Biden's Attack on 'Ghost Guns' Fits a Pattern of Lawless Firearm Regulation
The president and his predecessor both tried to impose gun control by executive fiat.

During his 2022 State of the Union address, President Joe Biden promised he would "keep doing everything in my power" to eliminate "ghost guns you can buy online and make at home." But Biden actually tried to do something that was not in his power: He purported to ban that previously legal business by administrative decree, provoking a preliminary injunction that was expanded last week.
In a rule that took effect last August, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) rewrote federal law in a vain attempt to prevent Americans from making their own guns. That rule is part of a pattern: The Biden and Trump administrations both have sought to unilaterally impose new gun controls, reversing longstanding ATF positions while defying the rule of law and the separation of powers.
Two Texas gun owners, a company that sells gun parts, and the Firearms Policy Coalition challenged the ATF rule in a lawsuit they filed on August 11 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas. Three weeks later, U.S. District Judge Reed O'Connor concluded that the plaintiffs were right that the ATF had exceeded its statutory authority.
Federal law defines a "firearm" as "any weapon" that "will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive." The definition also includes "the frame or receiver of any such weapon," meaning "the primary structural component of a firearm to which fire control components are attached."
From 1978 to 2022, the ATF's definition of firearms tracked that language by excluding partially manufactured frames or receivers. The new rule, O'Connor notes, "departs from nearly 45 years of ATF precedent" by classifying such parts as firearms when they are "designed to or may readily be" converted into frames or receivers.
The rule goes even further by treating parts kits as firearms when they are "designed to or may readily be" used to assemble a gun. Both of those extensions, O'Connor ruled, are inconsistent with the "plain language" of the law.
The ATF's about-face in service of Biden's gun control agenda threatened to destroy an industry that catered to DIY gun makers based on the agency's previous interpretation of the law. Tactical Machining, one of the original plaintiffs in this lawsuit, said the agency's edict, which transformed legal businesses into criminal enterprises, would wipe out more than 90 percent of its revenue.
Such bureaucratic reversals can also turn law-abiding gun owners into felons overnight. Consider the Trump administration's equally arbitrary ban on bump stocks, accessories that facilitate a rapid firing technique in which a rifle moves back and forth, repeatedly activating the trigger by bumping it against a stationary finger.
When that ban took effect in March 2019, gun owners who had legally purchased bump stocks were suddenly committing felonies punishable by a $250,000 fine and up to 10 years in federal prison, even though the law had not changed. In January, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit ruled that the ATF had no legal authority to impose the bump stock ban, which was based on an implausible redefinition of "machine gun" that contradicted the position that the ATF had taken for years.
A Biden administration rule that classified pistols with stabilizing braces as "short-barreled rifles," contrary to what the ATF had been saying for a decade, had a similar impact. It criminalized legal businesses and threatened customers who failed to register braced pistols with hefty fines and up to 10 years in prison.
In a federal lawsuit filed last month, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton argues that the pistol brace rule, like the ATF's redefinitions of firearms and machine guns, was never authorized by Congress. Whatever you might think about the merits of these policies, the system of government designed by the Framers does not allow the executive branch to legislate under the guise of regulation.
© Copyright 2023 by Creators Syndicate Inc.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
“The Biden and Trump administrations both have sought to unilaterally impose new gun controls, reversing longstanding ATF positions while defying the rule of law and the separation of powers.”
WHAT?!?!? BOTH SIDES?!?!? Doesn’t that violate some immutable Laws of Physics, or other Iron-Clad Laws of the Universe, around here?!??!
(Does not the Very Universe Itself DICTATE that "Team R" is Pure Ass The Driven Snow, and that the Demon-Craps are purest EVIL?!?!)
Yes; Trump and Pro-Life Republicans in office really F'ed up with abortion (lobbying to dismiss their own ruling -- actually against majority Republican voters wishes) and Bump Stock E.O. fiat law (same)... What is that a whole whopping !!!!!!!----2---!!!!!!!!!?
Yet you play totally ignorant to the **DAILY** F'Ups of the left and play totally ignorant to the fact the left has voter approval for their F'Ups.
Why? We all know why.... You don't give a flying F about principle or policy. UR just here to play partisan Gang-building games. Because that's the evil in Democrats very platform.. [WE] Nazi-Gang RULES! F the policy, F the people, and F the USA (US Constitution)... We leftards just want to build the biggest GANG of criminals and arm them with the monopoly of Gun-Force to get whatever selfish desire [WE] gangsters want by killing, threatening and enslaving the general public.
Humorously since both of your whole whopping !!-2-!! obsessions were against Republican voter majority it's pretty easy to conclude they were both done for treasonous Democrat's BS anyways.
You want Democracy??? Throwing out Roe v Wade gave you Democracy good and hard.
It was the constitutionally correct decision (the best kind of correct). And necessarily reinforced the existence of the 10th amendment.
Any law or court decision against the 2A is unconstitutional. What part of that do you and people like you not understand? It is an absolute right. It's very words in a singular sentence proclaim it as such.
Just a never-mind to the 4th and 13th Amendment.
People's ability to be masters of their own bodies isn't some 10th Amendment deal.
The decision was wrong across the board. It was a naked power grab that ignored not only precedent but centuries of history. Alito twisted law and logic into pretzels, writing a decision even more poorly reasoned than Roe. As for the 10A, the anti-abortion extremists proved themselves liars almost immediately. They've claimed for years that the matter should be returned to the states, but they started calling for national restrictions or bans before the ink on this decision was dry. They've also shown that there's absolutely nothing "pro-life" about them. They claimed they wanted reasonable restrictions, but their definition of "reasonable" is even less reasonable than gun grabbers calling for "reasonable" controls.
The 'Feds' are suppose to be ensuring the 2A throughout the State's..
They WERE NEVER MEANT to be suppressing it.
Good grief this nation is becoming a F'En joke.
Criminal Nazi-Politicians all over the place.
i.e. There is NO enumerated power for Gun-Control but there is an Amendment to protect citizens (all state-citizens) of their right to bear arms. When the 'Feds' pull crap like this they're 100% treasonous to the USA from both angles.
I AM Making a Good Salary from Home $6580-$7065/week , which is amazing, under a year ago I was jobless in a horrible economy. I thank God every day I was blessed with these instructions and now it's my duty to pay it forward and share it with Everyone. go to home media tech tab for more detail reinforce your heart ..
See this article for more information————————>>>GOOGLE AT WORK
So, can someone explain to me what, precisely, a ghost gun is?
I mean, I'm guessing it's a made up term to sound scary and have a thing to attack, but I really don't know what it means or why it needs extra regulation.
Have there been "ghost guns" used in a lot of murders or something? Was one of the media-famous shooters using one? If it's a gun someone manufactured or built from a kit at home, I'd be surprised if the data were to show that variety to be significantly overrepresented in crime statistics, but there obviously could be some other definition I am not gleaning from the article.
A 'ghost gun' is an ill-defined term that can mean anything from:
1. One that doesn't have a defined chain of custody from the initial purchase
2. One that was perfectly legal until its serial numbers and / or other identifying markings were removed
3. A home-made weapon or something that was 3D-printed
4. Anything else that fits the narrative
Or……..
http://the-haunted-closet.blogspot.com/2015/03/hasbro-ghost-gun-target-book-1974.html
Not only is it ill-defined, but there is really only a singular definition for it. A ghost gun is a gun that is constructed from an 80% lower that does not require a serial number on it nor to be registered. That's literally it. The rest of what you enumerated is the scary stuff that democrats use to inject fear into the hearts and anuses of suburban milf-moms everywhere.
The serial number is the real fetishized part of the definition. All evil in the world could be ended if we could just put a serial number on it.
TV cops have near-magical powers to track down bad guys thanks to registration. Like many other things that only work on TV, too many people believe this.
I thought there was a serial number on all evil. 666, right?
Man, glad I solved all the evil in the world. Do I get a cookie?
A ghost gun is any gun that the government doesn't know exists and hence, cannot be seized when mass repression begins and citizens start to resist.
It's a gun that doesn't have a serial number on it.
It's a thing, but not much of a problem. I saw a thing on TV about a decade ago about how people in 3rd world countries make them using scrap metal and then sell them to an exporter for like $50, who then smuggles them to the US
It's not clear why you would even want one, since they clearly aren't very well made
that video of those guys in the jungle in the Philippines churning out 1911s with stencils, scrap metal, and primitive tools warms my heart.
I’m paid $185 per hour to complete the task using an Apple laptop. I absolutely didn’t think it was conceivable, but my dependable buddy convinced me to give this straightforward an03 chance a go after she made $26,547 in just 4 weeks working on it. Visit the following page to find out additional
.
.
instructions————>>> http://Www.jobsrevenue.com
No and no.
Well, I mean, technically Tetsuya Yamagami, the guy who assassinated former Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe last July, used a "ghost gun", in that it was a no-serial-number, homemade firearm, sure. But since the gun grabbers aren't talking about outlawing private ownership of wood, metal pipes, tape, hand tools, batteries, and fertilizer, it's clear they aren't trying to try to stop repeats of that incident.
It's just another effort by gun grabbers to salami slice.
"But since the gun grabbers aren’t talking about outlawing private ownership of wood, metal pipes, tape, hand tools, batteries, and fertilizer, it’s clear they aren’t trying to try to stop repeats of that incident."
Do. Not. Give. The. Authoritarians. Ideas.
They are, however, actively trying to restrict technologies such as 3D printing and CNC machining, and the distribution of code to produce firearms components. This is a fool's errand which criminals won't have much trouble circumventing even if TPTB manage to impose it on the law abiding, but, hey, that's gun control in a nutshell.
It is a weapon, generally a 9mm, that Casper held, often sideways, after joining the crypts. Series only lasted a year or two.
You would think that a ghost gun or any ghost weapon would be a gun that exists on paper or in people’s minds and perceptions but doesn’t actually have a physical presence. A weapon that can appear and disappear from people’s perceptions and even change forms magically. Like the weapon that killed Brian Sicknick or whatever weapon Ashli Babbitt was carrying that made her appear capable of wielding deadly force. Or all the guns I knew that died in a tragic boating accident. But this would be incorrect.
What they really mean is something that would, in more traditional horror narrative circumstances, be referred to as a ‘zombie gun’ or a ‘ghoul gun’. A gun believed to be dead, assembled from parts, or otherwise having no discernible linkage to any prior life or culture, lacking any soul or discernible social/patriotic conscription, potentially imbue with evil, voodoo, or mysterious nuclear or celestial energies, ambling aimlessly across the countryside searching for people to kill.
Wow. Now I really do want one!
Casper is problematic. He won’t check his ethereal privilege.
Maybe because it's astral privilege instead? Unsure.
Generally, a ghost gun is a gun without a serial number. Several companies sell what are called 80% frames, which can't be assembled with other parts to make a functioning firearm, since several assembly holes are too small for the pins that hold the gun together. However, these frames come with a jig and often a correctly sized drill bit to be used in enlarging the holes in the frame so the assembly pins will fit, making a fully functional firearm.
As I understand it, you as an individual can build an unserialized firearm legally for your own use, but can't sell or trade it without adding a serial number.
https://www.stealtharms.net/c/80-frames
Also need a brand name and the place it was manufactured.
The name of the person making the gun will comply with the "brand name" and the City and State will comply with the place of manufacture. A stamped number on the receiver and a log book with name and date of sale will meet the rest of the requirements.
And the final requirement would be a federal license.
Only if you are making a business out of it. If you build a gun from an 80% lower and later decide to sell it you can serialize it yourself and sell it without a license.
Rules vary by state, but even in CA there are laws (or there were a few years ago, things often change here without getting reported by the Dem-friendly media) providing for how to legally complete guns made from "80%" blank kits; if I understood the law correctly at that time, the person building the gun was expected to get a Serial number from the State DoJ (at which point the weapon was also "registered" to the builder) whether or not they're intending to sell or otherwise transfer ownership of the firearm.
From how I understand it, the term "ghost gun" is meant to refer to a non-serialized firearm which hasn't been properly recorded in the lists/databases as having been manufactured to make its existence discoverable by ATF or other Federal agencies.
I'd be surprised if that's how the term is used at least 95% of the time though. Once ideologues, especially those on the left, get involved in a discourse, the first thing to go is the concept of words corresponding to any particular meaning. Compound that with the way Biden's mind functioned in the pre-dementia portion of his career in politics and the effects of whatever is happening biochemically within his skull now, and it's hard to make assumptions as to what subset of firearms the term is used to refer to when he invokes it.
Abortion and gun control - two of Trump's 'New York values' misrepresented as antisemitism when Cruz called him out on it.
Biden’s Attack on ”Insert here” Fits a Pattern of Lawless Regulation
Except J6 protestors, pro life protestors, and parents. At least per Reason.
I am currently earning an additional $33,440 over the course of six months from home by utilizing incredibly honest and fluent online sports activities athletics. This domestic hobby provides the month. Given the stats system, I’m currently interacting fast on this hobby’s road and earning
…
lot of online currency——————>>>> https://www.join.hiring9.com
"A 9mm will blow your lungs out."
"A .223/ 5.56 cartridge is five times as powerful as other bullets."
"Are the deer wearing Kevlar now?"
"Gun manufactures are the only ones who can't be sued for their products; the only ones!"
Ok, given just those few statements [of many] why would we be surprised by anything that emanates from our imbecile in chief?
Don't forget the perennial favorite, "Fire two blasts!"
"Get a shotgun."
"I'm not kidding."
"Anyone who has a semi auto is just sick."
I AM Making a Good Salary from Home $6580-$7065/week , which is amazing, under a year ago I was jobless in a horrible economy. I thank God every day I was blessed with these instructions and now it's my duty to pay it forward and share it with Everyone. go to home media tech tab for more detail reinforce your heart ..
See this article for more information————————>>>GOOGLE AT WORK
I wonder if he got the "get a shotgun" idea from Bloomberg.
A while back (maybe before the creation of EveryTown?) Bloomberg got onto a jag about how a shotgun is a better home defense gun than an AR-15 (an opinion that's shared by many people understand guns, but for very different reasons). Bloomberg's main points in that thinking, which terrified everyone who knows anything about gun safety, were that:
1) An inexperienced shooter is more likely to hit SOMETHING due to the spread of multiple projectiles. (as if hitting "something" is an acceptable second-place to putting lead on the intended target).
2) Someone feeling in danger from a possible attacker on the other side of a door could blast blindly through the door without as much need to aim precisely. (as if identifying the target before firing isn't one of the cardinal rules of gun safety).
I personally have a 12GA Pump as my primary "home defense" option; my personal reasoning being that chambering a round with a pump gun makes a sound distinctive enough to stop most intruders before any rounds are fired but doesn't leave me defenseless if they choose not to stop. If it's possible to end a conflict without actual use of force, that to me is preferable, but I know that some intruders/attackers might not share that opinion in which case it's better to be the only one whose account of the incident gets heard. I also have a number of semi-automatics, some of which I also keep ready for defensive use in case of a situation where they might be the better or faster option than the shotgun (or as a backup); personal preference, doesn't reduce the world to an either-or proposition...
This was pretty well done.
https://reason.com/volokh/2023/02/27/how-powerful-are-ar-rifles/
The one's about deer hunting are especially hilarious when most if not all states require that you use something more powerful than .223 for deer.
Afaik only 10 states ban deer hunting with a 223.
Alao 223 is not a measure of power, it's a measure of bullet size.
So there's that.
Kinda also worth noting that the average American man is 20 lbs. heavier than a dear and frequently coated with a thicker layer of KE-absorbing mass.
And that humans expecting .223 or similar inbound frequently do wear kevlar if not steel plating.
The Biden and Trump administrations both have sought to unilaterally impose new gun controls, reversing longstanding ATF positions while defying the rule of law and the separation of powers.
Pure TDS. Trump did nothing of the sort. He was teh most libertarian president ever!
No, he did. It was only different from Biden in that Trump waited until the NRA treasonously gave him the go-ahead, (The NRA leadership like to pick out a group of gun owners and throw them under the bus occasionally; Apparently they think they can buy some approval from the left by 'reasonable compromise'.) while Biden doesn't give a shit what the NRA thinks.
But it's an important difference, because if the NRA had been principled, or just cared what the membership thought, Trump wouldn't have done it. He didn't have any particular convictions on the topic, but he didn't mean to piss off his base, either. So he only did it because the NRA leadership told him it was OK with them.
Biden, by contrast, does have principles on the topic of gun rights. He's totally opposed to them! He doesn't much care how much political damage he takes from this, doesn't care whether what he does is legal or constitutional, he's just going to do everything in his power to damage 2nd amendment rights while he's in a position to.
It's probably one of the few topics where he's personally driving administration policy, rather than just acting as a puppet for his staff.
I love how the grabbers love to paint the NRA as extremists and claim this is alienating their members. I know plenty of people who have given up their NRA membership or at least stopped sending them any money. But none of them were worried about "extremism". Instead, they abandoned an organization they increasingly viewed as a bunch of corrupt, squishy surrender monkeys more interested in enriching themselves than actually defending gun rights.
Whatever you might think about the merits of these policies, the system of government designed by the Framers does not allow the executive branch to legislate under the guise of regulation.
Taking broad language in a law and turning into something that can be "faithfully executed" is part of the system of government designed by the Framers. It is fair for the courts to serve as a check on the executive's power to do that, and it is also fair for Congress to use its powers to rein in the executive when it oversteps and creates regulations that it did not intend to be implemented.
The separation of powers and checks and balances built into the Constitution are all aimed at implementing the will of the people rather than the will of those in power. What we see with gun regulation is that the will of the people is largely being ignored by Congress, as it has been captured by the special interests in the gun lobby and the vocal and strident gun rights minority of the electorate. Even among gun owners, policy proposals like universal background checks are supported by overwhelming majorities. The poll referenced in the article I linked does also say that gun owners generally show a lot of distrust of government regulation beyond these policies that they do support, however.
The point is that there should be compromises that a broad majority should be able to agree upon. Even if there is little certainty that it would make any difference to rates of gun violence and suicide, many of these potential compromises are modest enough that opposition should not be as strong as it is given the small segment of voters that do oppose them. Universal background checks (all gun sales require a background check, including private sales), raising the age to buy any firearm to 21, and red flag laws all show large support. And I would suggest that laws limiting or even banning ghost guns (which I'll define as any functioning firearm without a serial number and not manufactured and sold in a manner that can be traced) would also receive broad support.
But we have dysfunctional legislatures in Congress and in most states that cater to lobbyists and the most strident portions of the dominant party's base instead of real majorities of the electorate. That is a recipe for governors and Presidents to try and seize legislative power for themselves and claim to be serving what a majority of the people want. Unfortunately, sometimes those claims might even be true.
"Even if there is little certainty that it would make any difference to rates of gun violence and suicide, many of these potential compromises are modest enough that opposition should not be as strong as it is given the small segment of voters that do oppose them. Universal background checks (all gun sales require a background check, including private sales), raising the age to buy any firearm to 21, and red flag laws all show large support."
Doesn't matter if they work, if they do anything to address criminals and primarily impact the responsible and law abiding gun owners.
Just wanted to make sure I am getting the gist of your bullshit. To what end beyond "it make some of us feel better" [like a "gun free zone"].
Uncertainty about whether it would work and knowing that it won't work are not the same thing. And just how much would the things I listed impact responsible and law abiding gun owners?
And there is at least some reason to think it might do some good. The Uvalde shooter had purchased the semi-auto rifle he used just days before and the day after his 18th birthday, so who knows what would have happened if he hadn't been able to purchase one legally? Not to mention the thousands of rounds of ammo he bought.
Is that the only point of contention you have with what I wrote? No comment on the argument I make that these ideas are highly popular and yet essentially no Republican legislators will touch them due to the opposition of the lobbyists and few voters like you that don't support them?
And the cracks around here about "gun free zones" are really funny when you look at Republican politicians not allowing guns at their campaign events, no legislators wanting the public to have guns in their buildings, and so on. As long as they can have armed police and security, a gun free zone is fine for them. For the rest of us going about our daily lives, we have to arm ourselves if we want to be able to stop nuts or criminals. Never mind what happens when lots of people are armed all the time.
“Uncertainty about weather it will work and knowing it won’t work are not the same thing.”
Bullshit indeed. Fuck off slaver.
Bullshit indeed. Fuck off slaver.
Well, I tried to be civil and engage with Reason, but I guess this is the wrong website for that.
The big problem is when legislation gives so much room for interpretation that the executive can declare something illegal that has been considered legal for decades under the same legislation. That's what's happening here. If Congress wants to regulate "ghost guns" then they can pass a law specifically enabling such regulation. And I hope you see the problem with giving executive agencies the power to write these rules that were never explicitly called for in legislation.
I wasn't agreeing or disagreeing with criticism of the Biden administrations action here. I'm not a lawyer, so I'm not versed enough to weigh on that, and this article is taking a stance on it, not just reporting on the legal issues. I would need to read a lot more to feel like I have a valid opinion. (That doesn't always stop me from offering one, but it will in this case.)
I just wanted to point out that the increasing power of the Presidency over the last several decades can be partially blamed on Congress not being willing to act on things that voters want. Too many members of Congress really just like being there and don't really make much effort to do anything other than what their donors want them to do or what the base of their party wants. Actually representing a majority of their constituents isn't a priority.
Yeah, legislators not willing to do their job is a big part of the problem. Much easier to give rule making authority to some executive agency than to actually put your name on all of the rules and have to deal with the consequences of that later.
There is no uncertainty about “shall not be infringed”.
There isn't? How about...shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech? Yet there are quite a few situations and contexts where a person's right to speak is justifiably limited. Personally, I think that there is quite a bit of uncertainty in deciding what "arms" are protected by the 2nd Amendment, when and where you have a right to "keep and bear" them, and so on.
Pointing to "shall not be infringed" and nothing more is only avoiding all of the details that will matter when it comes to actually applying the Constitution to a law.
Courts have been steadily narrowing restrictions on speech over the last century or so, and quite properly. Arguing that infringements of one right justify infringements of another is some pretty sick slave thinking.
As for the meaning of "arms", the founders deliberately used the generic term because they knew weapons technology had changed in the past and would continue to change in the future. Therefore, protections should be construed as broadly as possible and exceptions narrowly. Likewise, time and place restrictions should be extremely narrow. Just look at NY and NJ; even once they finally starting obeying the law and issuing carry permits, they still sought to effectively nullify the right by enacting ridiculously overbroad restrictions.
Like the typical leftist you refer to "compromise", yet every one of your points means that gun owners give up more of their rights with nothing in return, other than assurances that the jackbooted thugs won't be kicking in their door at 3 a.m. to confiscate their constitutionally protected property. ESAD.
"The separation of powers and checks and balances built into the Constitution are all aimed at implementing the will of the people rather than the will of those in power. "
No, the will of the people would be more efficiently served if everything was run by Congress and the judiciary had to bow to them. The separation of powers is designed to limit the ability of any group to impose their will, including "the people".
"The point is that there should be compromises that a broad majority should be able to agree upon."
Whether a "broad majority" can agree on something is irrelevant to it's legality, advisability, morality or anything else. There was a time when a "broad majority" agreed that gays should be jailed, not executed. Is that a good compromise.
"Even if there is little certainty that it would make any difference to rates of gun violence and suicide, many of these potential compromises are modest enough that opposition should not be as strong as it is given the small segment of voters that do oppose them."
Why not? The number of people who oppose something isn't a measure of whether it should be opposed. If a small group is extremely negatively affected by a decision and large group is, or perceives itself to be, positively affected to a minor extent why does the large group get it's way?
"But we have dysfunctional legislatures in Congress and in most states that cater to lobbyists and the most strident portions of the dominant party’s base instead of real majorities of the electorate.
And why is that bad? Why are intense minority interests less important than less-intense majority interests?
First off, I don't see any reason to compromise on a fundamental right, regardless of what "the majority" thinks. The whole point to the Constitution and especially the BoR is that some things are simply off the table, unless you can get sufficient super-majorities to amend. Further, I see no point to compromising with the gun grabbers. Although they've become a little shier about admitting it, their endgame is total or at least near-total prohibition. They talk a little about "reasonable" restrictions, but they never commit to any stopping point. Every time their latest brain storm fails to deliver the promised results, their only response is greater restrictions.
Second, support for these allegedly popular policies tend to decline dramatically if people actually understand how they'd work and how little benefit they'd have. The value of background checks is fairly low to start with, and making them universal wouldn't help. Most people who currently fail background checks do so because they don't realize they're prohibited; people who know they're legally barred aren't exactly likely to try and buy from a dealer in the first place, and they're not likely to buy from a private seller who insists on a check. Further, any such law would require wildly intrusive measures to enforce. For starters, you'd need universal registration. Gun owners would fight that tooth and nail, and there would be sky-high levels of noncompliance even if you could get the law passed. This isn't speculation on my part. Just look at the numbers of "assault weapons" registered in solidly blue NY and CA, versus the estimated number present.
Red flag laws are likewise a massive threat to civil liberties. Depriving someone of fundamental rights without due process protections should be a total non-starter. Further, these laws stack the deck against gun owners. Judges are likely to skew heavily in favor of granting orders. They know they'll be crucified by the press if they deny an order for someone who does commit an act of violence, but they're unlikely to face any backlash for disarming people who were never an actual danger.
You are confusing what people tell pollsters with how people actually vote, and hand-waving that the only rational explanation for the discrepancy is "powerful lobbyists".
Gun violence is way down compared to any time in the past.
What has gone up is reporting. Every incident remains in the news until the next one. Even if that means weeks.
There is no epidemic of gun violence. Only an epidemic of sensationalized news and reactionary politicians.
Well that make sense.
Yeah, there are times when I agree with you, and yes I know you don't give a fuck [and neither do I].
Yeah, there are times when I agree with you, and yes I know you don’t give a fuck [and neither do I].
I'm not entirely convinced it's not something between temporary medicated lucidity and gaslighting.
What do you guys make of this. By law it is a toy, not a gun; at least so far.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZZ19Eie6uE
Pneumatic "air" guns are not "toys" and can in fact be quite lethal; they date back to the Lewis and Clark expedition on which two were carried, and used to take game and impress the natives. One is in the VMI museum and I forget where the other one is.
Some of the modern ones can be up to .77 caliber [essentially equivalent to a 12 gauge] and some of the smaller bores can achieve muzzle velocities of over 1300 feet per second [similar to a 9mm].
While I was in Germany I went to a local schutzenhalle with friends who employed Olympic quality air guns because "real" guns were too much of a hassle, given the restrictive nature of their government.
I would say that if "real" guns became too difficult to obtain and retain, people would go to these in a big way; that or if someone pulls off a high profile killing with one, they will no doubt be subjected to the same oversight and scrutiny by the ATF.
“Pneumatic “air” guns are not “toys” and can in fact be quite lethal”
And tomatoes are not veggies they are a fruit but according to the SC they can be labeled as veggies. As my OP said they are “toys” by law and as the vid showed they are lethal; the two things are not mutually exclusive.
As an aside the same goes for both rail guns (which IMHO is a dead end technology) and coil guns (which IMHO are the future). Guns according to the wisdom of the federal government require an explosion to propel the projectile.
Lewis and Clark were very late to the air gun party. As wiki notes
“Air guns represent the oldest pneumatic technology. The oldest existing mechanical air gun, a bellows air gun dating back to about 1580”
What's the difference between lethal and quite lethal? Is quite lethal more lethal than just lethal?
Since I was quoting Quo Usque Tandem you should ask him that question.
Many things can potentially cause fatal injuries, but some are far more or less likely to. Just to give one example, getting hit by a car moving at 10 MPH is fairly survivable. Get hit by a car moving at 60 MPH, and you're pretty much guaranteed to be roadkill.
Hey if they’re “toys” go ahead and give one to a toddler.
And take your wiki knowledge and shove it up your ass dipshit.
wrong place
I worked part-time from my apartment and earned $30,030. After losing my previous business, I quickly became exhausted. Fortunately, I discovered this jobs online, and as a result, I was able to start earning money from home right away. Anyone can accomplish this elite career and increase their internet income by….
After reading this article………………>>> http://www.jobsrevenue.com
If Biden is looking for ways to crack down on illegal gun ownership that's undeniably within his authority, he could always instruct the DoJ to aggressively prosecute those who lie on the DROS application paperwork....
I’m shocked!
Any criminal with access to a milling machine and a lathe can make a belt-fed machine gun if that is what they want to do. They are immune to any law. Criminal made guns do not need to have serial numbers or could be marked with fake numbers. Those guns are never registered and cannot be banned. Only firearms registered by law abiding citizens can be confiscated. Disarming the victims can only make crime worse.
The plain definition of a machine gun is in the statute. Bump stocks don't make the cut. Whatever you think of bump stocks (I think they're just a way to waste ammunition), outlawing them would require Congress to pass a law. Executive fiat won't do.
Same thing for parts kits - they don't meet the legal definition of a firearm. (Of course, neither does an AR-15 lower receiver, but there we are.) Don't want people manufacturing firearms privately? Congress would have to pass a law...which would probably be unconstitutional in light of NYSRPA v. Bruen.
It begs the question of whether the new rule has eliminated the AR-10/SR-25 or AR308 80% lowers that TM used to offer from the marketplace. Sure, likely a lower rate item with perhaps a lower profit but it seems they are gone. I question why. Maybe it’s market forces, maybe it’s reducing slower inventory because of the ‘what if the ban wins’ factor.
I earn $100 per hour while taking risks and travelling to remote parts of the world. I worked remotely last week while in Rome, Monte Carlo, and eventually Paris. I’m back in the USA this week. I only perform simple activities from this one excellent website.
view it, copy it here....>>>> http://Www.Smartjob1.com