All-purpose gun legislation thread


Interesting efforts from both sides recently.

Left outrage: Congress is voting on a bill to allow CCW holders to carry across state lines regardless of the destination state’s laws. The lovely irony on this is that it pits the 2nd Amendment against the 10th Amendment and a win for the Right would be an enormous loss because it would establish a very big precedent of Federal over State’s rights.

Right Outrage: Bills are being pushed to close the gun show loophole. I’m all for that personally, but they’re lumping in any private transaction in almost any circumstance and requiring private parties do background checks without making any provisions for a way to actually, you know, DO a check. Based on the details this is likely a non-starter in Congress.

So there you have it, the Right pushes a bill that it probably doesn’t realize is terrible for it and the Left pushes a bill that it very likely knows has no chance of passing, walking the eternal line of “I’m against guns but no way will I vote against guns.”



I admire the Second Amendment as a principle of individual freedom. In Canada though, we have a vision of Americans roaming the streets armed with AK47s with gunfire in the distance a daily occurrence. It’s hard to escape that idea when evaluating gun control here.


The only place I’ve ever heard obvious criminal gunfire was downtown San Francisco, oddly enough.



I don’t even see how you can conceal and carry since practically every building has posted a notice that it’s not allowed. And in terms of deterrence, wouldn’t a visible gun work better anyway?

I also find it hard to believe that the right really wants the Federal government to override State regulations. That’s just bizarre.

I don’t mind people carrying guns. I’ve given up on the idea that we’ll ever do anything about it. I would just like those guns that can be used to fire about 30 shots in 30 seconds to be outlawed. I don’t see the point of those.


Well, my revolver fires 30 shots in 15 seconds . . .

I’m much more interested in improving the mental health reporting to NCIS and stopping the current practice where felons are too-easily regaining their gun rights.



They are not statistically significant in terms of their use in crime, for what it’s worth. Automatic weapons are extensively regulated, and already out of the realm of legal gun ownership for most people with the exception of collectors who have special permits that require substantial government oversight.


Do you squeeze the trigger 30 times in 15 seconds? Just curious. I know nothing about guns.


Yes, he does. 30 shots in 30 seconds is…slow. Rate of Fire varies greatly, but the good old AK-47 fires about 600 rounds/minute, or 10 rounds a second (according to wiki).

As LK said, automatic weapons are basically a non-factor in crime due the legal requirements put in place in the National Firearms Act of 1934.


That, and why would you use a $10,000 firearm to rob a store of $500? Class 3 is expensive, man. As for rate of fire, anything but a muzzleloader is fast enough to cause plenty of mayhem so it’s not really the right place to legislate. Keeping guns out of the hands of evil and insane people is more productive than trying to wish away a subset of equipment.



That first bill sounds incredibly messed up and would be a complete non-starter if it dealt with anything other than guns. How anyone can support (of even think up) a law that effectively applys the laws of one jurisdiction to another is just mind boggling in principle.

The second sounds perfectly reasonable to me though. They’re attempting to close the loopholes in the manner in which people acquire guns of which private transactions are definitely one. I’m not sure why you support closing one loophole but not another. Laws are passed all the time which create processes whose specifics come later. Small gun stores are able to do checks, opening that process for private transactions seems perfectly viable and non-controversial.


Yeah I don’t disagree Houngan

As for the gun show loophole - there’s obviously something out of whack there. At the same time, I should be able to sell a mossberg to my friend without getting the federal government involved. There has to be some middle ground between “I want to seel to a friend” and “I can go to a gun show and sell 20 pistols with no background checks”

At the very least the bill should require FFL’s do the checks for some nominal fee, so FFL’s can’t put the squeeze on people.


But, but… that sounds so reasonable.

Who’s going to play the role of raging gun nut in this thread?


Heh, it’s the same point I’ve always made. Kneejerk polarity shifts are the meat and potatoes of Qt3 but that doesn’t mean we can’t go vegetarian occasionally.



Not that I completely think gun laws like conceal carry should work this but we have many areas where the laws of one jurisdiction apply to another. I don’t have to get 50 different drivers licences to drive anywhere in the US. I don’t have to get 50 marriage licences to be considered married in all 50 states… the list goes on and on.


What’s the difference though? You’ll just end up with people acting as a proxy for the sale of guns. What’s to stop someone from going out and legitimately (including background checks) buying a bunch of guns and then privately selling them to anyone who wants one?


That’s already illegal, but it’s a bad, fuzzy kind of illegal. First it’s illegal to sell a gun to someone who isn’t allowed to own a gun at all (minors and felons.) Second it’s illegal to buy a gun with the specific intent of selling it to someone else, but how do you prove that? “straw purchase” is the term.

One part of the bill is to allow sales based on “official proof of eligibility” which effectively means a CCW license. The problem with that is it considers it valid if issued in the last five years, and last time I checked it doesn’t take that long to become a felon.



All of which a background check should cover. I’m not seeing a check as some great hurdle to someone wanting to sell a gun. If a store has to do it why is it controversial for a person? All sorts of legal paperwork is involved with all sorts of private sales, cars, houses, boats, none of these are particularly controversial or onerous.


Oh, I’m not opposed to it at all. My issue is that they’re making it a requirement without giving you the ability to actually do it. There’s not a public number I can call to run a background check, but there is one that the stores can use. It’s like legislating that you have to run someone’s fingerprints through the FBI before selling a car; how exactly do you do that?

What most folks aren’t aware of is that the stores will often refuse to even do a transfer of a gun (usually $20 for filling out a two-sheet form and calling the number) if they have that gun or can order that gun. I buy guns from people on the internet often, and the prices even for retail new are 20% lower than local stores. Thankfully I have an FFL that does the transfers without hassling me but most people don’t.

There is language in the bill that police stations would be allowed to also run the check, but no language requiring them to do so. I can’t even see how that would work, they hire a clerk specifically to run background checks for me? I doubt it, frankly.

That’s different than the gun show loophole, where it would be simple and efficient to set up a centralized background check station at the show due to economy of scale. Yet no one ever proposes this as a solution. It’s always totally loose or total ban.



And as I said above that’s not actually that uncommon with legislation. The means to fulfill those sorts of requirements often come after the legislation is passed.


I like how the right wing is all about states rights except when they’re not.

Concealed carry needs to die in a fire. The Second Amendment doesn’t give you a right to keep a gun with you hidden everywhere you go on the off chance you’ll have to shoot someone. I’m a gun owner and think the entire concept of concealed carry is really dumb.