Full auto firearms are pretty worthless as you run out of ammo too quick and they are not accurate because of the immediate recoil spoils your aim
Of course everyone knows that

quote:

Originally posted by skb:
Yes Jeffe,
I am saying very few crimes are committed with class III firearms which were purchased legally and the buyer has undergone an enhanced background check as required to obtain an NFA firearm.

You will always have illegal guns and the crimes committed by those in possession of them.

It appears to me the enhanced background checks usually stop NFA weapons from reaching the wrong hands, far more so than the standard NICS check.

Steve

I’m sure the same holds true for all legally obtained and held firearms.

The point, I think, is that the vast majority of gun using criminals are already barred from obtaining and holding firearms of any type legally.
So, it seems a matter of controlling the perp rather than the weapon.
Implement the current laws to the fullest extent and we would almost eliminate repeat offenders.
Make illegal activity actually hurt…

quote:

Originally posted by Huvius:

quote:

Originally posted by skb:
Yes Jeffe,
I am saying very few crimes are committed with class III firearms which were purchased legally and the buyer has undergone an enhanced background check as required to obtain an NFA firearm.

You will always have illegal guns and the crimes committed by those in possession of them.

It appears to me the enhanced background checks usually stop NFA weapons from reaching the wrong hands, far more so than the standard NICS check.

Steve

I’m sure the same holds true for all legally obtained and held firearms.

The point, I think, is that the vast majority of gun using criminals are already barred from obtaining and holding firearms of any type legally.
So, it seems a matter of controlling the perp rather than the weapon.
Implement the current laws to the fullest extent and we would almost eliminate repeat offenders.
Make illegal activity actually hurt…

That is not true with all legally acquired firearms. Quite a few crimes occur with firearms purchased with a standard NICS check, that is not the case with the enhanced checks required for an NFA purchase, the vetting is much more thorough.

The simple fact is that the genie is out of the bottle: There are simply too many assault style weapons out there to have effective limitations.

The question is: Is there anything, assuming the “will” was there, to control the continued mass shootings, or must we, Americans, just accept that we will be subject to this terrorism for as long as America exists.

The fault lies with the the gun manufacturers and the NRA and their willing dupes that for years struggled to make these assault weapons readily available, under the guise of the 2nd Amendment protection. Wayne, while buying Armani suits, expensive homes and lavish trips and gun companies laughed at you, rubes.

As, an aside, I hope those who engage in shooting hogs with an assault rifle doesn’t call this the act of a sportsman.

Assault style weapons…anything person uses to assault another person
What a stupid misnomer
Sorry boys, just call it what it is…semiautomatic firearms

Regarding the genie being out of bottle, most of the mass shooters purchase their weapons legally. The Lewiston and Uvalde shooters did.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
Regarding the genie being out of bottle, most of the mass shooters purchase their weapons legally. The Lewiston and Uvalde shooters did.

Maybe in those two cases, but I’d bet that 95% of the shootings in the inner cities, which make up the majority of gun homicides, are committed with either illegally obtained firearms or by perps who cannot legally own?hold a firearm.

Putting the genie back in the bottle should not start with denying law abiding citizens the right to arms.
It should start with absolutely crushing the criminal element from the start.

quote:

Originally posted by Bivoj:
Full auto firearms are pretty worthless as you run out of ammo too quick and they are not accurate because of the immediate recoil spoils your aim
Of course everyone knows that

Hence the spray and pray method which seems to be effective when there is a lot of targets.

quote:

Originally posted by Huvius:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
Regarding the genie being out of bottle, most of the mass shooters purchase their weapons legally. The Lewiston and Uvalde shooters did.

Maybe in those two cases, but I’d bet that 95% of the shootings in the inner cities, which make up the majority of gun homicides, are committed with either illegally obtained firearms or by perps who cannot legally own?hold a firearm.

Putting the genie back in the bottle should not start with denying law abiding citizens the right to arms.
It should start with absolutely crushing the criminal element from the start.

I do not see a more thorough vetting as a denial of rights. Plenty of folks own NFA weapons, they are not banned but we do look much closer at a buyer before granting approval.

These shooters need to be stopped before they arm themselves, many of them kill themselves in the process of committing these crimes(the Maine shooter). You cannot punish a dead man.

Our laws now require a crime to be committed or institutionalization in order to deny a purchase. We miss plenty of opportunities to stop mass shootings(The Aurora theater shooter,the Boulder King Soopers shooter) when these folks are on the radar but they still pass a NICS check. A more thorough vetting could stop these guys before it is too late.

quote:

Originally posted by Bivoj:
Assault style weapons…anything person uses to assault another person
What a stupid misnomer
Sorry boys, just call it what it is…semiautomatic firearms

So how does one differentiate between a Remington 7400 and an AR-15? Both are semi-automatic rifles, but the AR-15 can offer more fire power. Can one buy a 30 round magazine for the Remington?

quote:

Originally posted by skb:

That is not true with all legally acquired firearms. Quite a few crimes occur with firearms purchased with a standard NICS check, that is not the case with the enhanced checks required for an NFA purchase, the vetting is much more thorough.

Go back in a firearm’s history and they were all purchased legally.
A legally purchased firearm, in the hands of a convicted felon, is an illegally possessed firearm, correct?
What percentage of crimes are committed with a legally acquired firearm as opposed to an illegally possessed firearm?
I stand by my statement that the illegal possession is what makes the gun illegal and that number is indeed very high.
Just look at the priors of the vast majority of apprehended shooters.

quote:

Originally posted by Huvius:

quote:

Originally posted by skb:

That is not true with all legally acquired firearms. Quite a few crimes occur with firearms purchased with a standard NICS check, that is not the case with the enhanced checks required for an NFA purchase, the vetting is much more thorough.

Go back in a firearm’s history and they were all purchased legally.
A legally purchased firearm, in the hands of a convicted felon, is an illegally possessed firearm, correct?
What percentage of crimes are committed with a legally acquired firearm as opposed to an illegally possessed firearm?
I stand by my statement that the illegal possession is what makes the gun illegal and that number is indeed very high.
Just look at the priors of the vast majority of apprehended shooters.

You are missing point entirely. Plenty of people who pass the NICS check go on to commit mass shootings, that simply does not happen with a more thorough NFA check. People who pass the NFA check almost never use a firearm in a crime. Those are facts.

77% of mass shooters acquired the guns legally:

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/0...e-mass-shooting.html

quote:

Originally posted by skb:

quote:

Originally posted by Huvius:

quote:

Originally posted by skb:

That is not true with all legally acquired firearms. Quite a few crimes occur with firearms purchased with a standard NICS check, that is not the case with the enhanced checks required for an NFA purchase, the vetting is much more thorough.

Go back in a firearm’s history and they were all purchased legally.
A legally purchased firearm, in the hands of a convicted felon, is an illegally possessed firearm, correct?
What percentage of crimes are committed with a legally acquired firearm as opposed to an illegally possessed firearm?
I stand by my statement that the illegal possession is what makes the gun illegal and that number is indeed very high.
Just look at the priors of the vast majority of apprehended shooters.

You are missing point entirely. Plenty of people who pass the NICS check go on to commit mass shootings, that simply does not happen with a more thorough NFA check. People who pass the NFA check almost never use a firearm in a crime. Those are facts.

The word “plenty” means what, exactly?

The VAST majority of shootings of all types are committed with either an illegally obtained firearm or by a perp whom cannot legally hold a firearm.
Those are the facts.

Not true, 77% of mass shootings are done with legally acquired firearms. The NICS check misses far too much. Fact.

quote:

Originally posted by skb:
Not true, 77% of mass shootings are done with legally acquired firearms. The NICS check misses far too much. Fact.

extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof - got a link?

quote:

Originally posted by skb:
Not true, 77% of mass shootings are done with legally acquired firearms. The NICS check misses far too much. Fact.

You’re mincing words.
Mass shootings represent a tiny fraction of all shooting deaths.

I’m not focusing on mass shootings specifically, but on all firearm homicides.
In that light, far far more gun related homicides are committed with illegally obtained or held firearms.

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:

quote:

Originally posted by skb:
Not true, 77% of mass shootings are done with legally acquired firearms. The NICS check misses far too much. Fact.

extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof - got a link?

It was also posted above.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/0...e-mass-shooting.html

quote:

Originally posted by Huvius:

quote:

Originally posted by skb:
Not true, 77% of mass shootings are done with legally acquired firearms. The NICS check misses far too much. Fact.

You’re mincing words.
Mass shootings represent a tiny fraction of all shooting deaths.

I’m not focusing on mass shootings specifically, but on all firearm homicides.
In that light, far far more gun related homicides are committed with illegally obtained or held firearms.

I am not mincing words. Once again we have virtually no crime with NFA weapons, that is not the case with firearms acquired through a standard NICS check.


The fact of the matter is that many of these folks who go on to commit firearms related crimes of all types could be stopped by subjecting them to a more rigorous check.

That deeper vetting is why I believe we have virtually no crime with NFA weapons.

. . . when all else fails, deflect.

They may have followed the procedure, but it wasn’t correctly done.

The Lewiston guy had mental health issues. While it may not have registered as a prohibition, he certainly didn’t meet all the legal requirements.

Rather than coming up with new rules that are feel good sops, we should be enforcing the rules we already have.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
Regarding the genie being out of bottle, most of the mass shooters purchase their weapons legally. The Lewiston and Uvalde shooters did.

You don’t think the substantially higher price has anything to do with it, that and getting anything tax stamped will set a paranoiac’s “spidy senses” tingling six ways from Sunday.

“You are gonna fingerprint me? Hell no!

Besides, I gotta file and hacksaw!”

I’m not really sure how much more in depth the background check really is. I think they look at the same databases. Does it get you notified to local LE? Probably.

I’ve been there, done that.

I think it’s the additional expense that’s the big deal. That and modifying a currently legal item to illegal being easier than finding the extra cash, it your plan is mayhem.

quote:

Originally posted by skb:

quote:

Originally posted by Huvius:

quote:

Originally posted by skb:
Not true, 77% of mass shootings are done with legally acquired firearms. The NICS check misses far too much. Fact.

You’re mincing words.
Mass shootings represent a tiny fraction of all shooting deaths.

I’m not focusing on mass shootings specifically, but on all firearm homicides.
In that light, far far more gun related homicides are committed with illegally obtained or held firearms.

I am not mincing words. Once again we have virtually no crime with NFA weapons, that is not the case with firearms acquired through a standard NICS check.


The fact of the matter is that many of these folks who go on to commit firearms related crimes of all types could be stopped by subjecting them to a more rigorous check.

That deeper vetting is why I believe we have virtually no crime with NFA weapons.

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
They may have followed the procedure, but it wasn’t correctly done.

The Lewiston guy had mental health issues. While it may not have registered as a prohibition, he certainly didn’t meet all the legal requirements.

Rather than coming up with new rules that are feel good sops, we should be enforcing the rules we already have.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
Regarding the genie being out of bottle, most of the mass shooters purchase their weapons legally. The Lewiston and Uvalde shooters did.

Okay . . . how? What would you have done the Lewiston case to enforce existing laws?

“I think it’s the additional expense that’s the big deal. That and modifying a currently legal item to illegal being easier than finding the extra cash, it your plan is mayhem.“

I agree.
There are indeed few violations using legal NFA registered firearms but many more with illegally modified firearms.
The North Hollywood shootout was perpetrated with illegally modified full auto firearms.

Folks whom comply with the law regarding NFA regulations are just not the types to shoot people up.
The entry costs pretty much block 99% of gun enthusiasts from owning these firearms.
Criminals tend to be pretty thrifty…

Right now in the 6th circuit, involuntary commitment bar of the GCA is unconstitutional.

In both Fed Districts in KY, DVO/EPO/IPO restriction (Fed law) on purchase, possession, and transfer to those so adjudicated is unconstitutional.

Well, making LE or the court add any involuntary commitment to the database in real time would be a start.

Prosecuting those who lie on the purchase forms, also.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
They may have followed the procedure, but it wasn’t correctly done.

The Lewiston guy had mental health issues. While it may not have registered as a prohibition, he certainly didn’t meet all the legal requirements.

Rather than coming up with new rules that are feel good sops, we should be enforcing the rules we already have.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
Regarding the genie being out of bottle, most of the mass shooters purchase their weapons legally. The Lewiston and Uvalde shooters did.

Okay . . . how? What would you have done the Lewiston case to enforce existing laws?

The first requires a change in law. Yeah, let’s prosecute the Lewiston and Uvalde shooters for lying on their forms. Oops. They are both dead.

Come on, let’s hear the “enforce existing laws” solution.

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
They may have followed the procedure, but it wasn’t correctly done.

The Lewiston guy had mental health issues. While it may not have registered as a prohibition, he certainly didn’t meet all the legal requirements.

Rather than coming up with new rules that are feel good sops, we should be enforcing the rules we already have.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
Regarding the genie being out of bottle, most of the mass shooters purchase their weapons legally. The Lewiston and Uvalde shooters did.

Im reading that the Lewiston guy was a reservist who was judged by the army as unfit to possess a firearm, that he was recently institutionalised and judged undeployable by the army.

How did he acquire a firearm?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-67263059

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
Well, making LE or the court add any involuntary commitment to the database in real time would be a start.

Prosecuting those who lie on the purchase forms, also.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
They may have followed the procedure, but it wasn’t correctly done.


The Lewiston guy had mental health issues. While it may not have registered as a prohibition, he certainly didn’t meet all the legal requirements.

Rather than coming up with new rules that are feel good sops, we should be enforcing the rules we already have.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
Regarding the genie being out of bottle, most of the mass shooters purchase their weapons legally. The Lewiston and Uvalde shooters did.

Okay . . . how? What would you have done the Lewiston case to enforce existing laws?

The only requirements are found in the GCA. If a restriction is not written there, it does not exist federally.


First, involuntary commitment as a class restriction found in the GCA under the analysis adopted in Bruen has been struck down in one Federal Circuit. I have provided the full citation multiple times.

Second, voluntary commitment is not a federal restriction. That would require a change in GCA which may not pass scrutiny established in Bruen since the only court to apply the Bruen analysis said de facto ban based on a commitment status was not narrowly tailored.

Third, I hope, despite what some on here think, the ATF is requiring strict compliance in transfers by FFLs, and prosecuting unlicensed folks engaged in dealing.

After all, enforce the laws we have to make sure bad people do not get ahold of guns, right?

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
You don’t think the substantially higher price has anything to do with it, that and getting anything tax stamped will set a paranoiac’s “spidy senses” tingling six ways from Sunday.

“You are gonna fingerprint me? Hell no!

Besides, I gotta file and hacksaw!”

I’m not really sure how much more in depth the background check really is. I think they look at the same databases. Does it get you notified to local LE? Probably.

I’ve been there, done that.

I think it’s the additional expense that’s the big deal. That and modifying a currently legal item to illegal being easier than finding the extra cash, it your plan is mayhem.

So you really think that it is the 200$ cost of a tax stamp stopping them??? Really??? Not likely in my book.

I do agree that the criminal element is less likely to pursue a gun requiring a more thorough check. I believe that is the goal, stop criminals from obtaining firearms, through legal channels and otherwise. Not all of the bozos have connections in the criminal underworld as an alternative source for guns.

The class III background check is much, much deeper. They look at same databases and many other things as well.

No, I think that a class three gun runs into the 10's of thousands, many $40,000.
Do you think the average joe is going to shell out that kind of money to go on a shooting spree?
Think a little harder, you will get the picture.

I think the wait period for a NFA check item may delay or prevent some of these.

Suppressors are not being used by these folks.

Thus, I would add high capacity magazines (10 or more) and semi auto, centerfire button mag release firearms to the NFA.

Doing so would pass constitutional muster and may prevent or reduce these killings. I see it as the less restrictive option. Nothing will ever stop these killings.

I also done with red flag lass that provide a meth one to petetion for reinstatement of the Right.

Pray tell what is the difference in passing a background check for a tax stamp and that for a regular purchase?

Under the law, I don’t see one.

If you mean they have more time to do it (duhhh) yes.

I’ve been through it many times.

The paperwork to sign off on the NFA paperwork is just an extra step.

Honestly, the biggest additional thing is getting your fingerprints and them doing a review of them. And they do that for lots of other things…. All it really is is a more certain identification of who you are, and if you’ve never been fingerprinted before you are now in the system.

quote:

Originally posted by skb:

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
You don’t think the substantially higher price has anything to do with it, that and getting anything tax stamped will set a paranoiac’s “spidy senses” tingling six ways from Sunday.

“You are gonna fingerprint me? Hell no!

Besides, I gotta file and hacksaw!”

I’m not really sure how much more in depth the background check really is. I think they look at the same databases. Does it get you notified to local LE? Probably.

I’ve been there, done that.

I think it’s the additional expense that’s the big deal. That and modifying a currently legal item to illegal being easier than finding the extra cash, it your plan is mayhem.

So you really think that it is the 200$ cost of a tax stamp stopping them??? Really??? Not likely in my book.

I do agree that the criminal element is less likely to pursue a gun requiring a more thorough check. I believe that is the goal, stop criminals from obtaining firearms, through legal channels and otherwise. Not all of the bozos have connections in the criminal underworld as an alternative source for guns.

The class III background check is much, much deeper. They look at same databases and many other things as well.

quote:

Originally posted by theback40:
No, I think that a class three gun runs into the 10's of thousands, many $40,000.
Do you think the average joe is going to shell out that kind of money to go on a shooting spree?
Think a little harder, you will get the picture.

Funny, I know a bunch of folks with class III guns, they did not pay near that much.

The cost you refer to is the fact that not many full auto are in the market compared to demand. Were Ar-15's to become class III, that would not be an issue due to the fact that 10's of millions of them exist.

You might try a little bit of critical thinking yourself.

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
Pray tell what is the difference in passing a background check for a tax stamp and that for a regular purchase?

Under the law, I don’t see one.

If you mean they have more time to do it (duhhh) yes.

I’ve been through it many times.

The paperwork to sign off on the NFA paperwork is just an extra step.

Honestly, the biggest additional thing is getting your fingerprints and them doing a review of them. And they do that for lots of other things…. All it really is is a more certain identification of who you are, and if you’ve never been fingerprinted before you are now in the system.

quote:

Originally posted by skb:

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
You don’t think the substantially higher price has anything to do with it, that and getting anything tax stamped will set a paranoiac’s “spidy senses” tingling six ways from Sunday.

“You are gonna fingerprint me? Hell no!

Besides, I gotta file and hacksaw!”

I’m not really sure how much more in depth the background check really is. I think they look at the same databases. Does it get you notified to local LE? Probably.

I’ve been there, done that.

I think it’s the additional expense that’s the big deal. That and modifying a currently legal item to illegal being easier than finding the extra cash, it your plan is mayhem.

So you really think that it is the 200$ cost of a tax stamp stopping them??? Really??? Not likely in my book.

I do agree that the criminal element is less likely to pursue a gun requiring a more thorough check. I believe that is the goal, stop criminals from obtaining firearms, through legal channels and otherwise. Not all of the bozos have connections in the criminal underworld as an alternative source for guns.

The class III background check is much, much deeper. They look at same databases and many other things as well.

They look at far, far more before granting a class III tax stamp, at least that is the story from the BATF agents I have spoken to about the issue. They have more time to do it, and look deeper. The paperwork sign off on your end is just an extra steps, the Feds go through quite a few more steps than you do. It is not a coincidence that so little crime is committed using class II items.

quote:

Originally posted by Bivoj:
Full auto firearms are pretty worthless as you run out of ammo too quick and they are not accurate because of the immediate recoil spoils your aim
Of course everyone knows that

They are pretty great at doing what they are intended for, suppressive fire so you can make the other guys take cover while you maneuver against them.

In most mass shootings they would be counter-productive because you would be putting a lot of bullets in each body and, as you mention, burning through ammo in a hurry.

As a buddy has a class 7 manufacturing license, I know just what I'm talking about.
Dealer sample can be had for less, they can only be transfered between dealers.
He just sold an MG43 transferable, for $48000.
Ask your friends what they would pay nowdays for a transferable MG.

I have a class 7 manufacturers license as well, big deal.

The fact remains, very few transferable MG's are on the market, were AR-15's to become class II they would not have the same issue as 10's of millions are already in the marketplace.

Dunno. The folks I’ve seen fail to get a tax stamp should really not pass the ordinary background check. One guy had a violent crime history as a juvenile (that his excuse was that should not be in my adult records!) and another was because he had multiple pot charges as a youngster.

In other words, the current database is not being maintained properly.

There isn’t any difference in criteria, just they don’t accept the one database as being complete.

Given computers being what they are, that’s a matter of correcting the data input, not that the NFA check is less tolerant.

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
They may have followed the procedure, but it wasn’t correctly done.

The Lewiston guy had mental health issues. While it may not have registered as a prohibition, he certainly didn’t meet all the legal requirements.

Rather than coming up with new rules that are feel good sops, we should be enforcing the rules we already have.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
Regarding the genie being out of bottle, most of the mass shooters purchase their weapons legally. The Lewiston and Uvalde shooters did.

Aren't more rules "enforced" AFTER they are broken than in a pre-emptive manner? If you were a dealer would you call the ATF and say, "hey, Joe Blow bought a firearm yesterday and I believe that he lied on the form 4473 or would you tell joe blow on the spot that you think he lied on the 4473 and therefore no sale? How should LE enforce the myriad of laws already on the books?

BTW I have mixed feelings about AR-15s and their clones. Don't own any and don't plan to. They have been available to the public since the mid 60s and there are way too many in public hands to even think about a ban even if it could be enacted. The lion's share of those guns don't harm anyone. OTOH the fact remains one can't have a shooting without a gun. I won't vote for JB, but I'm not worried about him taking my guns either.

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
Dunno. The folks I’ve seen fail to get a tax stamp should really not pass the ordinary background check. One guy had a violent crime history as a juvenile (that his excuse was that should not be in my adult records!) and another was because he had multiple pot charges as a youngster.

In other words, the current database is not being maintained properly.

There isn’t any difference in criteria, just they don’t accept the one database as being complete.

Given computers being what they are, that’s a matter of correcting the data input, not that the NFA check is less tolerant.

You have a failed understanding of our system. Both of the individuals who you cited would pass a NICS check, they are not felons and usually youth records are sealed. Both were caught through an enhanced background check.

You are making my point for me....