Gun Talk

[HeloDude]

SCOTUS to hear “ghost gun” ban challenges.  My guess is they’ll overturn this one as well, which is a good thing.

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-supreme-court-hear-challenge-bidens-ghost-guns-curbs-2024-04-22/#:~:text=The ATF rule targeted the,lawfully purchasing firearms%2C including minors.

[ClearedHot]

 

[Herkdrvr]

I'm a 2A proponent and government's extensive overreach into firearms/ammo is ridiculous.

However I'm not a fan of ghost guns. 

It's like a car without a VIN or license plate. When an a$$hole hits your car in the parking lot, no way to track them down. Or when your expensive mountain bike gets stolen, how do you submit the police report without a serial number. The FAA needs a registration for an sUAS and they're less deadly and used in less illegal crime than ghost guns.

Minimally having a serial number would aid law enforcement & could maybe help recover your personal firearm in the event of loss.

Genuinely curious why permitting ghost guns is a good thing? Or rather, why overturning this rule would be beneficial. 

Perhaps there's a nuance or piece of specific legislation I'm missing. 

 

[gearhog]

15 minutes ago, Herkdrvr said:

I'm a 2A proponent and government's extensive overreach into firearms/ammo is ridiculous.

However I'm not a fan of ghost guns. 

It's like a car without a VIN or license plate. When an a$$hole hits your car in the parking lot, no way to track them down. Or when your expensive mountain bike gets stolen, how do you submit the police report without a serial number. The FAA needs a registration for an sUAS and they're less deadly and used in less illegal crime than ghost guns.

Minimally having a serial number would aid law enforcement & could maybe help recover your personal firearm in the event of loss.

Genuinely curious why permitting ghost guns is a good thing? Or rather, why overturning this rule would be beneficial. 

Perhaps there's a nuance or piece of specific legislation I'm missing. 

 

Something something liberty and safety.

[HeloDude]

34 minutes ago, Herkdrvr said:

I'm a 2A proponent and government's extensive overreach into firearms/ammo is ridiculous.

However I'm not a fan of ghost guns. 

I’m a supporter of the 2A…but…

[Herkdrvr]

46 minutes ago, HeloDude said:

I’m a supporter of the 2A…but…

 

1 hour ago, gearhog said:

Something something liberty and safety.

Sarcasm noted gents. 
Would like to understand your perspective though. 

[FourFans]

1 hour ago, Herkdrvr said:

I'm a 2A proponent and government's extensive overreach into firearms/ammo is ridiculous.

However I'm not a fan of ghost guns. 

It's like a car without a VIN or license plate. When an a$$hole hits your car in the parking lot, no way to track them down. Or when your expensive mountain bike gets stolen, how do you submit the police report without a serial number. The FAA needs a registration for an sUAS and they're less deadly and used in less illegal crime than ghost guns.

Minimally having a serial number would aid law enforcement & could maybe help recover your personal firearm in the event of loss.

Genuinely curious why permitting ghost guns is a good thing? Or rather, why overturning this rule would be beneficial. 

Perhaps there's a nuance or piece of specific legislation I'm missing. 

 

People tend to forget the first portion of the second amendment and proceed directly to "shall not be infringed"  For reference:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Nothing says well regulated like lack of accountability (which is effectively what an untraceable gun is).  'A militia, being necessary to the security of a free State' goes on to indicate that this right to bear arms is not for my own personal liberty, but me contributing to the liberty of my community.  With regulated and controlled force if necessary.  It implies that we have this right in order to serve and defend something bigger than ourselves, such as a community, city or state.  I've yet to encounter law enforcement, military, or paramilitary organization that doesn't place a high emphasis on accountability and training. 

Karen with her .38 special that she carries loaded but never trains with does not fall into that category.  Moreover, it's kinda difficult to rectify untraceable firearms with a well regulated civil defense.

Not saying I'm totally against production of your own weapons.  I think that's great!  But it needs to be done responsibly.

[ClearedHot]

1 hour ago, Herkdrvr said:

I'm a 2A proponent and government's extensive overreach into firearms/ammo is ridiculous.

However I'm not a fan of ghost guns. 

It's like a car without a VIN or license plate. When an a$$hole hits your car in the parking lot, no way to track them down. Or when your expensive mountain bike gets stolen, how do you submit the police report without a serial number. The FAA needs a registration for an sUAS and they're less deadly and used in less illegal crime than ghost guns.

Minimally having a serial number would aid law enforcement & could maybe help recover your personal firearm in the event of loss.

Genuinely curious why permitting ghost guns is a good thing? Or rather, why overturning this rule would be beneficial. 

Perhaps there's a nuance or piece of specific legislation I'm missing. 

 

Why stop there?  You also need and have to pay for a license to operate that car on the road, the car must be registered (gotta pay for that), and in some states you have to pay a yearly property tax on your car.  Ohhhh you are required to have insurance for your car and a targeted gas tax to operate it.

Of course I am being facetious but it does show the slippery slope the anti-gunners will use if you give them an inch.  Also - owning and operating a car is not in the Constitution..."Shall not be infringed"

[Herkdrvr]

8 minutes ago, ClearedHot said:

Why stop there?  You also need and have to pay for a license to operate that car on the road, the car must be registered (gotta pay for that), and in some states you have to pay a yearly property tax on your car.  Ohhhh you are required to have insurance for your car and a targeted gas tax to operate it.

Of course I am being facetious but it does show the slippery slope the anti-gunners will use if you give them an inch.  Also - owning and operating a car is not in the Constitution..."Shall not be infringed"

Thanks CH.

Seems as though your primary argument is against legislative openings that potentially set precedent for even more restrictive legislative moves. I can see that angle. I certainly wouldn't want to have a targeted ammo tax, for instance.

Four Fans has a point, imho, regarding "well regulated".  

Going to do some more research on the ghost gun ban & its implications. 

[HeloDude]

53 minutes ago, Herkdrvr said:

Sarcasm noted gents. 
Would like to understand your perspective though. 

Serial numbers eventually leads to registration, and registration eventually leads to confiscation…this has happened many times in the world.  Can’t force registration to what the Feds don’t even know ever existed.

[HeloDude]

37 minutes ago, FourFans said:

People tend to forget the first portion of the second amendment and proceed directly to "shall not be infringed"  For reference:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Nothing says well regulated…

Kind of like a “well regulated clock”…clearly the government needs to regulate our clocks.

[M2]

"Ghost guns" are another fabricated and irrational scare tactic term akin to "assault rifles" for those who are hoplophobic.

Serial numbers don't stop the illegal use of a firearm any more than a VIN stops someone from stealing a car.

The right to keep and bear arms is an alienable one, not "granted" by any government.

And, as we all can attest to, anything the government gets its nose into is more likely to get fucked up that fixed!!

[Herkdrvr]

22 minutes ago, HeloDude said:

Serial numbers eventually leads to registration, and registration eventually leads to confiscation…this has happened many times in the world.  Can’t force registration to what the Feds don’t even know ever existed.

Thanks Helo. 

Before this BOPS discussion, if asked, I would have said I support serial numbers but not registration. 

Maybe the serial numbers is too big of a door as M2 alluded to earlier. 

[Herkdrvr]

17 hours ago, M2 said:

"Ghost guns" are another fabricated and irrational scare tactic term akin to "assault rifles" for those who are hoplophobic.

Serial numbers don't stop the illegal use of a firearm any more than a VIN stops someone from stealing a car.

The right to keep and bear arms is an inalienable one, not "granted" by any government.

And, as we all can attest to, anything the government gets its nose into is more likely to get ed up that fixed!!

I agree that "ghost guns" is a fabricated term and that serial numbers don't stop the illegal use of a firearm. 

Do serial numbers elevated the number of solved crimes though? And if so, by how much?

Rhetorical questions really because if serial numbers become (or remain) a necessity what precedents am I then potentially allowing?

[FourFans]

39 minutes ago, HeloDude said:

Kind of like a “well regulated clock”…clearly the government needs to regulate our clocks.

Oh. I am a full believer that the US federal government should play absolutely no part in 'regulating' our weapons.  The regulation isn't talking about making a registry or some such.  

Use the analogy of a pickup basketball team.  You got the guy who practices alone all the time.  Great at shooting freethrows on an empty court, but never practices or plays with a team.  Another guy who never exercises and never shows up to practice but still declares he's on the team. Another who claims to be the team leader but has no clue how to run a play.  That's not a team.  That's an unregulated bunch of people who think they are something that they aren't.  

The intention behind the 2nd Amendment to not about making sure you have a gun.  It's about making sure that you have a gun that you're able and willing to use in defense of your local community against tyranny (from abroad or within) while operating as part of a team, militia, or unit doing the same thing.  The founders wanted to make sure that the country maintained it's ability to have grass roots self defense forces that were not mandated or controlled by the federal government.  Remember that the revolutionaries were largely volunteers, and were largely disbanded after that war.  There was originally to be no standing Army.

The heart of the 2nd Amendment is two fold.  A: Citizens - Keep your weapons and yourself ready so that if you're needed and you choose to volunteer, you can actually be useful.   B: Government - Stay completely out of their way.

Beyond that, the Amendments were never meant to stand individually.  The biggest thing we as US citizens have forgotten is that citizenship is a responsibility, not a privilege.

Edited April 22 by FourFans

[nunya]

1 hour ago, Herkdrvr said:

Do serial numbers elevate the number of solved crimes though? And if so, by how much?

0% if they're filed off as they often are once they enter the underworld. I looked for a stat about how many guns used in crime have altered/removed SNs, but I couldn't find anything.

A decent number of guns are already untraceable because they have altered SNs.

https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/report/nfcta-volume-ii-part-iii-crime-guns-recovered-and-traced-us/download

Between 2017-2021, 48,601 guns couldn't be traced to a buyer because their SN was altered. 25,904 crime-linked guns traced back to a .gov owner!

Opposition to un-serialized firearms is not about crime prevention - it's simply about placing obstacles and red tape between citizens and legal firearms and creating the groundwork for a future confiscation database.

Edited April 22 by nunya

[brabus]

Until the moment one is convicted of a crime (and therefore legal to own firearms up to that point), an individual should be able to own whatever they want, including homemade firearms. That also means the NFA is a significant violation of the constitution and should be fully repealed. Any additional roadblocks to ownership/use such as firearms/ammo specific taxes, insurance requirements, banning of whatever, etc. are unconstitutional.

I support restrictions for felons and I’m fine with background checks for purchased firearms (without any arbitrary waiting period), but anything beyond that is unconstitutional and illogical. The anti-gun crowd doesn’t give a fuck about safety or “saving lives,” they care about disarming the public to gain control of the plebes, pure and simple. Your average suburban dipshit who’s anti-gun just doesn’t realize they are simple pawns in said goal, despite whatever hollow, altruistic goals they claim to personally have. 

Edited April 22 by brabus

[Herkdrvr]

38 minutes ago, nunya said:

0% if they're filed off as they often are once they enter the underworld. I looked for a stat about how many guns used in crime have altered/removed SNs, but I couldn't find anything.

A decent number of guns are already untraceable because they have altered SNs.

https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/report/nfcta-volume-ii-part-iv-crime-guns-recovered-outside-us-and-traced-le/download

Between 2017-2021, 48,601 guns couldn't be traced to a buyer because their SN was altered. 25,904 crime-linked guns traced back to a .gov owner!

Opposition to un-serialized firearms is not about crime prevention - it's simply about placing obstacles and red tape between citizens and legal firearms and creating the groundwork for a future confiscation database.

Thank you Nunya. Definitely compelling statistics there. 

[Herkdrvr]

Having read the perspectives of several BOPS members, I started doing some research to better educate myself on the overall topic.

Looks like the Colorado House is starting to slide down that slippery slope. 



 

[HeloDude]

16 hours ago, brabus said:

I support restrictions for felons…

I don’t…if someone is so dangerous that we can risk them illegally obtaining a firearm then they should remain in prison (ie fufill their sentence).  Once they do the time and are deemed able to rejoin society, they’re free, and should have the their rights restored.  If not, we run the risk of a tyrannical government (even worse than we currently have at the federal and state levels) charging people for BS crimes, and giving them a “plea deal” to avoid prison (or a very light sentence), and there goes your gun rights.  If you’re a free person, you’re free.   
 

As for background checks, same type of thing above…it is essentially asking for permission to exercise freedom.  I think it’s hilarious that people still trust the feds after what we’ve been seeing that last several decades.

[nsplayr]

4 hours ago, M2 said:

The right to keep and bear arms is an alienable one, not "granted" by any government.

Given what you meant, this is a funny typo 😅

[brabus]

1 hour ago, HeloDude said:

I don’t…if someone is so dangerous that we can risk them illegally obtaining a firearm then they should remain in prison

I could get on board with that, if we can go back to the 1800s where it was pretty easy to simply execute violent criminals, whether through official or unofficial means. But we’re not in the 1800s, so if you get out of prison after violently raping a woman (or man if you’re BQZip’s mom), conducting armed robbery/assault, carjacking, etc. then fuck you, you gave up your right when you acted like a total POS who would have simply been put down in days bygone. 
 

Above answer is directly related to background checks. I only support them to verify you are in fact not a felon.

[M2]

12 hours ago, nsplayr said:

"The right to keep and bear arms is an alienable one, not "granted" by any government."

Given what you meant, this is a funny typo 😅

That's from the Democratic/Liberal viewpoint...

[M2]

12 hours ago, HeloDude said:

I don’t…if someone is so dangerous that we can risk them illegally obtaining a firearm then they should remain in prison (ie fufill their sentence).  Once they do the time and are deemed able to rejoin society, they’re free, and should have the their rights restored.  If not, we run the risk of a tyrannical government (even worse than we currently have at the federal and state levels) charging people for BS crimes, and giving them a “plea deal” to avoid prison (or a very light sentence), and there goes your gun rights.  If you’re a free person, you’re free.   

If that were truly the case, then I would have no issue with it; but far too many times we have seen violent offenders released only to commit more crimes.

That said, there are cases where the right to bear arms has no bearing on the matter at hand (i.e., non-violent crimes), and should not be a factor.

[Lord Ratner]

21 hours ago, FourFans said:

Beyond that, the Amendments were never meant to stand individually.  The biggest thing we as US citizens have forgotten is that citizenship is a responsibility, not a privilege.

This is a concept that was recently brought up in court regarding an illegal immigrant having a gun. The judge ruled in his favor. Do the rights protected by the Bill of Rights extend to all people, as they are "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights" or is the Declaration referring to other rights?

 

Saying that the Amendments don't stand individually poses the same problem as many of the proposed gun laws... where do you draw the line? Who gets to decide how much "responsibility" one must display to be worthy of the Rights? Obviously there is a limit somewhere, as we restrict the ability of felons to vote and own weapons, but even that is a contested idea, one I struggle with.

 

As to the serial numbers, first you have to demonstrate that serial numbers are reducing gun crime. Not just helping track the gun to wherever it came from. Are criminals avoiding serialized guns? Are they getting caught because of the serial number? So many laws are some nerd's idea that might do this or might do that, without any evidence before or after that it actually does anything at all. Yet the law rarely has a sunset clause like the assault weapons ban of 1993 had. 

 

Serial numbers do absolutely help the government track guns. That's bad. So the associated good needs to be clear and supported. I don't see evidence of that right now. 

 

With "ghost guns" the problem would be if someone starts making a bunch of guns and funneling them to gangs/cartels. Is this already illegal? If so, do we need another law making it illegal? Is this (meaningfully) increasing the number of guns in criminals' hands? 

 

I think the argument for banning ghost guns is that the serial number allows the maker to be tracked down easily. Obviously someone making guns for the cartel isn't going to follow that law anyways, so instead this becomes a law that you can use to theoretically "get" the cartel suppliers for making unserialized guns without actually proving they were selling guns to bad guys. Like how Al Capone was nabbed for tax evasion instead of all the actual murdering and booze-running. But that was a bullshit tactic in the first place, not a victory of law-enforcement. Forensics have advanced to the point we don't need to play games like that anymore to catch crooks. 

 

But this is also so niche I just don't care much. I would much rather have the NFA restrictions on suppressors and short barrels addressed.