Gun Related News/Control

[Larry]

1 hour ago, China said:

Writing for the majority, Justice Clarence Thomas said that a firearm equipped with the accessory does not meet the definition of "machinegun" under federal law.

 

Am I wrong, or is it an undisputed fact that the device's sole purpose is to allow firing of multiple shots with a single trigger pull, by using the energy of the weapon's recoil?  

[China]

I'm shocked!  OK, not really...

 

New study shows up to 43% of US households are not storing guns securely

 

Firearms are the leading cause of death in the United States for children aged 0-19 years, with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reporting over 4,700 pediatric gun-related deaths in 2021.

 

Many of those deaths are unintentional.

 

A new study published by the CDC described how often guns are stored in different U.S. states. Up to 43% of households store loaded guns, which is not considered safe, while half of the households that store guns loaded with ammunition do not put them in locked containers, according to the study.

 

Loaded guns that are not locked can be easy for children to find and accidentally fire.

 

Households from eight states were surveyed for this high-quality report; including Alaska, California, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio and Oklahoma. The percentage of households who had guns and stored guns securely varied widely between states.

 

Click on the link for the full article

[Fergasun]

Not sure of the discussion of bump stocks belongs in this thread or SCOTUS.  So Congress has to explicitly ban attachments than can make a machinegun? 

 

This is like the whole college loans program. "Change" doesn't mean "modify" parsing BS.  

[TheGreatBuzz]

I'm just going to say now; if you all want a real discussion on this, you need to read up on the technicalities of how different guns operate. 

 

If you just want to piss and moan, carry on. But I will say now that while I had hoped for a different result and it would have made moral sense, their reasoning does make some TECHNICAL sense. This could easily fixed by congress just banning bump stocks. This result is less a failing on SCOTUS and more a failing on congress.

[The Evil Genius]

Why would an NRA owned GOP House or Senate ever ban bumpstocks though? 

Edited June 15 by The Evil Genius

[TheGreatBuzz]

3 minutes ago, The Evil Genius said:

Why would an NRA owned GOP House or Senate ever ban bumpstocks though? 

 

I don't think the NRA is paying those bills anymore.

[Cool Hwhip]

No regular person should have ****ing multiple amounts of guns, assault rifles mainly, etc. That is the short and long of it, don't care what the NRA tries to come out with, people saying their constitutional rights are being violated, etc.

 

People obsessed with guns are morons plain and simple.

 

'Oooh, try to come take my guns from me and see what happens to you.'

 

Piss off.

Edited June 15 by Cool Hwhip

[TheGreatBuzz]

1 hour ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

If you just want to piss and moan, carry on.

 

1 hour ago, Cool Hwhip said:

No regular person should have ****ing multiple amounts of guns, assault rifles mainly, etc. That is the short and long of it, don't care what the NRA tries to come out with, people saying their constitutional rights are being violated, etc.

 

People obsessed with guns are morons plain and simple.

 

'Oooh, try to come take my guns from me and see what happens to you.'

 

Piss off.

 

Well, I see a choice has been made.

[CousinsCowgirl84]

1 hour ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

 

I don't think the NRA is paying those bills anymore.

😒

[tshile]

10 hours ago, China said:

In a loss for the Biden administration, the Supreme Court ruled Friday that a Trump-era federal ban on bump stocks, gun accessories that allow semiautomatic rifles to fire more quickly, is unlawful.

 

Why is a Trump-era federal ban being overturned a loss for the Biden administration 

[Long n Left]

6 hours ago, tshile said:

Why is a Trump-era federal ban being overturned a loss for the Biden administration 

Maybe you should ask Lawrence Hurley?

[Jabbyrwock]

14 hours ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

I'm just going to say now; if you all want a real discussion on this, you need to read up on the technicalities of how different guns operate. 

 

If you just want to piss and moan, carry on. But I will say now that while I had hoped for a different result and it would have made moral sense, their reasoning does make some TECHNICAL sense. This could easily fixed by congress just banning bump stocks. This result is less a failing on SCOTUS and more a failing on congress.

 

We need to find a balance here.  Issues are quickly developing in this country (e.g. ethical use of AI) that well out strips the ability for congress to write technically accurate regulations and laws that address them and their immediate future evolutions.  At best, they can take a pot shot, but lay a ground work for what was the intent of the law, and the executive branch and judicial system will need to interpret if things violate based on not just the technical details, but the intent.  Rulings like this bump stock one make it clear that the judicial system wants exact laws written, and intent be damned...I think this kind of precedent sets way to high of a bar for the legislative branch in this day and age...they just don't have the expertise or agility to address things with that kind of detail.

 

Don't get me wrong...this bump stock thing is an easy fix if congress had the will (it doesn't).  But replace the technical details of how a bump stock allows ridiculous rate of fire without actually consciously actioning a trigger at anywhere near the same rate with technical details in LLM stacks and what constitutes open source materials for training vs. proprietary...you can hide an awful lot of copyrighted IP (or even chip designs, for example) in an LLM.  Rulings like this one make it more or less impossible for any sort of legal safety bars to be put on such advanced fields.

[TheGreatBuzz]

59 minutes ago, Jabbyrwock said:

 

We need to find a balance here.  Issues are quickly developing in this country (e.g. ethical use of AI) that well out strips the ability for congress to write technically accurate regulations and laws that address them and their immediate future evolutions.  At best, they can take a pot shot, but lay a ground work for what was the intent of the law, and the executive branch and judicial system will need to interpret if things violate based on not just the technical details, but the intent.  Rulings like this bump stock one make it clear that the judicial system wants exact laws written, and intent be damned...I think this kind of precedent sets way to high of a bar for the legislative branch in this day and age...they just don't have the expertise or agility to address things with that kind of detail.

 

Don't get me wrong...this bump stock thing is an easy fix if congress had the will (it doesn't).  But replace the technical details of how a bump stock allows ridiculous rate of fire without actually consciously actioning a trigger at anywhere near the same rate with technical details in LLM stacks and what constitutes open source materials for training vs. proprietary...you can hide an awful lot of copyrighted IP (or even chip designs, for example) in an LLM.  Rulings like this one make it more or less impossible for any sort of legal safety bars to be put on such advanced fields.

 

I'm pretty stoned so take this fwiw.

 

I don't really follow your logic. I don't know enough about things like AI to have an informed opinion on what congress should do. But I do know guns. This ruling didn't say jack **** about if the public should have machine guns, what the deeper meaning of 2nd ammendment is, etc. There was no great expansion of rights. It was essentially "this attachment didn't exist when the law was written so its not a stretch to saw the current law didn't cover this. The part has been around for decades though and has been on national radar for 5+ years. 'The People' have had time to make a law for it and haven't. Therefore, they're legal until congress says otherwise."

 

Under this ruling, a bill could be passed and signed tomorrow making them illegal and THIS decision would have no bearing because of the merits it was decided on would be different. 

 

This is 99% on Congress. The only real complaint here is that SCOTUS didn't save us from ourselves again. 

[Larry]

Or the complaint could be that this law has applied through two administration's, and the existing law bans a function, not a specific technique for achieving it, and SCOTUS decided to ban the rule by invoking the legal principal of "laws do not apply to any new invention unless a new law is passed."

 

Teslas were not invented when the speed limit laws were passed. But I'm pretty sure speed limits  apply to them anyway.  

[Jabbyrwock]

53 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

 

I'm pretty stoned so take this fwiw.

 

I don't really follow your logic. I don't know enough about things like AI to have an informed opinion on what congress should do. But I do know guns. This ruling didn't say jack **** about if the public should have machine guns, what the deeper meaning of 2nd ammendment is, etc. There was no great expansion of rights. It was essentially "this attachment didn't exist when the law was written so its not a stretch to saw the current law didn't cover this. The part has been around for decades though and has been on national radar for 5+ years. 'The People' have had time to make a law for it and haven't. Therefore, they're legal until congress says otherwise."

 

Under this ruling, a bill could be passed and signed tomorrow making them illegal and THIS decision would have no bearing because of the merits it was decided on would be different. 

 

This is 99% on Congress. The only real complaint here is that SCOTUS didn't save us from ourselves again. 

 

You'll get it when you decompress.  I wasn't ****ing about this ruling...indeed I said it was an easy fix if congress had the will.  I was questioning the weaknesses in the way our gov't is designed that this ruling is a soft example of. In particular with respect to being agile enough in this day and age if the judicial branch insists on enforcing technical considerations (as in this case) rather than legislative intent.  Probly shoulda put it in the SCOTUS thread anyway.

[China]

GOP legislators seek to make AR-15 Michigan’s official state rifle

 

A coalition of Republican lawmakers want to make the AR-15, a semi-automatic firearm, Michigan’s state rifle, a move that concerned gun control advocates.

HB 5792, introduced by Rep. Brian BeGole (R-Antrim Twp.), the former sheriff of Shiawassee County, would make the military-grade weapon the state’s official rifle. The goal of the new designation is to destigmatize the AR-15, and the people who own them, according to a release from BeGole. 
 

“Millions of people across the country and thousands in Michigan own an AR-15. This distinction recognizes these law-abiding gun owners who are often vilified just for having a firearm as a hobbyist or to keep their homes and families safe,” BeGole stated in the release. 
 

But Ryan Bates, executive director of End Gun Violence Michigan, said the bill supports a trend of “extremist” politicians militarizing gun culture in the state. 

“We have to understand this as part and parcel of threats to our democracy by extremists,” Bates said. “…This sort of symbol is an attempt to make our political discourse and debate not about how we’re going to make people’s lives better or improve our state but about threats and violence.”

 

Bates said it was important to distinguish people who use guns for protection or hunting, and people who use AR-15s, which can kill a large number of people quickly. AR-15s have become a threatening symbol from the far-right, Bates said, and people working in politics or elections have been intimidated by these weapons in the last few years. Bates pointed out the example of the Jan. 6 insurrection and safety fears for poll workers. 
 

“They are, one, trying to normalize the presence of military grade hardware in our society,” Bates said. “That’s why you see things like open carry. And two, they are trying to militarize politics. That’s what this is about, and you cannot have a functioning democracy at the barrel of a gun.”

 

BeGole also referenced that this bill would help halt future legislation limiting gun use. Last year, Michigan passed four major laws that limited gun access, including safe storage and background check requirements.  

Click on the link for the full article 

[Cooked Crack]

 

[Cooked Crack]

 

[tshile]

On 6/15/2024 at 1:11 PM, Jabbyrwock said:

I was questioning the weaknesses in the way our gov't is designed that this ruling is a soft example of

The weakness isn’t in the government design 

 

the weakness is that we have too many stupid/lazy people and they don’t take their civic duty to vote seriously

 

the whole abortion issue is caused by congress being lazy and resting on a scotus ruling (which can always be overturned, this wasn’t the first one and it won’t be the last)

 

we have the government we deserve.

dumb/lazy voters elect incompetent/crooked politicians. 
 

the system would work fine if the people paid any attention and cared. 

[tshile]

On 6/14/2024 at 8:18 PM, TheGreatBuzz said:

if you all want a real discussion on this, you need to read up on the technicalities of how different guns operate. 

im curious why this ruling makes technical sense to you. Please correct me where I’m wrong. 
 

Working with the ATF’s definition of a machine gun:

https://www.atf.gov/firearms/firearms-guides-importation-verification-firearms-national-firearms-act-definitions-0
 

machine gun:

Quote

• Any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger
  
• The frame or receiver of any such weapon
  
• Any part designed and intended solely and exclusively or combination of parts designed and intended for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun, or
   
• Any combination of parts from which a machinegun can be assembled if such parts are in the possession or under the control of a person.

it seems to me a bump stock is a part the exclusively and solely is designed to convert a weapon into one that fires more than one round with only one squeeze of the trigger 

 

to me it’s no different than the old school pin filing that accomplished the same thing (supposedly - I have never seen that done or used a weapon it was done to but I’ve been told it’s a thing…?)

On 6/15/2024 at 12:56 PM, Larry said:

Or the complaint could be that this law has applied through two administration's,

the fact that a law has been around for any arbitrary length of time is not a reason its constitutionality cannot be questioned 

 

That would be a silly way to measure things. 

[TheGreatBuzz]

1 minute ago, tshile said:

im curious why this ruling makes technical sense to you. Please correct me where I’m wrong. 
 

Working with the ATF’s definition of a machine gun:

https://www.atf.gov/firearms/firearms-guides-importation-verification-firearms-national-firearms-act-definitions-0
 

machine gun:

it seems to me a bump stock is a part the exclusively and solely is designed to convert a weapon into one that fires more than one round with only one squeeze of the trigger 

 

to me it’s no different than the old school pin filing that accomplished the same thing (supposedly - I have never seen that done or used a weapon it was done to but I’ve been told it’s a thing…?)

 

Basically, SCOTUS is saying the firearms law means that if the TRIGGER isn't just held down, it's not a machine gun. A machine gun essentially uses recoil to move the firing pin around separate of the action of the trigger. 

 

A bump stock (keep "bump" in your mind) works differently. If you were to just squeeze the trigger like a machine gun, you'll likely only get one shot. It's because the bumping mechanism is moving the trigger vs the firing pin. That's why you have to hold it just right to operate. They actually take a bit of practice. 

[tshile]

3 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

A bump stock (keep "bump" in your mind) works differently. If you were to just squeeze the trigger like a machine gun, you'll likely only get one shot. It's because the bumping mechanism is moving the trigger vs the firing pin. That's why you have to hold it just right to operate. They actually take a bit of practice. 

Hah, I didn’t realize that. Now that I’ve read this, I’m not really sure what exactly I thought was going on there.
 

that makes total sense - as does the ruling, from a technical stance. 
 

morally I want them banned but I understand now, thank you!

 

edit: although I’ll add, I’m not a lawyer or a legal scholar, but I’d be curious how much wiggle room they’d have to decide that it’s a distinction without a difference and uphold the ban…

Edited Friday at 06:48 PM by tshile

[tshile]

On 6/15/2024 at 12:56 PM, Larry said:

Teslas were not invented when the speed limit laws were passed. But I'm pretty sure speed limits  apply to them anyway.  

Now that I understand how the bumpstock works - this is a terrible analogy. 
 

it would make sense if speed limit laws had language that said “vehicles propelled by gas or diesel fuel”, because teslas are propelled by neither. But the speed limit laws don’t say that’s so this is a bad analogy. 
 

This is a case of a law being too specific in its definitions to be helpful. The law defines a machine gun as “<stuff about more than one bullet>… with a single function of the trigger”

 

bumpstocks do not work with a single function of the trigger. Each bullet is fired as a result of an independent function of the trigger. 
 

if it was defined more broadly this wouldn’t be an issue. In fact, I would suggest the solution here isn’t to ban bump stocks, but instead to revise the language to be more broad. Otherwise something else that accomplishes the same goal will come around and also be legal until it’s specifically banned. 

[Jabbyrwock]

23 minutes ago, tshile said:

The weakness isn’t in the government design 

 

the weakness is that we have too many stupid/lazy people and they don’t take their civic duty to vote seriously

 

the whole abortion issue is caused by congress being lazy and resting on a scotus ruling (which can always be overturned, this wasn’t the first one and it won’t be the last)

 

we have the government we deserve.

dumb/lazy voters elect incompetent/crooked politicians. 
 

the system would work fine if the people paid any attention and cared. 

 

There will always be a large number of credulous and unmotivated idiots in society.  This is a simple statement about humans and statistics.  Gov't, at least in this day and age, needs to be designed to account for the worst of us, not designed around the hope that everyone (or even a majority) becomes the best of us.  A gov't designed in a such way that it is unstable to basic human behavior (stupidity, laziness, tribalism, confirmation bias, etc...) and unable to optimize due to these behaviors is a weakness in the gov't design.

 

And mind you, I'm not saying the founders did a poor job: in their age what was designed was largely stable, even to arguably larger quantities of human ignorance, and was able to address the pace of development.  The environment that gov't is now immersed in has changed.  I'm not sure the structures we currently have work well enough anymore to adapt as they need.

[tshile]

By the way - another example of why relying on things that circumvent congress is stupid. The ban was an EO. If it’s so important the follow up action is legislation. No one did it (although they’re preparing to now)

 

relying on EO and scotus rulings is stupid. If it’s that important, you need to follow up with legislation that codifies it. 

2 minutes ago, Jabbyrwock said:

 

There will always be a large number of credulous and unmotivated idiots in society.  This is a simple statement about humans and statistics.  Gov't, at least in this day and age, needs to be designed to account for the worst of us, not designed around the hope that everyone (or even a majority) becomes the best of us.  A gov't designed in a such way that it is unstable to basic human behavior (stupidity, laziness, tribalism, confirmation bias, etc...) and unable to optimize due to these behaviors is a weakness in the gov't design.

 

And mind you, I'm not saying the founders did a poor job: in their age what was designed was largely stable, even to arguably larger quantities of human ignorance, and was able to address the pace of development.  The environment that gov't is now immersed in has changed.  I'm not sure the structures we currently have work well enough anymore to adapt as they need.

that’s basically a dictatorship though. It’s not a government for/by the people, it’s a government that governs in spite of its people (because they’re too stupid to govern themselves)
 

now look - I agree that in a very specifically defined way a dictatorship can be better than a democracy. Unfortunately people suck so no matter what you do to make a “good” dictatorship (under the guise the populace is too stupid to have a say in ruling itself), you will ultimately (likely) wind up with an abusive dictatorship 

 

the American people are not the victim here. They are the cause. If we’re determined to burn it all to the ground, then that’s what’s going to (and should) happen

 

(I contend most of the people wanting to burn it to the ground aren’t smart enough to understand what they’re asking for but then again my whole view on this is most people are really ****ing stupid)