Congress Pushes Anti-gun Brady Law Expansion Bill

[archangel003]

Originally Posted by DosEquis

I understand the "only bad people do it anyway argument". You could apply that to many laws, so why have those laws too? If an assault weapon ban is passed it would probably take 20 years of enforcement before it was considered rare in civilian hands. It would do little to lower crime as not many crimes are done with assault weapons. When a cop pulls someone over only to get a full clip shot into him, or 2 bank robbers in north hollywood can take on 30 policemen affectively, it is just not acceptable to me.

The north hollywood robbers were criminals already prohibited from using firearms, and they were using illegally procured, illegally modified arms.

Your point again is?

[Diesel66]

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

So do you think car registration, pet registration or bike registration is the first step to confiscation too?

How long has the registration rule been on the books?

YES



Check out the ban and extermination of pitbulls in a few US cities.

Originally Posted by DosEquis

Generally speaking, I would consider something that is designed for military and police use an assault weapon.

Which era of military/police ?

Is the 1903 Springfield an assault weapon ? It was designed for miltiary use and is still used by some forces today as a sniper rifle.

The military and police choose these weapons because it gives them a tactical advantage when shooting people, not rabbits and deer.

And that is the perfect reason why they should be legal, re:the 2nd admendment.

Some examples are AK47s, SKS, AR15/M16, M4, etc. A lot of them are already illegal in their "automatic" form.

Everything is hard to get in automatic form, it has nothing to do with the fact it is an assult weapon. And automatic is not illegal, outside a few commie states like CA.

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by Diesel66

YES



Check out the ban and extermination of pitbulls in a few US cities.

Funny, I can still drive, own a dog and ride a bike in my city.

[7960]

Originally Posted by Diesel66

And automatic is not illegal, outside a few commie states like CA.

it's illegal if it's not registered and licensed.

[Diesel66]

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

Funny, I can still drive, own a dog and ride a bike in my city.

Nobody in Congress has wanted to stop you from driving or riding. Members of many govts have decided that pit bulls are dangerous but only a few cities have decided to remove them.


Guns on the other hand have a whole party movement backing the removal of them (in some degree) and a few US Senators outright calling for a full ban.

[DosEquis]

Originally Posted by 7960

You still haven't defined "assault weapon."

Please, let me know how to identify one. Becuase as far as i can tell the only way to figure that out is to determine how a person *might* use it. If it "looks like" an assault weapon then it is one... is that how it's defined?

Congress Pushes Anti-gun Brady Law Expansion Bill

[7960]

Originally Posted by DosEquis

Congress Pushes Anti-gun Brady Law Expansion Bill

Congress Pushes Anti-gun Brady Law Expansion Bill

and you didn't answer the question

[DosEquis]

Originally Posted by archangel003

The north hollywood robbers were criminals already prohibited from using firearms, and they were using illegally procured, illegally modified arms.

Your point again is?

If those weapons they were using, which were assault weapons, had been banned for 20 years prior to this crime the chances of them obtaining these weapons would have been significantly reduced. Those guns are much easier to obtain regardless of their legality at the time of their use because they still have their legal semi-automatic form in many gun stores around the country. If they had been removed from stores 20 years ago, and there had been 20 years worth of people turning these weapons in, 20 years of these weapons being confiscated or found by police, the possibility of getting one would have been a LOT smaller.

Your point is what? People who commit crimes are going to use it anyway? Someone already used that one.

[DosEquis]

Originally Posted by 7960

The same tactical advantage for shooting people is also helpful when shooting deer. I hate to say I agree with the automatic weapon ban, but I do. But I can't understand why an AK-47 and an M-16 are illegal if they've been permanently converted to semi-auto. It doesn't make any sense when there are other weapons out there that don't "look like that" but are as powerful.

So why does the military and police choose certain weapons over others if they have the same tactical advantages? Certainly they could use a rifle with the "same tactical advantage and power" of an M16 that is significantly cheaper.

[DosEquis]

Originally Posted by 7960

Congress Pushes Anti-gun Brady Law Expansion Bill

and you didn't answer the question

"Generally speaking, I would consider something that is designed for military and police use an assault weapon. The military and police choose these weapons because it gives them a tactical advantage when shooting people, not rabbits and deer. Some examples are AK47s, SKS, AR15/M16, M4, etc. A lot of them are already illegal in their "automatic" form."

How is that not answering the question?

[JSmythe]

Automatic weapons were outlawed in the 1930s, they remain illegal unless you have a collector's license, which costs A LOT of money.

The AWB banned bullshit things like a bayonet lug, large clips, flash suppressors, grenade launchers (even though the grenades were already illegal)... All things I would want on my gun if we were to have to say... DEFEND OURSELVES FROM TYRANNY

2nd Amendment ftw

[7960]

Originally Posted by DosEquis

So why does the military and police choose certain weapons over others if they have the same tactical advantages? Certainly they could use a rifle with the "same tactical advantage and power" of an M16 that is significantly cheaper.

This isn't the question that needs answering. The question that needs answering is "what is an assault weapon?" Does it have a certain look? Can it fire bullets at a rate faster than some other gun? Does it have to do with stopping power or bullet ftp? Size of the actual bullet? Size of the shell? ................. what makes one gun an assault weapon and another not?

[Diesel66]

Originally Posted by DosEquis

If those weapons they were using, which were assault weapons, had been banned for 20 years prior to this crime the chances of them obtaining these weapons would have been significantly reduced.

Except the weapons they were using WERE ILLEGAL ALREADY.

[Diamond Cross]

Originally Posted by 7960

This isn't the question that needs answering. The question that needs answering is "what is an assault weapon?" Does it have a certain look? Can it fire bullets at a rate faster than some other gun? Does it have to do with stopping power or bullet ftp? Size of the actual bullet? Size of the shell? ................. what makes one gun an assault weapon and another not?

This is how California defines them:

1. What is considered an assault weapon under California law?
   There are three categories of assault weapons under California law. The first category is firearms listed on the original Roberti-Roos assault weapons list (Penal Code section 12276, subds (a), (b), and (c)). The second category of assault weapons is AK and AR-15 series weapons [PDF 35 kb / 3 pg] (Penal Code sections 12276 (e) and (f)). The third category of assault weapons is defined by specific generic characteristics (PC section 12276.1, SB 23).
   top
2. What is the Kasler v. Lockyer California Supreme Court decision and what does it do? This court decision upholds the constitutionality of the Assault Weapons Control Act of 1989. As a result, the Department of Justice (DOJ) is obligated to enforce the statute with respect to identification of AK and AR-15 series weapons. These assault weapons are listed by the Department of Justice in the California Code of Regulations, Title 11, Chapter 12.9, Section 979.11 (11 CCR 979.11)
   top
3. What are AK and AR-15 series weapons and how are they controlled? Any firearm which is a variation, with minor differences, of the AK or AR-15 type (i.e., series weapon), regardless of manufacturer, is an assault weapon under the original Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act of 1989. These assault weapons are listed by the Department of Justice in the California Code of Regulations, Title 11, Chapter 12.9, Section 979.11 (11 CCR 979.11)
   top
4. How is the 2000 assault weapons law (SB 23) affected by the Kasler v. Lockyer decision? The 2000 assault weapons law (SB 23) identified assault weapons by specific characteristics. Those weapons so defined must have been lawfully possessed on or before December 31, 1999 and registered on or before December 31, 2000. Penal Code section 12276, subdivisions (e) and (f), reaffirmed by the Kasler v. Lockyer decision, make AK and AR-15 series weapons unlawful for sale after August 16, 2000, even if their assault weapon characteristics are removed. Persons owning these weapons on this date were required to register them with the DOJ on or before January 23, 2001.

Frequently Asked Questions - Assault Weapon Registration - Firearms Division - California Dept. of Justice - Office of the Attorney General

[DosEquis]

Originally Posted by Diesel66

Except the weapons they were using WERE ILLEGAL ALREADY.

Uh huh, and if those weapons (the legal version which were converted to illegal) were banned a long time ago they would have been a LOT harder to find around the time the crime took place. This would reduce the chances that this event would even take place. If a law banning those semi-auto versions of that gun and those like it was around for a long period of time, they would not be in stores and there would be FAR less out in circulation in a 'black market' type situation. Since there would be little to zero availability those who know how to convert such a weapon would also be harder to find.

Again the legislation would take many years to make any difference in the number of assault weapons on the street. Would they stop every single crime? No, I concede that. However, no matter the law on the books it won't stop every crime. Not that many use assault weapons to carry out their crimes. When those kinds of weapons are used it does turn out in some of the very worst ways for those innocent around them and the police they face. Not many crimes are done with assault weapons, and there are plenty of other crimes that are fairly rare. Since they are rare does not mean it should be legal.

[7960]

Originally Posted by DosEquis

Uh huh, and if those weapons (the legal version which were converted to illegal) were banned a long time ago they would have been a LOT harder to find around the time the crime took place. This would reduce the chances that this event would even take place.

... no.

They didn't commit the crime because they were sitting around and one day found those weapons and thought "Fuck YEAH! NOW we can go rob those banks!" They wanted to go rob some banks and went and found the weapons....and like he said they were ALREADY illegal. A different law 20 years ago would mean those guys would have been carrying different guns today, NOT that they wouldn't have done the crime.

Again the legislation would take many years to make any difference in the number of assault weapons on the street. Would they stop every single crime? No, I concede that. However, no matter the law on the books it won't stop every crime. Not that many use assault weapons to carry out their crimes. When those kinds of weapons are used it does turn out in some of the very worst ways for those innocent around them and the police they face. Not many crimes are done with assault weapons, and there are plenty of other crimes that are fairly rare. Since they are rare does not mean it should be legal.

Do you believe we need to eliminate private ownerhip of all handguns? Because 10x the number of crimes are committed with handguns but you're only picking on "assault rifles"...why? Why not go after the guns that are used in the majority of crimes?

[7960]

Originally Posted by Diamond Cross

This is how California defines them:

1. What is considered an assault weapon under California law?
   There are three categories of assault weapons under California law. The first category is firearms listed on the original Roberti-Roos assault weapons list (Penal Code section 12276, subds (a), (b), and (c)). The second category of assault weapons is AK and AR-15 series weapons [PDF 35 kb / 3 pg] (Penal Code sections 12276 (e) and (f)). The third category of assault weapons is defined by specific generic characteristics (PC section 12276.1, SB 23).
   top
2. What is the Kasler v. Lockyer California Supreme Court decision and what does it do? This court decision upholds the constitutionality of the Assault Weapons Control Act of 1989. As a result, the Department of Justice (DOJ) is obligated to enforce the statute with respect to identification of AK and AR-15 series weapons. These assault weapons are listed by the Department of Justice in the California Code of Regulations, Title 11, Chapter 12.9, Section 979.11 (11 CCR 979.11)
   top
3. What are AK and AR-15 series weapons and how are they controlled? Any firearm which is a variation, with minor differences, of the AK or AR-15 type (i.e., series weapon), regardless of manufacturer, is an assault weapon under the original Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act of 1989. These assault weapons are listed by the Department of Justice in the California Code of Regulations, Title 11, Chapter 12.9, Section 979.11 (11 CCR 979.11)
   top
4. How is the 2000 assault weapons law (SB 23) affected by the Kasler v. Lockyer decision? The 2000 assault weapons law (SB 23) identified assault weapons by specific characteristics. Those weapons so defined must have been lawfully possessed on or before December 31, 1999 and registered on or before December 31, 2000. Penal Code section 12276, subdivisions (e) and (f), reaffirmed by the Kasler v. Lockyer decision, make AK and AR-15 series weapons unlawful for sale after August 16, 2000, even if their assault weapon characteristics are removed. Persons owning these weapons on this date were required to register them with the DOJ on or before January 23, 2001.

Frequently Asked Questions - Assault Weapon Registration - Firearms Division - California Dept. of Justice - Office of the Attorney General

I'll never understand how a pistol grip, a second forward grip, a thumbhole stock, or a telescoping stock changes a gun from a rifle to an "assault weapon."

[DosEquis]

Originally Posted by 7960