Gun ban overturned.

[Bristlebane]

I rather should have clarified, NEW AR-15 lowers were illegal to sell under certain names, while pre-ban things were fine. If I recall there was something wacky where you couldn't actually call it an AR-15.

Yeah, you can get an UZI for around $3,000. I don't think you can find anything cheaper than that in an NFA gun. The only things I'd want cost more.

[TKarrde]

Originally Posted by Bristlebane

I rather should have clarified, NEW AR-15 lowers were illegal to sell, while pre-ban things were fine.

Yeah, you can get an UZI for around $3,000. I don't think you can find anything cheaper than that in an NFA gun. The only things I'd want cost more.

I'm pretty sure new ones were legal to sell, as long as they didn't have the mentioned features. I remember going to a local gun store, and the owner was unpacking a box of new receivers, and about 1/3rd of them had RESTRICTED: MILITARY/LEO/EXPORT ONLY stamped on them, but the rest he sold. I'm pretty sure they were all new from the manufacturer

[Bristlebane]

Originally Posted by TKarrde

I'm pretty sure new ones were legal to sell, as long as they didn't have the mentioned features. I remember going to a local gun store, and the owner was unpacking a box of new receivers, and about 1/3rd of them had RESTRICTED: MILITARY/LEO/EXPORT ONLY stamped on them, but the rest he sold. I'm pretty sure they were all new from the manufacturer

I ninja-edited before you quoted me. There was something else to it, like you couldn't call it an AR-15 or something stupid, whereas you could call the pre-ban ones AR-15s. Completely nonsensical. I'll try to look it up.

[Bristlebane]

Ah, here.

Democratic Underground - No guns were illegal under the "AWB", actually... - Democratic Underground

You were right about the features.

No guns were illegal under the "AWB", actually. AR-10's, AR-15's, civilian AK's, etc. were perfectly legal to manufacture, import, sell, and possess under the Feinstein law (1994-2004). The law only required that NEW guns not be marketed under any of 19 banned names (e.g., the name "AR-15" was banned, but AR-15 type rifles, including Colts, were unrestricted.

I never owned one during the ban time. I always thought they went way up in value because they were harder to get.

[TKarrde]

Ah, yeah, I think I remember something like that as well. The piece of legislation on the whole was retarded. How many crimes have ever been committed using "assault rifles"? An insignificant amount. I'm not sure I know of any, especially not from people who owned them legally.

Originally Posted by Bristlebane

Ah, here.

Democratic Underground - No guns were illegal under the "AWB", actually... - Democratic Underground

You were right about the features.



I never owned one during the ban time. I always thought they went way up in value because they were harder to get.

Fucking feel good legislation. OK SELL THEM BUT UNDER A DIFFERENT NAME. Looks good to the voters, since those scary AR-15s are off the market, even though they're really still there!

[Bristlebane]

Originally Posted by TKarrde

Ah, yeah, I think I remember something like that as well. The piece of legislation on the whole was retarded. How many crimes have ever been committed using "assault rifles"? An insignificant amount. I'm not sure I know of any, especially not from people who owned them legally.

I'm pretty sure crimes with AR-15s and the like are rare. Criminals aren't buying relatively expensive guns to pull off crimes.

[Dice Rex]

Originally Posted by TKarrde

How many crimes have ever been committed using "assault rifles"? An insignificant amount. I'm not sure I know of any, especially not from people who owned them legally.

Doubtful these guys owned them legally, but they did use assault rifles. Pretty sad too that the cops had to get guns to take them down from a local gun shop.

[Kolle]

Originally Posted by TKarrde

Uh, what? Dude, NCIS, background checks, waiting periods, etc, are all borderline unconstitutional, because they INFRINGE on the right to own firearms. "Making it really hard and impossible for some to own a firearm" is unconstitutional. Period. Court cases have been extremely close on shit like NCIS, and that just takes ~10 minutes to run.

but you do agree that it's ok to have background checks? or do you think anyone should be able to walk into a store and buy any type of gun no questions asked? this includes minors, criminals, etc... since there would be no age check or identity checking.

[TKarrde]

Originally Posted by Bristlebane

I'm pretty sure crimes with AR-15s and the like are rare. Criminals aren't buying relatively expensive guns to pull off crimes.

Exactly, but people don't understand this. They see a gun, go "OH MY GOD IT LOOKS SO SCARY", and assume that all of the criminals are walking around with AR15s and AK47s under their jackets, about to walk into a bank like some sort of Hollywood movie.

Criminals are almost always poor. Poor people don't have access to these expensive weapons. They use relatively inexpensive handguns that they stole from someone, or bought from someone who stole it from someone. (And now I'm going to go off on a rant directed towards Kolle and co, who don't seem to understand that gun control has nothing to do with violence, but rather economic situation.)

And while looking at this fact, you understand that crime is a symptom of a problem: Poverty. People commit crimes because of their economic situation. If you solve that, you have less crime. Look at the current US prison population: African americans make up roughly 40% of it, white americans 34%, hispanic americans 20%, etc. 8.1% of the male black population was in jail in 2005, vs 2.6% of the hispanic male population, and 1.1% of the white male population. Now look at the level of poverty in these communities, and the numbers quite closely match up. Is this a coincidence? Obviously not.

[TKarrde]

Originally Posted by Kolle

but you do agree that it's ok to have background checks? or do you think anyone should be able to walk into a store and buy any type of gun no questions asked? this includes minors, criminals, etc... since there would be no age check or identity checking.

Ask for ID. That's the extent of it. Period. Background checks are worthless.

Criminals will get guns. If they were convicted of a felony previously, then they're not going to care about the much more minor charge of illegal possession of a firearm. Do you think it is difficult to get a gun in the US?

Washington DC had the handgun ban in place for decades, yet it still had one of the highest crime rates involving handguns in the world. This is because there are more guns in the US than there are people, or were, at one point in time. The black market is not some shady thing that only the biggest criminals have access to. I've never associated with the "bad" parts of society, but with ~5 phonecalls and less than 24 hours, I could buy a handgun without having to undergo a background check or anything.

[Bristlebane]

In the vast majority of states, two individuals can exchange a gun, which is very common. You can go to your local newspaper's classifieds, or classifieds on a large number of gun forums and find someone selling a gun in your area.

I just sold (well, about two months ago) my Glock 26 to a guy I don't know. Granted, he was with his wife, and drove a Mercedes, so I don't think he's going to commit any crimes with it.

I believe Connecticut? is one of the few states where it's "illegal" to FTF (face to face) sell a gun, but I'm sure it happens frequently anyway.

[TKarrde]

Originally Posted by Dice Rex

Doubtful these guys owned them legally, but they did use assault rifles. Pretty sad too that the cops had to get guns to take them down from a local gun shop.

They used AK/AR15/HK91s that had been heavily modified, certainly way beyond the point of legality.

Interestingly, the only deaths involved were the two perpetrators. And this is one case in the past... How many years? We've had weapons that could be classified as "assault rifles" for 70+ years now, and events like this are exceedingly rare.

[TKarrde]

Originally Posted by Bristlebane

In the vast majority of states, two individuals can exchange a gun, which is very common. You can go to your local newspaper's classifieds, or classifieds on a large number of gun forums and find someone selling a gun in your area.

I just sold (well, about two months ago) my Glock 26 to a guy I don't know. Granted, he was with his wife, and drove a Mercedes, so I don't think he's going to commit any crimes with it.

I believe Connecticut? is one of the few states where it's "illegal" to FTF (face to face) sell a gun, but I'm sure it happens frequently anyway.

Yep. There are no regulations on selling weapons in person, as long as you are not a licensed dealer. No background check, etc, needed. I think the only obligation you have is to make sure they are of legal age in your state to own the firearm.

[Sunder]

You are a fucking moron for quoting the second amendmant which is over 200 years old.

To the idiot who actually typed this out in my internets feedback, I will only respond with this: The 1st Amendment is 200 years old also. Perhaps we should do away with it as well. You fucking retard.

[MrGraham]

The 2nd amendment should allow me to own land mines as well. And nuclear warheads.

Look, I agree completely that a handgun ban is probably anti-productive. I'm actually anti gun control as well, as anything that will help keep down the overpopulation problem is A+ in my book. I just think using the second amendment as your justification is ridiculous, when the federal government already outlaws some types of "arms". Even with the first amendment in place I still can't yell FIRE in a theater or tell people I have a bomb under my shirt at the airport. There are many laws that limit the rights "guaranteed" by the amendments, so I just don't think that that's the argument that should be made and won with in this specific case. The law should be changed by DC lawmakers or the DC population - not by a federal judiciary decision based on a constitutional right.