at least understand the idea of a spouse, close family member or long-term relationship being able to report someone - but only if these cases are reviewed and handled quickly (currently I have zero faith the justice department can handle any cases with speed let alone something that could potential disarm someone and strip a constitutional right). 
    Semi-related article talking about people in prison waiting for trails for YEARS and the pandemic has made this problem worse.  How long would that gun violence restraining order last?
  4. Sounds like political bullshit
  5. I'm fine with more data - curious if they'll also report on failed government programs like "fast and furious" my guess would be they'll bury those.
  6. This dude is a fucking hack.  He worked at ATF for 25 years (fine) but has spent the last 5-10 basically lobbying for gun control.  He's been in front of congress as well as done interviews with Chinese state media as a "gun control expert" and generally comes off as a major gun grabber.  I understand having someone in the position that will follow the president's policy decisions, but expect even more bullshit from the ATF if he's confirmed. 

Broad notes:  During the pandemic we saw a MASSIVE increase in firearms sales, and from multiple sources a large portion (~40%) of those sales were to first time customers and/or people of color.  I understand the democratic party wants to look like they're doing something regarding gun violence, and while I agree that this looks like more noise than action; I need to see how these executive orders get implemented and the ATF appointment doesn't make me feel good about that.  The democrats are doing a great job of making it even harder to hold any seats in the upcoming elections, you're going to lose single issue voters who might have held their nose to vote for biden (probably a small number), and you're going to make any democrat running in a red state have to defend these policies which isn't a great look. 
There's also some general issues I have with the broad usage of executive orders, especially as some of these could be seen as reducing a constitutional right.  I would be more pissed about this if congress wasn't absolutely dysfunctional. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Again I found myself in the annoying position that I just wanted some article with a nice short list of bullet points summarizing what Biden talked about last night in his speech. Could not find one quickly so again I am going back to the original source (whitehouse). At least the whole section about guns it's not THAT long so I just pasted it below.

source - https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2021/04/29/remarks-by-president-biden-in-address-to-a-joint-session-of-congress/

Quote

....

I know how hard it is to make progress on this issue.  In the ’90s, we passed universal background checks, a ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines that hold 100 rounds that can be fired off in seconds.  We beat the NRA.  Mass shootings and gun violence declined.  Check out the report in over 10 years.  But in the early twe- — 2000s, the law expired, and we’ve seen daily bloodshed since.  I’m not saying if the law continued, we wouldn’t see bloodshed.  

More than two weeks ago in the Rose Garden, surrounded by some of the bravest people I know — the survivors and families who lost loved ones to gun violence — I laid out several of the Department of Justice a- — actions that are being taken to — impact on this epidemic. 

One of them is banning so-called “ghost guns.”  These are homemade guns built from a kit that includes directions on how to finish the firearm.  The parts have no serial numbers, so they show up at crime scenes and they can’t be traced.  The buyers of these ghost gun kits aren’t required to pass any background check.  Anyone, from a criminal or terrorist, could buy this kit and within 30 minutes have a weapon that’s lethal.  But no more.

And I will do everything in my power to protect the American people from this epidemic of gun violence, but it’s time for Congress to act as well.  (Applause.)

Look, I don’t want to become confrontational but we need more Senate Republicans to join the overwhelming majority of Democrat colleagues and close the loopholes requiring a background check on purchases of guns.  We need a ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines.  And don’t tell me it can’t be done.  We did it before, and it worked.

Talk to most responsible gun owners and hunters. They’ll tell you there’s no possible justification for having 100 rounds in a weapon.  What do you think — deer are wearing Kevlar vests?  (Laughter.)  They’ll tell you that there are too many people today who are able to buy a gun but shouldn’t be able to buy a gun.

These kinds of reasonable reforms have overwhelming support from the American people, including many gun owners.  The country supports reform and is — and Congress should act.

This shouldn’t be a red or blue issue.  And no amendment to the Constitution is absolute.  You can’t yell “Fire!” in a crowded theater.  From the very beginning, there were certain guns, weapons, that could not be owned by Americans.  Certain people could not own those weapons ever. 

We’re not changing the Constitution; we’re being reasonable.  I think this is not a Democrat or Republican issue; I think it’s an American issue.

....

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...
  • 2 months later...

Glad to see this getting some additional media coverage. 

They correctly point out that a large number of armed black 2nd amendment supporters marched through Tulsa Oklahoma on the anniversary of the Tulsa race massacre and there were no incidents.  Additionally we've seen a marked increase in "left leaning" groups promoting getting armed, and creating more inclusive alternatives to the NRA and traditional gun rights organizations.  There are also protestor groups now realizing that while unarmed protests can be successful, police have in the past been more prone to brutalizing protestors when they know they're unarmed. 

I don't think we're at a tipping point, as these left leaning and minority gun rights groups still make up a small percentage of gun owners, but we're seeing some momentum that undercuts some of the appeals for gun control legislation from the democratic party.  Sadly the septuagenarians we have running the DNC still think it's worth spending political capital to try and push for more strict gun control legislation. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

https://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/attorney-general-bonta-secures-victory-lawsuit-challenging-california’s-ban

Duncan V Bonta was ruled on by an 11 judge panel of the 9th circuit court of appeals.  They have upheld the law stating that purchase AND POSSESSION of magazines over 10 rounds are illegal.

There's some additional judicial fiddly business still pending, namely this goes back to Judge Benitez's desk so he can make a final ruling (as directed by the 9th circuit).  There's also the additional chance for an appeal to the Supreme Court.  It is unlikely (but possible) that Benitez could stay the ruling pending appeal (which is the current status). 

I can't say I'm surprised by this ruling at all.  However, there is a very real chance of this being taken to the Supreme Court and potentially being ruled on by the conservative majority.  There is another 2nd amendment case currently on their docket (expected ruling in April 2022) so that should give some indication as to how it might be ruled on.  There are another handful of cases including a magazine capacity case from New Jersey in line waiting for a Scotus appeal, which could be combined with Duncan V Bonta or completely ignored. 
Also there were several other California cases that were put on pending status until Duncan V Bonta was resolved - this means we may see additional restrictions come down quickly (in the judicial sense of the word) as those cases are freed up to proceed.  This includes additional bans on "assault weapons" and various attempt to limit the 2nd amendment rights. 

Also this is directly from Judge Van Dyke's dissent:

Quote

If ever there was a case study illustrating Madison’s concern about “evil lurking under plausible disguises, and growing up from small beginnings,” it is our circuit’s Second Amendment jurisprudence. In the thirteen years since the Supreme Court ruled in Heller that the Second Amendment “guarantee[s] the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation,” 554 U.S. at 592, our court has trimmed back that right at every opportunity—to the point that now, in the nine Western states covered by our court, the right to “keep and bear arms” means, at most, you might get to possess one janky handgun and 2.2 rounds of ammunition, and only in your home under lock and key. That’s it.
That’s ridiculous, and so I must respectfully dissent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

https://www.npr.org/2021/12/12/1063489922/california-governor-gavin-newsom-assault-weapons-ban-texas-abortion-law

Quote

SACRAMENTO, Calif. — California Gov. Gavin Newsom on Saturday pledged to empower private citizens to enforce a ban on the manufacture and sale of assault weapons in the state, citing the same authority claimed by conservative lawmakers in Texas to outlaw most abortions once a heartbeat is detected.

State Sen. Brian Dahle, a Republican from Bieber, would oppose the plan but predicted it could probably pass California's Democratic-dominated state Legislature. He said the proposal was most likely a stunt for Newsom to win favor with his progressive base of voters ahead of a possible run for president in the future.

"The right to bear arms is different than the right to have an abortion. The right to have an abortion is not a constitutional amendment. So I think he's way off base," Dahle said. "I think he's just using it as an opportunity to grandstand."

Link to comment
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...
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...