The Thread Where We Discuss Guns and Gun Control

[TheMeInTeam]

Oh? Which ones are those?

It seems I misunderstood you, I was referring to "assault weapon" style bans but it seems you weren't talking about that at all. I rescind my statement, I don't have the same familiarity with what you were actually talking about and would prefer to look at that more before discussing it.

 

[Commodore]

Unfortunately most states have no confiscation laws for people currently under domestic violence restraining orders.

It's not the responsibility of the states to confiscate from people who shouldn't have guns. It's up to the ATF. I just learned this in a YouTube video I watched in which a gun shop owner went in to great detail about how the whole background check system works and one of the things he talked about was what happens when someone who was initially cleared to purchase a firearm is later determined to not be legally able to own a firearm. Basically, the FFL dealer that sold them the firearm has to turn over any contact information for the buyer to the ATF and it is then up to the ATF to recover the firearm from that person.

 

[Aabraxan]

I agree that those two things are separate issues. I did not present them as otherwise.

It appeared so to me, but if I was mistaken, then so be it.

Issue 1:The gun-enthusiasts who are touting mask-mandates as a gun-grabbing conspiracy are engaging in paranoid delusions of persecution and unwarranted fear-mongering, that is based on zero (AFAICT) actual, real-life examples.

In the long run, you may be right, but given certain states' histories (CA, IL, NY, NJ, etc.), I'll just have to wait and see. Those are some of the jurisdictions in which I would not be surprised to see a few charges pop up. (No, I don't know of any yet.)

Issue 2:You personally, Aabraxan, were incorrect to state that the Courts were closed. However, you've admitted/clarified that, so that issue is resolved.

I don't know how it is in your area, but around here, when an office or business isn't open to the public to do its usual business, we call it 'closed.' So while I may have not been quite specific enough, I wasn't entirely wrong, either. Were the courts open for the general public to have hearings in your area? Were non-emergency hearings being held in person? In Arkansas, they were not.

So all that remains is Issue 1, which brings us to:
And my best guess based on my 20 years experience is that your best guess is wrong.

If I may ask, how much of that 20 years is actually working in the area of criminal law? I'm not trying to be difficult here, but I don't know what your 20 years consists of besides "filing things with the court" and meeting with 3 judges. (At least I think that's what you posted earlier.)

My best guess is that the reason no one is able to produce any real-life cases of people being charged or convicted of carrying while clearly covid-masked is that there are no real life cases of it. I will gladly acknowledge that I was wrong when someone produces some real life cases. Until then, my position remains firmly that this is just a made-up boogeyman, by some in the gun enthusiast community based on paranoid delusions of persecution and unwarranted fear-mongering.

As I mentioned, you may turn out to be right. That said, if there are any cases, it will be a few months before any go to trial. For ones that pled out (if any exist), that's a different deal.

Out of curiosity, how would you expect to know if someone had been charged? There are quite a few charges brought by the police that never hit the internet.

I will add that I find credible @Commodore 's opinion that some gun-owners, who have been taken in by this fear-mongering, might be voluntarily giving up their rights to carry out of a good faith fear that there really is a risk that they will be charged for carrying while covid-masked.

I also think that's pretty credible.

 

[Socrates99]

It's not the responsibility of the states to confiscate from people who shouldn't have guns. It's up to the ATF. I just learned this in a YouTube video I watched in which a gun shop owner went in to great detail about how the whole background check system works and one of the things he talked about was what happens when someone who was initially cleared to purchase a firearm is later determined to not be legally able to own a firearm. Basically, the FFL dealer that sold them the firearm has to turn over any contact information for the buyer to the ATF and it is then up to the ATF to recover the firearm from that person.

I'm talking about guns already owned by the offender. There are states with confiscation laws but it's mostly just an honor system.

it shouldn't be the states responsibility but it's not really enforced by the ATF much at all. So expand the ATF and State and local governments' reporting I guess? The federal government doesn't really have red flag laws so when a state or local crime is committed the ATF doesn't necessarily get the word and firearms aren't confiscated from abusers unless a state has a law on the books. It'd come up in a federal background check when purchasing but doesn't do anything for already owned weapons.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Out of curiosity, how would you expect to know if someone had been charged? There are quite a few charges brought by the police that never hit the internet..

Huh? How do I expect you to support your claim? How should I know? That's your problem not mine. Is that an admission that you actually can't support your position? It sure sounds like it.

If I may ask, how much of that 20 years is actually working in the area of criminal law? I'm not trying to be difficult here, but I don't know what your 20 years consists of besides "filing things with the court" and meeting with 3 judges. (At least I think that's what you posted earlier.)

*sigh* So that's where you're going, really? OK, despite the fact that I realize this will have zero impact on your position, I will indulge you. I started out in the Camden, NJ Public Defenders office and currently work in a practice where we handle, among other things, hundreds of criminal cases on an ongoing basis, so yes, sometimes when I appear in Court, or "file things with the Court" or meet with judges and so on, it is for criminal cases.

So what difference does that make to you? Are you now going to offer me an apology? Admit you were wrong? Cause if not... what was the point of that question?

Again, the point is that the "covid-mask mandate is a seekrit gun-ban conspiracy" is a horse manure argument. You can't produce a shred of evidence to support that claim or refute my position, so you're trying to deflect into dick measuring contests, and other irrelevancies like the nuances of how we define whether Courts are "closed". But i'm not fooled or distracted. Your argument is wrong, totally unsupported by the evidence, and you're unable to show otherwise. Just admit it and move on.

 

[Bugfatty300]

There are people on gun community forums who will swear that possessing a rubber band and a gun is a crime and will land you in AMX.

They can't cite actual laws or cases but they know it's true because they heard on another private forum that someone's cousin's best friend's wife's uncle was convicted under this law.

It's fun to mess with those people but this anti-mask nonsense is actually going to kill killing people.

 

[Estebonrober]

There are people on gun community forums who will swear that possessing a rubber band and a gun is a crime and will land you in AMX.

They can't cite actual laws or cases but they know it's true because they heard on another private forum that someone's cousin's best friend's wife's uncle was convicted under this law.

It's fun to mess with those people but this anti-mask nonsense is actually going to kill people.

It already has certainly killed people. Its also gotten Americans banned from travelling. . . well almost anywhere.

 

[Commodore]

Its also gotten Americans banned from travelling. . . well almost anywhere

And Americans generally don't care. One of the advantages of living in a large nation is that you can take almost any type of vacation you want without leaving the country. There also isn't anything most other countries have to offer the average American that makes a travel ban meaningful to us.

 

[Estebonrober]

And Americans generally don't care. One of the advantages of living in a large nation is that you can take almost any type of vacation you want without leaving the country. There also isn't anything most other countries have to offer the average American that makes a travel ban meaningful to us.

Um ok, like I think I understand the point you are trying to make but Americans care. Especially wealthy ones and of course they matter more per capita politically then the rest of us plebs. That said even I care because whereas other reasons for foreign derision towards America was almost purely political this really is because we have become the ******** country Trump was trying to complain about earlier in his Presidency and that is largely because of stupidity. Plain and simple stupidity.

 

[Aabraxan]

Huh? How do I expect you to support your claim? How should I know? That's your problem not mine. Is that an admission that you actually can't support your position? It sure sounds like it.

Let's take a brief look at what I actually claimed, please:

I've seen posts on other (firearms-oriented) boards about mask requirements and prohibitions on carrying guns while wearing a mask. I think the reason we're not seeing convictions yet is that the mask orders are so new, and lots of courts have been closed. So, it may or may not be a matter of whether these prohibitions are being enforced; they may simply not have had time to work through the court system. I'll also admit that there's some possibility that police simply aren't enforcing them in the absence of other criminal activity.

Are you trying to say I haven't seen 'posts on other (firearms-oriented) boards about mask requirements and prohibitions on carrying guns while wearing a mask?" Or that charges for carrying a firearm while wearing a mask could not have been delayed by covid-related court closures? At no time did I claim that there's any government conspiracy to disarm people.

*sigh* So that's where you're going, really?

*sigh* Where "I'm" going? I guess I'm going to be that 'you started it' guy... At post 3273, you posted:

....No. The Courts are not closed. I communicate with the Court and file things with the Court literally everyday. I met with 3 different Judges last week. Some individual Courthouses are closed, but the Courts are open, especially the Criminal Courts. It has nothing to do with Courts being closed.This. No one is enforcing any coronavirus mask+gun=crime gotchas nor is there any conspiracy to do so. Its just delusions of persecution by some in the gun enthusiast community.

(Emphasis mine.) Posting that is a claim that 'you know about courts,' a claim of knowledge superior to the average person-on-the-street. Thus, my inquiring into your background is (IMHO) completely fair.

OK, despite the fact that I realize this will have zero impact on your position, I will indulge you. I started out in the Camden, NJ Public Defenders office and currently work in a practice where we handle, among other things, hundreds of criminal cases on an ongoing basis, so yes, sometimes when I appear in Court, or "file things with the Court" or meet with judges and so on, it is for criminal cases.

So what difference does that make to you? Are you now going to offer me an apology? Admit you were wrong? Cause if not... what was the point of that question?

No, I'm not going to offer an apology. I was trying to see what your level of experience with the courts is. That was the point of the question, and it does make a difference. For all I knew of you prior to asking, your 20 years of experience involved filing liens on real property. Now I know differently. As I'm sure you know, there's a big gap (in terms of subject-matter knowledge) between someone who works in a given area (criminal law in this case) and someone who may work in a tangentially-related area. That sentence may not be very clear, so I'll give an example: Two or three times a month, I get a call from some lawyer whose cousin's wife's nephew got busted for a little weed. (Just one example there, not intended to limit those calls to lawyers' cousins' wives' nephews who pick up weed charges.) That conversation often starts with the other lawyer saying something to the effect of, "I'm a real estate lawyer and haven't done a criminal case in 15 years. How do I get a copy of the State's file?" The other lawyer may be an outstanding real estate lawyer, but that doesn't mean he knows diddly-doo about criminal proceedings.

....Again, the point is that the "covid-mask mandate is a seekrit gun-ban conspiracy" is a horse manure argument. You can't produce a shred of evidence to support that claim or refute my position, so you're trying to deflect into dick measuring contests, and other irrelevancies like the nuances of how we define whether Courts are "closed". But i'm not fooled or distracted. Your argument is wrong, totally unsupported by the evidence, and you're unable to show otherwise. Just admit it and move on.

I'm not interested in a spitting contest, nor in fooling or distracting you. At the same time, you're not entitled to have your claims (knowledge of how courts work) accepted with no investigation into your qualifications. I've also not claimed that there's any 'seekrit gun-ban conspiracy' related to covid & masks.' What I said in that regard, specifically, was, "it may or may not be a matter of whether these prohibitions are being enforced; they may simply not have had time to work through the court system." Nothing more. Please quit trying to stretch that into some claim I haven't made.

As for 'closed,' yes, I said courts were 'closed.' Perhaps I should have specified 'closed to public, in-person hearings, but subject to the constitutional rights of criminal defendants who are in the custody of the state,' (or some such) but I didn't really think anybody would believe that I was claiming that absolutely, nobody would be present in any courthouse in the USA or doing any work there. Apparently, I was wrong in thinking it needed to be spelled out like that. Heck, I knew there was still some stuff going on in the courts. I had to keep working, even when my court wasn't seeing anyone who wasn't in jail. We did our jail docket by video every weekday during our shutdown.

There are people on gun community forums who will swear that possessing a rubber band and a gun is a crime and will land you in AMX.....

I'm not sure about rubber bands, but this site has an image of an ATF ruling holding that a string was a machine gun.

 

[Commodore]

There are people on gun community forums who will swear that possessing a rubber band and a gun is a crime and will land you in AMX

A lot of that comes from exaggerations of some downright stupid enforcement the ATF has done in the past. Like a guy getting 5 years in federal prison and losing his right to ever own a firearm because he allowed a friend to use his workshop to finish milling out what they call an "80% lower". Apparently if you are going to do that, you have to use your own machinery. If you use a friend's or any other machinery that does not belong to you, then it is considered a felony for both the person who made the gun and the person who owns the machinery used to make it. To me, that is such a stupid rule. If it is legal to make your own firearm (which it is as long as you don't try to sell it or give it to someone else), then who the hell cares whose tools and machines you use to make it?

I'm not sure about rubber bands, but this site has an image of an ATF ruling holding that a string was a machine gun

The thing about ATF rulings, and rulings by any other agency from the executive branch, is that they really are unconstitutional. Those agencies are made up of unelected officials from the executive branch. The rulings they make are based on their own interpretation of the law. Now anyone who has taken an elementary school civics course in the US should know that interpreting the law is the job of the judicial branch, not the executive branch.

Also, as unelected officials and members of the executive branch, such agencies also do not have the authority to create legislation, which is also what the ATF is doing when they come out with their little "policy letters" whenever some new firearms related product comes out.

And I'm not interested in any legislation someone can dig up giving the ATF that kind of authority because Congress doesn't have the right to legislate away it's Constitutional responsibilities onto another branch of government. I know they do it all the time, but that doesn't make it right.

 

[Aabraxan]

A lot of that comes from exaggerations of some downright stupid enforcement the ATF has done in the past. Like a guy getting 5 years in federal prison and losing his right to ever own a firearm because he allowed a friend to use his workshop to finish milling out what they call an "80% lower". Apparently if you are going to do that, you have to use your own machinery....

That's a fairly recent ruling, though. Maybe the past 5 years? It hasn't always been that way. Just going from memory here, but it seems like some company (maybe in CA?) was hosting 'build parties' where folks would come to their shop in large groups to build 80% lowers. That, of course, didn't sit well with ATF.

.... Also, as unelected officials and members of the executive branch, such agencies also do not have the authority to create legislation, which is also what the ATF is doing when they come out with their little "policy letters" whenever some new firearms related product comes out.

And I'm not interested in any legislation someone can dig up giving the ATF that kind of authority because Congress doesn't have the right to legislate away it's Constitutional responsibilities onto another branch of government. I know they do it all the time, but that doesn't make it right.

I'm pretty sure that the courts have upheld Congress' authority to delegate certain tasks. On top of that, there's a ton of administrative work, rulemaking, etc., going on already, and I'm not sure I want Congress getting any more bogged down than it already is. Does it really need to have weeks of hearings on whether a flash hider must be permanently pinned (as opposed to simply threaded/screwed onto the end of the barrel) on a 15.5" barrel to avoid being a Short Barreled Rifle? Or maybe we could go ahead and leave some of that to folks that already work with that subject every day?

 

[Sommerswerd]

Let's take a brief look at what I actually claimed, please:

Are you trying to say I haven't seen 'posts on other (firearms-oriented) boards about mask requirements and prohibitions on carrying guns while wearing a mask?" Or that charges for carrying a firearm while wearing a mask could not have been delayed by covid-related court closures? At no time did I claim that there's any government conspiracy to disarm people.

*sigh* Where "I'm" going? I guess I'm going to be that 'you started it' guy... At post 3273, you posted:

(Emphasis mine.) Posting that is a claim that 'you know about courts,' a claim of knowledge superior to the average person-on-the-street. Thus, my inquiring into your background is (IMHO) completely fair.

No, I'm not going to offer an apology. I was trying to see what your level of experience with the courts is. That was the point of the question, and it does make a difference. For all I knew of you prior to asking, your 20 years of experience involved filing liens on real property. Now I know differently. As I'm sure you know, there's a big gap (in terms of subject-matter knowledge) between someone who works in a given area (criminal law in this case) and someone who may work in a tangentially-related area. That sentence may not be very clear, so I'll give an example: Two or three times a month, I get a call from some lawyer whose cousin's wife's nephew got busted for a little weed. (Just one example there, not intended to limit those calls to lawyers' cousins' wives' nephews who pick up weed charges.) That conversation often starts with the other lawyer saying something to the effect of, "I'm a real estate lawyer and haven't done a criminal case in 15 years. How do I get a copy of the State's file?" The other lawyer may be an outstanding real estate lawyer, but that doesn't mean he knows diddly-doo about criminal proceedings.


I'm not interested in a spitting contest, nor in fooling or distracting you. At the same time, you're not entitled to have your claims (knowledge of how courts work) accepted with no investigation into your qualifications. I've also not claimed that there's any 'seekrit gun-ban conspiracy' related to covid & masks.' What I said in that regard, specifically, was, "it may or may not be a matter of whether these prohibitions are being enforced; they may simply not have had time to work through the court system." Nothing more. Please quit trying to stretch that into some claim I haven't made.

As for 'closed,' yes, I said courts were 'closed.' Perhaps I should have specified 'closed to public, in-person hearings, but subject to the constitutional rights of criminal defendants who are in the custody of the state,' (or some such) but I didn't really think anybody would believe that I was claiming that absolutely, nobody would be present in any courthouse in the USA or doing any work there. Apparently, I was wrong in thinking it needed to be spelled out like that. Heck, I knew there was still some stuff going on in the courts. I had to keep working, even when my court wasn't seeing anyone who wasn't in jail. We did our jail docket by video every weekday during our shutdown.


I'm not sure about rubber bands, but this site has an image of an ATF ruling holding that a string was a machine gun.

So to be clear... despite the above wall-of-text... you still have no evidence of anyone being charged or convicted under the "covid-masked-while-carrying" theory.

So in other words, as I suspected, your question was pointless, your argument is BS, you have no evidence to the contrary and the above is just a whole lot of TL;DR deflection.

So nice try. You're still wrong.

 

[Aabraxan]

So to be clear... despite the above wall-of-text... you still have no evidence of anyone being charged or convicted under the "covid-masked-while-carrying" theory.

So in other words, as I suspected, your question was pointless, your argument is BS, you have no evidence to the contrary and the above is just a whole lot of TL;DR deflection.

So nice try. You're still wrong.

Nope. I have absolutely no evidence of anyone being charged under it. I've never claimed otherwise. Maybe you missed that part when you DR. That said, lots of people get charged with lots of things in the USA that I don't know about. Maybe you have some database access that you can definitively say nobody has been charged with carrying a firearm while wearing a mask, with no other criminal charges to go with it?

 

[Sommerswerd]

Nope. I have absolutely no evidence of anyone being charged under it. I've never claimed otherwise. Maybe you missed that part when you DR. That said, lots of people get charged with lots of things in the USA that I don't know about. Maybe you have some database access that you can definitively say nobody has been charged with carrying a firearm while wearing a mask, with no other criminal charges to go with it?

You're the one making the claim. It's your problem to support with evidence. I'm saying you don't have the evidence to support your claim. You seem to be admitting that, finally, albeit begrudgingly.

 

[Aabraxan]

You're the one making the claim. It's your problem to support with evidence. I'm saying you don't have the evidence to support your claim. You seem to be admitting that, finally, albeit begrudgingly.

May I ask exactly what claim you think I'm making?

I've never claimed that anyone had been charged with this covid-mask-while-carrying crime. All I ever claimed is that, if they had, we wouldn't know about it yet, possibly in part because of court closures. I provided links to various state judiciary pages, which all have court closures and reopening plans. And yet, you keep coming back and telling me I'm wrong about something, but I'm thinking that you think I'm wrong about something I didn't assert.

Oh, and in regards to claims that were (allegedly) not supported:

It might also be because the catch-22 isn't really being enforced at all and the idea that it would be is just speculative paranoia and/or delusions of persecution by gun enthusiasts....

So, where's your proof that it isn't being enforced at all?

 

[Commodore]

That's a fairly recent ruling, though. Maybe the past 5 years? It hasn't always been that way. Just going from memory here, but it seems like some company (maybe in CA?) was hosting 'build parties' where folks would come to their shop in large groups to build 80% lowers. That, of course, didn't sit well with ATF

Whether it sits well with the ATF or not should be irrelevant since they are only supposed to be enforcing the laws on the books, not creating new ones.

I'm pretty sure that the courts have upheld Congress' authority to delegate certain

Yeah they upheld it, doesn't mean it was the right decision though. The Supreme Court has gotten things wrong in the past and with them being the highest court in the land, it's extremely difficult to undo those mistakes.

On top of that, there's a ton of administrative work, rulemaking, etc., going on already, and I'm not sure I want Congress getting any more bogged down than it already is

I do. I want Congress as bogged down as possible because the less they can do means the less they can interfere in my life. Congress has proven over the years that nothing it does is for the benefit of the people so I'd prefer it if they were as toothless and ineffective as we can possibly make them.

Does it really need to have weeks of hearings on whether a flash hider must be permanently pinned (as opposed to simply threaded/screwed onto the end of the barrel) on a 15.5" barrel to avoid being a Short Barreled Rifle?

No because the 2nd Amendment is pretty clear on this: "shall not be infringed". So Congress really shouldn't be legislating guns at all. Now I know others have made the argument in the past about "reasonable restrictions" on other Constitutional rights so that should apply to the 2nd as well. And to that I respond by saying no other right in the Constitution has the language "shall not be infringed" attached to them. That was very deliberate language on the part of the Founders and it bugs me that it's ignored so frequently by our government.

Or maybe we could go ahead and leave some of that to folks that already work with that subject every

Then those agencies need to no longer be appointed by the president. If they are going to start legislating, then we, the people, should be voting them into office. Unelected officials simply should not be allowed to make decisions that carry the weight of law.

 

[El_Machinae]

I do. I want Congress as bogged down as possible because the less they can do means the less they can interfere in my life. Congress has proven over the years that nothing it does is for the benefit of the people so I'd prefer it if they were as toothless and ineffective as we can possibly make them.

You know, piles of countries that doesn't have this as the rallying cry of half their voters are actually better at governance than the United States. This idea that government should be 'bogged down' is a terrible idea. It's not the same as 'non-intrusive'. It takes effective government to create good regulations.

You're just reminding us of the "starve the Beast" cohort from yesteryear, that thought that ratcheting up the public debt until default was the only way of getting the government to be forced to limit its size. But ehn, the United States is bordering on becoming a failed state, so I might just be pissing into the wind here.

 

[Aabraxan]

Whether it sits well with the ATF or not should be irrelevant since they are only supposed to be enforcing the laws on the books, not creating new ones.

I understand, but that's not what the courts have said. They give some deference to those opinions, whether right or wrong.

Yeah they upheld it, doesn't mean it was the right decision though. The Supreme Court has gotten things wrong in the past and with them being the highest court in the land, it's extremely difficult to undo those mistakes.

Whether it's right or wrong, it is the law for now. And you're absolutely correct: SCOTUS has gotten some things wrong, and their decisions are hard to undo.

I do. I want Congress as bogged down as possible because the less they can do means the less they can interfere in my life. Congress has proven over the years that nothing it does is for the benefit of the people so I'd prefer it if they were as toothless and ineffective as we can possibly make them.

I'd also prefer that it interfered less in my life, but my idea of a solution is somewhat different. I just want them to quit spending time & resources on things like "A Resolution expressing the sense of the Senate in support of [insert name of your favorite benevolent dictator here]" and garbage like that.

No because the 2nd Amendment is pretty clear on this: "shall not be infringed". So Congress really shouldn't be legislating guns at all. Now I know others have made the argument in the past about "reasonable restrictions" on other Constitutional rights so that should apply to the 2nd as well. And to that I respond by saying no other right in the Constitution has the language "shall not be infringed" attached to them. That was very deliberate language on the part of the Founders and it bugs me that it's ignored so frequently by our government.

You're right about the unique character of the 2A's language in the constitution. That said, it's never been held (AFAIK) that "shall not be infringed" means that Congress "shall not delegate." What I find so terribly bothersome (of several things, actually) about the state of 2A litigation is that: (1) SCOTUS has declared the 2A to be a fundamental, individual right; but (2) the court system has failed to apply strict scrutiny, which is the usual level of constitutional scrutiny for fundamental rights.

 

[Sommerswerd]

No because the 2nd Amendment is pretty clear on this: "shall not be infringed". So Congress really shouldn't be legislating guns at all. Now I know others have made the argument in the past about "reasonable restrictions" on other Constitutional rights so that should apply to the 2nd as well. And to that I respond by saying no other right in the Constitution has the language "shall not be infringed" attached to them. That was very deliberate language on the part of the Founders and it bugs me that it's ignored so frequently by our government.

This is my feeling as well. While as you know, I'm not a gun guy, and I can certainly see reasonable arguments to be made regarding the merits of all kinds of gun regulations... I also believe that the Second Amendment creates a reasonable challenge to almost any law that purports to restrict citizens' access to weapons. In other words, as long as the Second Amendment is in place, folks who think there shouldn't really be much, if any restriction on firearm ownership have a valid, good-faith argument, whether or not you agree with it.