HR 5087: The Assault Weapons Ban of 2018

Emilander · Apr 12, 2018

I hadn't seen another thread discussing this bill. I am curious to hear people's opinions on the bill. Does it go to far? Does it not go far enough? Is it a good start? Is it a waste of time? And, and this is the $64,000 question, will it reduce gun violence in meaningful way?

Personally, I am concerned that nearly every semiautomatic firearm would be potentially considered an assault weapon under the definition proposed. Also, it is clear that the definition is based off of primarily cosmetic features that have nothing to do with the function of the firearm. Case in point, the Ruger Mini 14 is both banned and not banned based on the configuration of the furniture, rather than the function of the weapon.

Additionally, I feel since that all existing "assault weapons" will be grandfathered, it will have little effect. Furthermore, since it will be difficult, if not outright illegal, to sell a grandfathered weapon, I think there is potential there to push otherwise law-abiding citizens into being party to illegal sales as the value of these weapons will increase and if a person gets desperate enough, they may take the easy way and take the cash, no questions asked.

I could go further, detailing why each one of the features listed is ridiculous, but I'd like to hear other people's thoughts.

Helix · Apr 12, 2018

Take the autoloaders out and she's apples.

blacbird · Apr 12, 2018

Emilander said:
it is clear that the definition is based off of primarily cosmetic features that have nothing to do with the function of the firearm.

I haven't seen this bill, but if this is indeed the case, then the entire point has been missed (probably by intention). The whole issue should rest, as I've said elsewhere, on the matter of volume of rounds capable of being fired during a particular period of time. Other than that I don't give a weasel fart what the weapon looks like.

caw

regdog · Apr 13, 2018

I don't see that the definition is based off cosmetics. The bill clearly states, the fixed or removable magazine size, internal barrels features, scoping, stocks in function not just appearance. It names multiple specific weapons and those similar in appearance.

I think the bill is a very good start. In my mind, there really is no reason for a private citizen to own a semi automatic weapon with high magazine capabilities. They are not hunting weapons and illogical for home defense. They are a military weapon for war. They are designed to fire as bullets as possible as quickly as possible.

Add to that it was just ruled by a Federal Court, assault weapons are not guaranteed under the Second Amendment.

Gregg · Apr 13, 2018

This bill has no chance of passing. It would be almost impossible to enforce in total. I couldn't find any of my shotguns on the exempt list even though they are exactly the same design as the ones on the list. What about very old guns that are still very usable? What about collectables? Many still function perfectly. How would law enforcement prove that someone didn't own one of the banned guns prior to enactment of the law? There isn't a paper trail of ownership for millions of guns. And people who want to do harm will still be able to get the weapon they want regardless of any law.

regdog · Apr 13, 2018

Gregg said:
This bill has no chance of passing. It would be almost impossible to enforce in total. I couldn't find any of my shotguns on the exempt list even though they are exactly the same design as the ones on the list. What about very old guns that are still very usable? What about collectables? Many still function perfectly. How would law enforcement prove that someone didn't own one of the banned guns prior to enactment of the law? There isn't a paper trail of ownership for millions of guns. And people who want to do harm will still be able to get the weapon they want regardless of any law.

My stepmother and I had a discussion similar to this. We are at opposite ends of the political spectrum but both agree one of the biggest problems, separate from assault weapons, is no minimum standard for gun ownership. While it is necessary to have a driver's license in all 50 states to drive a car, a gun license is not required in every state. That at the most basic level would give some semblance of minimum requirements for gun ownership. So many hours target range needed, and so many hours classroom safety needed to qualify is addition to passing a shooting test.

With states having no license requirement, it is impossible to know who owns what and what their level of training is, how many guns they own, rounds of ammo etc.

KMTolan · Apr 13, 2018

Bill is reasonable, but DOA via NRA. What gets me is the justifications for even needing an assault weapon. Home defense? Hardly. Unless you want to shoot your kids in the next room and your neighbor as well. Most folks I've met here in Texas having this sort of gun end up wanting it for bragging rights mostly. A few start talking about defending this or that right against an encroaching government. Sure, small arms fire vs tanks. Or more worrisome, against the same young men who serve our military. Rather leave killing people to our police and military. Not some backyard vigilante. My opinion, of course. I own a shotgun. That's enough for me.

Kaiser-Kun · Apr 13, 2018

Gregg said:
This bill has no chance of passing. It would be almost impossible to enforce in total. I couldn't find any of my shotguns on the exempt list even though they are exactly the same design as the ones on the list. What about very old guns that are still very usable?

Destroy them.

What about collectables? Many still function perfectly.

Museums.

How would law enforcement prove that someone didn't own one of the banned guns prior to enactment of the law? There isn't a paper trail of ownership for millions of guns.

Grant amnesty to all those who surrender their guns.

And people who want to do harm will still be able to get the weapon they want regardless of any law.

Mexican cartels can't get any guns legally here, so they get all their guns directly from the US explicitly because of their lack of gun laws. Thanks a lot for that.

raburrell · Apr 13, 2018

Emilander said:
I hadn't seen another thread discussing this bill. I am curious to hear people's opinions on the bill. Does it go to far? Does it not go far enough? Is it a good start? Is it a waste of time? And, and this is the $64,000 question, will it reduce gun violence in meaningful way?

Personally, I am concerned that nearly every semiautomatic firearm would be potentially considered an assault weapon under the definition proposed. Also, it is clear that the definition is based off of primarily cosmetic features that have nothing to do with the function of the firearm. Case in point, the Ruger Mini 14 is both banned and not banned based on the configuration of the furniture, rather than the function of the weapon.

Additionally, I feel since that all existing "assault weapons" will be grandfathered, it will have little effect. Furthermore, since it will be difficult, if not outright illegal, to sell a grandfathered weapon, I think there is potential there to push otherwise law-abiding citizens into being party to illegal sales as the value of these weapons will increase and if a person gets desperate enough, they may take the easy way and take the cash, no questions asked.

I could go further, detailing why each one of the features listed is ridiculous, but I'd like to hear other people's thoughts.

Okay. Here's your chance. Outline a better bill.

Genuinely curious.

(Happy to hear proposals from anyone, btw)

Jolly-Boo · Apr 13, 2018

KMTolan said:
What gets me is the justifications for even needing an assault weapon. Home defense? Hardly.

The police, the people in actual death-or-life situations, are equipped with just handguns, and yet you have civilians clamoring for an assault weapon for home defense.

Kaiser-Kun said:
Grant amnesty to all those who surrender their guns.

Believe Australia did this recently. So, yeah.

Kaiser-Kun · Apr 13, 2018

Jolly-Boo said:
Believe Australia did this recently. So, yeah.

The mexican government does it all the time. One case was notorious because an old lady exchanged a freaking bazooka. (She picked it up after some drug dealers discarded it. She got a laptop for it)

Gregg · Apr 13, 2018

Kaiser-Kun said:
Destroy them.

Museums.

Grant amnesty to all those who surrender their guns.

Mexican cartels can't get any guns legally here, so they get all their guns directly from the US explicitly because of their lack of gun laws. Thanks a lot for that.

Why destroy a work of art?
Why give something that is perfectly functional to a museum? We still use a World War II rifle for deer hunting.
Has gun surrender ever really worked anywhere? Ya think members of MS 13 will give up their guns?
Bad people will get guns regardless of laws.

Gregg · Apr 13, 2018

KMTolan said:
Bill is reasonable, but DOA via NRA. What gets me is the justifications for even needing an assault weapon. Home defense? Hardly. Unless you want to shoot your kids in the next room and your neighbor as well. Most folks I've met here in Texas having this sort of gun end up wanting it for bragging rights mostly. A few start talking about defending this or that right against an encroaching government. Sure, small arms fire vs tanks. Or more worrisome, against the same young men who serve our military. Rather leave killing people to our police and military. Not some backyard vigilante. My opinion, of course. I own a shotgun. That's enough for me.

Need is not part of the equation. It's about rights. Think of the things people might have that they don't "need." A car that will go 170 mph? Three or four homes? Million dollar jewelry?

Helix · Apr 13, 2018

Has gun surrender worked anywhere?

Yes. In the UK and Australia. The firearms laws were implemented in different ways, but they had the same effect -- removing unnecessary firearms from the civilian population. Note, though, that the general populations of both countries don't consider firearms as necessary for self-defence, and that policing is by consent. Police are a service, not part of an adversarial institution.

raburrell · Apr 13, 2018

Gregg said:
Need is not part of the equation. It's about rights. Think of the things people might have that they don't "need." A car that will go 170 mph? Three or four homes? Million dollar jewelry?

The right to an education without a daily fear of getting shot is pretty high on my list, personally

Gregg · Apr 13, 2018

Helix said:
Has gun surrender worked anywhere?

Yes. In the UK and Australia. The firearms laws were implemented in different ways, but they had the same effect -- removing unnecessary firearms from the civilian population. Note, though, that the general populations of both countries don't consider firearms as necessary for self-defence, and that policing is by consent. Police are a service, not part of an adversarial institution.

Very open for debate.
Here's a quote from an article I read -
“Assistant Chief Constable from Northumbria shared a similar sentiment, telling the BBC, “We are realistic enough to realize that we’re not going to get hardened gang members who are in possession of weapons they intend to use.”
Gun rights supporters and most gun control advocates agree that turn-ins, usually in the form of so-called “buybacks” in the U.S., are ineffective public policy. Since 1998, the U.S. Department of Justice has recognized that turn-in programs do not work. A more recent DOJ survey into research concerning Australia’s 1996 nationwide amnesty (confiscation) program noted that there is little evidence that it led to a reduction in crime and that turn-ins are generally ineffective because “The guns turned in are at low risk of ever being used in a crime.”’
https://www.buckeyefirearms.org/‘firearm’-offenses-27-percent-uk-holds-national-gun-surrender

in Australia the gun surrender program did lead to a reduction in gun-related suicides. But non-firearm suicides and himicides in Australia have always been higher than thais taht are gun-related.
Law enforcement officials do not expect that hard core criminals will ever surrender their firearms.

blacbird · Apr 13, 2018

Gregg said:
Law enforcement officials do not expect that hard core criminals will ever surrender their firearms.

And they are probably right. No one expects controls on firearms possession to prevent all misuses of firearms. But restrictions on the kinds of weapons and the quantities of weapons that can be possessed legally will discourage some people from getting things they really do not need. Stephen Paddock and Nikolas Cruz and Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold might have had a harder time, and a more risky time, obtaining the hell-tools they were able to get with ease. None of them were hard-core gangbangers. I'd much rather see traffickers in illegal weapons and purchasers of same be subject to prison terms than see drug possessors get hit with what they do, which seems to be the major interest of the current AG.c

aw

Helix · Apr 13, 2018

Gregg said:
Why destroy a work of art?
Why give something that is perfectly functional to a museum? We still use a World War II rifle for deer hunting.
Has gun surrender ever really worked anywhere? Ya think members of MS 13 will give up their guns?
Bad people will get guns regardless of laws.

Gregg said:
Very open for debate.
Here's a quote from an article I read -
“Assistant Chief Constable from Northumbria shared a similar sentiment, telling the BBC, “We are realistic enough to realize that we’re not going to get hardened gang members who are in possession of weapons they intend to use.”
Gun rights supporters and most gun control advocates agree that turn-ins, usually in the form of so-called “buybacks” in the U.S., are ineffective public policy. Since 1998, the U.S. Department of Justice has recognized that turn-in programs do not work. A more recent DOJ survey into research concerning Australia’s 1996 nationwide amnesty (confiscation) program noted that there is little evidence that it led to a reduction in crime and that turn-ins are generally ineffective because “The guns turned in are at low risk of ever being used in a crime.”’
https://www.buckeyefirearms.org/‘firearm’-offenses-27-percent-uk-holds-national-gun-surrender

in Australia the gun surrender program did lead to a reduction in gun-related suicides. But non-firearm suicides and himicides in Australia have always been higher than thais taht are gun-related.
Law enforcement officials do not expect that hard core criminals will ever surrender their firearms.

I'm in transit at the moment and won't get home until about 9am tomorrow, so don't expect a long response to your post.

Here's the thing. I'm an owner who handed over my firearm during the gun buyback. It was a semi-automatic ex-army rifle and I got compensated for it. In fact, the govt gave me more than I had paid for it, so that was nice.

You can ramble on without evidence about how you're sure the firearms buyback is a failure. It isn't. It got bipartisan support and we fkn love it. And all the kids on today's flight (it's the end of the holidays) will go to school on Monday without fear of being shot.

Helix · Apr 13, 2018

And if you're going to bang on about stats, show your working, mate.

frimble3 · Apr 13, 2018

Criminals have had guns since guns were first available. I imagine they stole them. I don't expect they will give them up willingly.

But, if the buybacks got rid of the guns owned by law-abiding people, there would be no confusion: if you see a guy with a gun, he's a criminal - call a cop, warn people and duck. None of this "Ha, ha, I've got an open-carry permit. I can intimidate people at will" stuff.

That thing about 'When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns'? That's it, exactly. No confusion, no shooting innocent people, no wondering who are criminals and who are gun-enthusiasts. Wandering around in public with an illegal gun: outlaw.
I think it was somewhere on this thread that someone said that the presence of a person with an open-carry gun should make people feel safer. I have no idea why the presence of someone they know nothing about, with a potentially deadly weapon, would make anyone feel better about anything.

Jolly-Boo · Apr 14, 2018

Gregg said:
Gun rights supporters and most gun control advocates agree that turn-ins

Of course they agree ...

Gregg said:
Here's a quote from an article I read -

https://www.buckeyefirearms.org/‘firearm’-offenses-27-percent-uk-holds-national-gun-surrender

I'm not familiar with this site but having browsed around a bit, it's pretty much the NRA.

Gregg said:
Law enforcement officials do not expect that hard core criminals will ever surrender their firearms.

I feel like you're using this sentence to say, "Let's then just give up and arm everyone then". Of course no one expects all criminals to be disarmed. I live in Norway. People don't buy guns for self defense, and police don't even carry guns. I am aware that there are still criminals out there with guns, but the likelihood of me ever running into one is ridiculously low. Here and there you'll read some new about some shots fired but, it's usually between two individuals in a scuffle.

Gregg said:
Need is not part of the equation. It's about rights. Think of the things people might have that they don't "need." A car that will go 170 mph? Three or four homes? Million dollar jewelry?

We, the people, decided what our rights are, and so we can just as easily say what's no longer a right.

A single man with 40 guns in his home is exercising his rights, and not his needs, ye?

Gregg said:
Has gun surrender ever really worked anywhere? Ya think members of MS 13 will give up their guns?
Bad people will get guns regardless of laws.

Has gun surrender worked anywhere? Yes, it has. Very effectively. Not effective if the disarmament of gangs and all sort's of criminals was the threshold for success, but that's not a realistic goal. So no, MS 13 are unlikely to give up their guns.

Kaiser-Kun · Apr 14, 2018

I don't expect the MS13 to surrender their guns. I hope they're imprisoned for that.

regdog · Apr 14, 2018

Several years ago Boston had a gun amnesty before Christmas. Turn in your gun, legal or not, and get a toy for your kids. A lot of people turned in all kinds of guns from mini one shots, to high powered semi automatics. Lots of toys were given out. Gun amnesty works.

Summonere · Apr 14, 2018

regdog said:
While it is necessary to have a driver's license in all 50 states to drive a car, a gun license is not required in every state. That at the most basic level would give some semblance of minimum requirements for gun ownership. So many hours target range needed, and so many hours classroom safety needed to qualify is addition to passing a shooting test.

With states having no license requirement, it is impossible to know who owns what and what their level of training is, how many guns they own, rounds of ammo etc.

Murdock v. Pennsylvania,
319 U.S. 105 (1943)

A State may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution. P. 319 U. S. 113.

ShaunHorton · Apr 14, 2018

Here's a line of thought.

Criminals get arrested, and their guns confiscated.

Where do they get new guns? The black market, straw-buyers, but they also steal them from law-abiding citizens.

Ergo, fewer law-abiding citizens owning guns makes them harder to steal. Guns on the black market become more in demand, making them more expensive and likely out of the reach of your average street thug. Straw-buyers will be more in demand, making them take higher risks to supply and making them more likely to be caught.

End result - fewer guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens means fewer guns in the hands of criminals. It's not an instant fix, and would have to be maintained(!) for several years before results would show up in any significant statistics, but there you have it.

HR 5087: The Assault Weapons Ban of 2018

socially distancing

The Scavengers

Life is good

The Scavengers

No drama

!

Treguna Makoidees Trecorum SadisDee

Please, call me Boo

!

Life is good

Life is good

socially distancing

Treguna Makoidees Trecorum SadisDee

Life is good

socially distancing

socially distancing

Heckuva good sport

Please, call me Boo

!

The Scavengers

AW's resident Velociraptor