Re: ATF's 2021

26
sikacz wrote: Mon May 10, 2021 11:43 am
cooper wrote: Mon May 10, 2021 11:35 am
Stiff wrote: Mon May 10, 2021 11:29 am So, if I rent a 3D printer capable of making a Glock receiver, all I need to do is press a button and wait. Does that mean possessing the electricity, raw polymer, and the plan means I’m possessing a firearm?
Like I said. I love gun forum arguments. We just hit the can of sardines argument and surpassed it.

Call out the lawyers.
We need less lawyers. Lawyers are the reason we create messes like this. (Not including some of our lawyers, meaning politicians who are lawyers.)
Amen! I forgot to put the little sarcasm marker on my post.

I stand by Miss Manners, who said we only have laws for when common decency breaks down. Or something like that.

Re: ATF's 2021

27
Stiff wrote: Mon May 10, 2021 11:29 am So, if I rent a 3D printer capable of making a Glock receiver, all I need to do is press a button and wait. Does that mean possessing the electricity, raw polymer, and the plan means I’m possessing a firearm?
The slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy. We need to be better than that. No one, including the atf is suggesting that either.

"Homemade" glocks were almost non existent until recently. It was a marvel of homemade diy engineering to cobble together a workable single shot. Making a semi auto pistol at home was extraordinary. P80 came along and anyone with an hour to spare can have an unserialized Glock. It's not the same.

These are using 1968 GCA definitions. Things have changed significantly enough that the definitions serve more as loopholes than clarity.

Re: ATF's 2021

28
OnePivot wrote: Mon May 10, 2021 1:00 pm
Stiff wrote: Mon May 10, 2021 11:29 am So, if I rent a 3D printer capable of making a Glock receiver, all I need to do is press a button and wait. Does that mean possessing the electricity, raw polymer, and the plan means I’m possessing a firearm?
The slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy. We need to be better than that. No one, including the atf is suggesting that either.
So how did that go with bumpstocks again? Seems they slipped right down the slope from stupid legal accessory to felony without so much as a vote.

I personally DGAF about 80%s or bumpstocks, but rewriting rules to make things illegal should be subject to more scrutiny than the stroke of a pen/keyboard, especially when they are related to an enumerated constitutional right. So if we are to determine that making a gun from an 80% parts kit should be illegal, then let's run through a legitimate process to do so, not backchannel it. Otherwise, we can expect the same treatment on other rights. That said, I very much do enjoy tinkering with my guns and I do not relish this policy being aimed at parts, which it certainly will in the future after banning 80%s mysteriously doesn't solve gun violence.

Re: ATF's 2021

29
Stiff wrote: Mon May 10, 2021 11:29 am So, if I rent a 3D printer capable of making a Glock receiver, all I need to do is press a button and wait. Does that mean possessing the electricity, raw polymer, and the plan means I’m possessing a firearm?
Oh come on! You can make all kinds of explosives from household products, including swimming pool chemicals.
""If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you." -- LBJ

Re: ATF's 2021

30
Y'all realize the practical alternative to slippery-slope debates about defining the boundary between no-check parts and check-mandatory firearms is to throw up our hands and impose background checks on ammunition sales instead, right?

Hey, California went both routes, as they do. How's that working out?

As for explosives, do you know what they've done with ammonia-based fertilizers since the late 90s?

Re: ATF's 2021

31
OnePivot wrote: Mon May 10, 2021 1:00 pm
Stiff wrote: Mon May 10, 2021 11:29 am So, if I rent a 3D printer capable of making a Glock receiver, all I need to do is press a button and wait. Does that mean possessing the electricity, raw polymer, and the plan means I’m possessing a firearm?
The slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy. We need to be better than that. No one, including the atf is suggesting that either.
Yet--looking at the big picture--this new ATF rule-making exists due to a previous firearm prohibition effort, the omnibus GCA'68, which came to exist as a result of the NFA 34 having become law years prior to that, before which the federal government was not in the firearm prohibition business. That is evidence of predicted outcomes coming to fruition as a result of prior actions. So it would be tough to argue the logical fallacy argument applies to the macro view of firearm prohibition from near the bottom of the mountain.
OnePivot wrote: Mon May 10, 2021 1:00 pm"Homemade" glocks were almost non existent until recently. It was a marvel of homemade diy engineering to cobble together a workable single shot. Making a semi auto pistol at home was extraordinary. P80 came along and anyone with an hour to spare can have an unserialized Glock. It's not the same.
And this matters at all because of what--reasons? Other than the fact the word Glock frightens the disarmament lobby, there is nothing special about a Glock. It's a pistol, not a talisman imbued with evil. People have been making firearms on this continent since before the US was a country.
OnePivot wrote: Mon May 10, 2021 1:00 pmThese are using 1968 GCA definitions. Things have changed significantly enough that the definitions serve more as loopholes than clarity.
That to which firearm prohibitionists agree today is--for them--tomorrow's loophole. This already has been demonstrated.

Re: ATF's 2021

32
featureless wrote: Mon May 10, 2021 1:25 pmI personally DGAF about 80%s or bumpstocks, but rewriting rules to make things illegal should be subject to more scrutiny than the stroke of a pen/keyboard, especially when they are related to an enumerated constitutional right. So if we are to determine that making a gun from an 80% parts kit should be illegal, then let's run through a legitimate process to do so, not backchannel it. Otherwise, we can expect the same treatment on other rights. That said, I very much do enjoy tinkering with my guns and I do not relish this policy being aimed at parts, which it certainly will in the future after banning 80%s mysteriously doesn't solve gun violence.
Pretty much hits the heart of the matter for me too. These strategies are proving to be the epitome of “slippery” and “ineffective” all rolled into one pathetic policy called CA.
"It is better to be violent, if there is violence in our hearts, than to put on the cloak of non-violence to cover impotence. There is hope for a violent man to become non-violent. There is no such hope for the impotent." -Gandhi

Re: ATF's 2021

33
OnePivot wrote: Mon May 10, 2021 1:00 pm
Stiff wrote: Mon May 10, 2021 11:29 am So, if I rent a 3D printer capable of making a Glock receiver, all I need to do is press a button and wait. Does that mean possessing the electricity, raw polymer, and the plan means I’m possessing a firearm?
The slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy. We need to be better than that. No one, including the atf is suggesting that either.

"Homemade" glocks were almost non existent until recently. It was a marvel of homemade diy engineering to cobble together a workable single shot. Making a semi auto pistol at home was extraordinary. P80 came along and anyone with an hour to spare can have an unserialized Glock. It's not the same.

These are using 1968 GCA definitions. Things have changed significantly enough that the definitions serve more as loopholes than clarity.
And 3D printers didn’t exist until recently. When the technology gets better and cheaper, nobody would bother buying P80s anymore.

Publishing your thought to the masses was expensive and time consuming in the 18th century, because you needed a printing press. Yet today the 1st amendment still protects our freedom to publish information, despite everyone having the ability to publish to the entire world with just a cheap phone and free internet.

If they want to change the law and prohibit private manufacturing, then go ahead and try. Instead they’re trying to apply a nonexistent standard that manufacturing HAS to be difficult.

Does the constitution say anywhere that the press is free because it’s expensive? Does the GCA say that individuals are allowed to make guns only because it’s difficult?
Glad that federal government is boring again.

Re: ATF's 2021

34
Good point. Semantics matter.

Or if not merely difficult, then regulated manufacturing. A process by which all firearms must have a serial number which can be purchased similar to tax stamps it whatever. I mean if they wanted to go that route it wouldn’t appear as disingenuous.
"It is better to be violent, if there is violence in our hearts, than to put on the cloak of non-violence to cover impotence. There is hope for a violent man to become non-violent. There is no such hope for the impotent." -Gandhi

Re: ATF's 2021

35
YankeeTarheel wrote: Mon May 10, 2021 8:56 am I would assume it's even easier to build a Sig P320--the grip and slide units are sold separately or as caliber conversion kits--they aren't serialized. And most of the pieces of the serialized FCU can be purchased as well.

I don't advocate doing this, just as I don't advocate making ANY weapons the law disallows. In NJ, even the slingshot I had as a kid is now considered a "firearm". Any kind of propellant mechanism, whether mechanical, pneumatic, or chemical, is so considered.
There goes the soda straw pea shooter and the rubber band folded paper shooter from Jr. High school.
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.-Huxley
The illegal we do immediately; the unconstitutional takes a little longer-Kissinger
Reasoning will never make a Man correct an ill Opinion, which by Reasoning he never acquired.-Swift

Re: ATF's 2021

36
The government doesn't even know how many guns are in the hands of the population. Having a serial number on gun so it can be traced is somewhat of a joke. The records from a dealer is to be kept for twenty years. I bought a Ruger in 1979 at a gun show sold it to my boss in 1988 and I do't know if he still has it or not. We didn't do a FFL transfer. The person I bought it from is probably long dead by now and any records have rotted away in some shed on been boxed up in a warehouse somewhere.

I have two guns made before 1968 that have no serial numbers. One is a Marlin 22 rifle Model M1/99 when made rifles didn't require a serial number and my dad bought it for my birthday in 1967. I also have my Dads S&W victory model 38 CTG revolver. that was part of the lend lease sent to Aussie troops in Italy and was shaped for something by the armorer in the bomb group my dad was in and then he gave t to my dad for completing 15 missions. It was shipped home to my grandparents when he was shot down and became a POW. He was caring a 1911 that day. That gun still is in very good condition.

How many other guns out there are like that. How many guns were shipped back from various wars as souvenirs? I know of a M-16 and M3 45 acp grease gun that came back from Vietnam. The mail order Army surplus guns from WWII & Korea that are still out there in the hands of the sons and daughters of the those that bought them before 1968 just sitting in a closet or attic waiting to be uncovered again.

So this business of Ghost Guns is a joke unless they include the ghosts of guns past.
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.-Huxley
The illegal we do immediately; the unconstitutional takes a little longer-Kissinger
Reasoning will never make a Man correct an ill Opinion, which by Reasoning he never acquired.-Swift

Re: ATF's 2021

37
As proposed, the rule also would require retailers to run background checks before selling at-home assembly kits for ghost guns.
I have yet to see one but this ordering of a gun with complete separate parts is bad if you want to keep yet more guns out of the hands of criminals. Sure I've heard all the arguments on many gun forums and read this entire thread.

Personally I'd love to order an RPG kit I could throw together, but do I want everyone else having the ability to get one? Nope Course getting ammo would be a little tough. Not impossible.

How far down the wabbit hole do you want to go. No restrictions at all?
Buy the ticket; take the ride

Re: ATF's 2021

39
tonguengroover wrote: Wed May 19, 2021 9:27 am
As proposed, the rule also would require retailers to run background checks before selling at-home assembly kits for ghost guns.
I have yet to see one but this ordering of a gun with complete separate parts is bad if you want to keep yet more guns out of the hands of criminals. Sure I've heard all the arguments on many gun forums and read this entire thread.

Personally I'd love to order an RPG kit I could throw together, but do I want everyone else having the ability to get one? Nope Course getting ammo would be a little tough. Not impossible.

How far down the wabbit hole do you want to go. No restrictions at all?
I thought about that question after I became a pro-2A advocate back in 2008. My answer is as follows.

"If the police can have them, then so should We, The People."

That would keep things like weapons of mass destruction still under tight control (the police don't get nukes, etc.--the most they can get is tear gas), while ensuring that We, The People can still defend ourselves from tyranny, which is the 2A's actual purpose. The cops want full-auto M16's, short-barreled rifles, and sound suppressors? OK, if they really want to carry those "weapons of war" on our streets, then the People have the same right, go into a gun store and buy 'em.

As for home-builds, what the antis now call "ghost guns", several gun makers, including Eli Remington, started out making their own guns, and that's how they started their companies. Roy Weatherby started out in his basement making his rifles for friends and others; no serial numbers required, no "FFL transfer" and "black books" or anything else like that. Today, Roy Weatherby would be demonized for those home-builds; they'd demonize his rifles as "ghost guns". Yeesh. So, I don't care how easy or hard it is to make a home-build; what actually matters is that people have been doing it for the entire history of this country. If it's now easier to do so because technology has gotten better, then so be it; we now have $350 CNC mills that can mill aluminum frames out of blocks of aluminum. Yep, those exist now. You can make your own aluminum 1911 frame if you want. What's next, outlawing affordable CNC mills?

That "rabbit hole" of regulation doesn't seem very "liberal" to me. It might seem Democrat, but not liberal.
"San Francisco Liberal With A Gun"
http://www.sanfranciscoliberalwithagun.com/ (reloading instruction)
http://www.liberalsguncorner.com/ (podcast)
---------------------------------------
A true Liberal must back the Second Amendment 100%!

Re: ATF's 2021

41
DispositionMatrix wrote: Thu May 20, 2021 10:27 am
CowboyT wrote: Thu May 20, 2021 9:33 amWhat's next, outlawing affordable CNC mills?
Not quite. Democrats could call for a regime of regulations/restrictions to close the CNC mill loophole, with the idea being sold as being for the greater good.
Just have to go to you local licensed CNC mill dealer to buy one after a background check to verify you are a master machinist.
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.-Huxley
The illegal we do immediately; the unconstitutional takes a little longer-Kissinger
Reasoning will never make a Man correct an ill Opinion, which by Reasoning he never acquired.-Swift

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

cron