Author Topic: We the Well-armed People (gun and knife rights stuff ) Second Amendment  (Read 986710 times)



DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19460
    • View Profile
Re: We the Well-armed People (gun and knife rights stuff )
« Reply #2102 on: August 08, 2020, 02:09:04 PM »
'The first rule of gun safety,
don't let the government take your guns'.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: We the Well-armed People (gun and knife rights stuff )
« Reply #2103 on: August 08, 2020, 02:11:33 PM »
'The first rule of gun safety,
don't let the government take your guns'.

Yup.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: We the Well-armed People (gun and knife rights stuff )
« Reply #2104 on: August 08, 2020, 02:14:23 PM »
'The first rule of gun safety,
don't let the government take your guns'.

Yup.

Just social distance.
Just wear a mask.
Just shut down the economy.
Just don't resist when you are the victim of violent crime.
Just turn in your guns.
Just get into the boxcar.
Just go into the showers.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19460
    • View Profile
Re: NYFC rediscovers the 2nd Amendment
« Reply #2106 on: August 11, 2020, 08:29:33 AM »
https://dailycaller.com/2020/08/10/nyc-gun-permit-applications-rifle-handgun/

"New York City Rifle Permit Applications Surge by 340%"

Famous people caught reading the forum.  Someone here wrote, "Plan accordingly".

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72322
    • View Profile
Skullduggery in the MO case
« Reply #2107 on: August 14, 2020, 09:32:21 AM »


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72322
    • View Profile
WSJ: Our Orphan Constitutional Right
« Reply #2109 on: September 04, 2020, 06:36:13 AM »

Our ‘Orphan’ Constitutional Right
The Roberts Court can’t duck the Second Amendment forever.
By The WSJ Editorial Board
Sept. 3, 2020 7:11 pm ET



The Third Circuit Court of Appeals this week upheld a New Jersey ban on “large capacity magazines” for guns—i.e., those that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition. The ruling, by a three-judge panel, comes some two weeks after a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit reached the opposite conclusion about a similar California ban. This is what happens when the Supreme Court, in the words of Justice Clarence Thomas, treats the Second Amendment as a “constitutional orphan.”

Justice Thomas offered his complaint in 2018 after the Court failed to hear a case challenging California’s 10-day waiting period to buy a firearm. This June the Supreme Court passed on 10 more gun-related cases, another sign it is reluctant to end the confusion by delineating how far the government can go in regulating firearms and ammunition. One of the declined cases involved a Massachusetts law that also bans magazines of more than 10 rounds.

In the Ninth Circuit opinion finding California’s ban unconstitutional, the panel noted that “firearms with greater than ten round capacities existed even before our nation’s founding, and the common use of LCMs for self-defense is apparent in our shared national history.” In contrast, the Third Circuit, while agreeing that these magazines are “typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes,” nonetheless ruled the ban “does not burden the core Second Amendment guarantee.”

The reason for these competing judgments is that despite two landmark Supreme Court cases upholding gun rights—District of Columbia v. Heller in 2008, McDonald v. Chicago in 2010—there is still no clear standard for evaluating Second Amendment claims. Courts upholding bans and restrictions generally rely on lower levels of scrutiny that allow courts to balance interests. But this erodes the individual right to bear arms case by case. As Third Circuit Judge Paul Matey argued in his dissent, following “the direction of the Supreme Court” should mean a focus on the Second Amendment’s “text, history and tradition.”


The best way to look at these dueling rulings is as a signal to Chief Justice John Roberts that he can’t duck the issue forever.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72322
    • View Profile
Kyle Rittenhouse's attorney on Tucker
« Reply #2110 on: September 04, 2020, 08:28:32 PM »



DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19460
    • View Profile
Re: We the Well-armed People (gun and knife rights stuff )
« Reply #2113 on: November 12, 2020, 06:01:58 AM »
I'll try this question a third time.  Is there any reasonable restriction on the right to bear arms that is constitutional?  How extreme do we need the example to be in order to agree there is a line - somewhere?

From NK thread:  "NK has 15 to 60 nuclear weapons and hundreds of missiles"

Can Jeff Bezos have this (in America), private stock on private property? Is any law that restricts this an unconstitutional abridgement of an absolute right?

Tordislung

  • Frequent Poster
  • **
  • Posts: 60
    • View Profile
Re: We the Well-armed People (gun and knife rights stuff )
« Reply #2114 on: November 12, 2020, 06:42:51 AM »
I'll try this question a third time.  Is there any reasonable restriction on the right to bear arms that is constitutional?  How extreme do we need the example to be in order to agree there is a line - somewhere?

From NK thread:  "NK has 15 to 60 nuclear weapons and hundreds of missiles"

Can Jeff Bezos have this (in America), private stock on private property? Is any law that restricts this an unconstitutional abridgement of an absolute right?

No. There is no reasonable restriction.
Also, the Constitution has no inherent authority. It never has..

Fundamentally.... Bezos having nukes is no different than Soros, Rothschilds et al and their connections.

There can never be "reasonable" restrictions because the right to defend one's life is always greater than someone else's right to their idea of "safety;" in that, "safety" is intangible, or even a fabrication....a lie.... whereas the ability to protect oneself against tyranny, is not.

One of the root causes of this problem, is the view that the Constitution ever had any validity.

The first constitution..."the Articles of Confederation," stipulated a unanimous vote. There was never a unanimous vote, nor a public debate...in the adoption of a new Constitution or creation of an executive branch of government....so we have fruit of the poisonous tree.

You know it.

Even if the Constitution did carry weight... It still isn't the origin of our Rights. The Declaration of Independence makes that clear.

Then... The entire implied, tacit, and explicit consent arguments....

There is no reasonable gun control. Ever.
« Last Edit: November 12, 2020, 06:45:52 AM by Tordislung »

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19460
    • View Profile
Re: We the Well-armed People (gun and knife rights stuff )
« Reply #2115 on: November 12, 2020, 07:04:02 AM »
Thank you for the direct answer.  I would like to invite Crafty and GM to answer same question. What say you and others about any restrictions on private arms up to literally nuclear weapons on private property?

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: We the Well-armed People (gun and knife rights stuff )
« Reply #2116 on: November 12, 2020, 06:37:52 PM »
No right is absolute. IMHO, the intent of the founders is clear by what was privately owned at the time of the founding, which included warships and artillery.



https://www.guns.com/news/2020/06/30/biden-fails-fact-check-on-revolutionary-war-cannon-ownership

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72322
    • View Profile
Re: We the Well-armed People (gun and knife rights stuff )
« Reply #2117 on: November 13, 2020, 12:37:29 AM »
I think of it as what a Minuteman Militia man was expected to bring when called to defend the nation i.e. the kit of an infantryman.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19460
    • View Profile
Re: We the Well-armed People (gun and knife rights stuff )
« Reply #2118 on: November 13, 2020, 05:24:54 AM »
Thank you for excellent answers.  It gives us something to ponder of what it means today.

Tordislung

  • Frequent Poster
  • **
  • Posts: 60
    • View Profile
Re: We the Well-armed People (gun and knife rights stuff )
« Reply #2119 on: November 13, 2020, 08:21:00 AM »
If no right is "absolute," then a constitution, illegally drafted, and never consented to, by anyone other than the authors....even less.

Edit: great article GM.

To me... Rights are absolute...to the individual. Im fairly certain that everyone views their right to life that way, regardless of what another might think. I know I do. You don't view your right to life as "absolute?" Doug? Crafty? Your wives' lives?

Fair question. Is their right to life absolute? Because... If theirs and your right to life is absolute.... then so is your right to defend it, against any enemy, including when that enemy is dressed in a uniform, pretending to have dominion over you.
« Last Edit: November 13, 2020, 08:48:59 AM by Tordislung »

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: We the Well-armed People (gun and knife rights stuff )
« Reply #2120 on: November 13, 2020, 01:14:56 PM »
So, if there is an absolute freedom of speech, then would that include the freedom to publish child exploitation media?

In my LE career, I deal with more than a few individuals who were in the system for such things. One individual was charged for possessing images of a 4 year old being violently sodomized. Was this individual wrongly imprisoned?


If no right is "absolute," then a constitution, illegally drafted, and never consented to, by anyone other than the authors....even less.

Edit: great article GM.

To me... Rights are absolute...to the individual. Im fairly certain that everyone views their right to life that way, regardless of what another might think. I know I do. You don't view your right to life as "absolute?" Doug? Crafty? Your wives' lives?

Fair question. Is their right to life absolute? Because... If theirs and your right to life is absolute.... then so is your right to defend it, against any enemy, including when that enemy is dressed in a uniform, pretending to have dominion over you.

Tordislung

  • Frequent Poster
  • **
  • Posts: 60
    • View Profile
Re: We the Well-armed People (gun and knife rights stuff )
« Reply #2121 on: November 13, 2020, 02:18:40 PM »
Not to repeat myself, GM....but to repeat myself.... Is the right to life absolute? A simple "yes" or "no" will suffice.... The smoke cloud attempting to distract a clear act of aggression and pawning it off as freedom of speech isn't what we're discussing here.

We're discussing defense of self. I'm confident that you can grasp that without attempting to twist it into child porn.

Is the right to life absolute? Yes or no?
 
So, if there is an absolute freedom of speech, then would that include the freedom to publish child exploitation media?

In my LE career, I deal with more than a few individuals who were in the system for such things. One individual was charged for possessing images of a 4 year old being violently sodomized. Was this individual wrongly imprisoned?



If no right is "absolute," then a constitution, illegally drafted, and never consented to, by anyone other than the authors....even less.

Edit: great article GM.

To me... Rights are absolute...to the individual. Im fairly certain that everyone views their right to life that way, regardless of what another might think. I know I do. You don't view your right to life as "absolute?" Doug? Crafty? Your wives' lives?

Fair question. Is their right to life absolute? Because... If theirs and your right to life is absolute.... then so is your right to defend it, against any enemy, including when that enemy is dressed in a uniform, pretending to have dominion over you.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: We the Well-armed People (gun and knife rights stuff )
« Reply #2122 on: November 13, 2020, 02:22:40 PM »
If someone murders your loved one, do they have an absolute right to their life?



Not to repeat myself, GM....but to repeat myself.... Is the right to life absolute? A simple "yes" or "no" will suffice.... The smoke cloud attempting to distract a clear act of aggression and pawning it off as freedom of speech isn't what we're discussing here.

We're discussing defense of self. I'm confident that you can grasp that without attempting to twist it into child porn.

Is the right to life absolute? Yes or no?
 
So, if there is an absolute freedom of speech, then would that include the freedom to publish child exploitation media?

In my LE career, I deal with more than a few individuals who were in the system for such things. One individual was charged for possessing images of a 4 year old being violently sodomized. Was this individual wrongly imprisoned?



If no right is "absolute," then a constitution, illegally drafted, and never consented to, by anyone other than the authors....even less.

Edit: great article GM.

To me... Rights are absolute...to the individual. Im fairly certain that everyone views their right to life that way, regardless of what another might think. I know I do. You don't view your right to life as "absolute?" Doug? Crafty? Your wives' lives?

Fair question. Is their right to life absolute? Because... If theirs and your right to life is absolute.... then so is your right to defend it, against any enemy, including when that enemy is dressed in a uniform, pretending to have dominion over you.

Tordislung

  • Frequent Poster
  • **
  • Posts: 60
    • View Profile
Re: We the Well-armed People (gun and knife rights stuff )
« Reply #2123 on: November 13, 2020, 02:54:28 PM »
You don't like answering questions, do you?

If someone murders your loved one, do they have an absolute right to their life?



Not to repeat myself, GM....but to repeat myself.... Is the right to life absolute? A simple "yes" or "no" will suffice.... The smoke cloud attempting to distract a clear act of aggression and pawning it off as freedom of speech isn't what we're discussing here.

We're discussing defense of self. I'm confident that you can grasp that without attempting to twist it into child porn.

Is the right to life absolute? Yes or no?
 
So, if there is an absolute freedom of speech, then would that include the freedom to publish child exploitation media?

In my LE career, I deal with more than a few individuals who were in the system for such things. One individual was charged for possessing images of a 4 year old being violently sodomized. Was this individual wrongly imprisoned?



If no right is "absolute," then a constitution, illegally drafted, and never consented to, by anyone other than the authors....even less.

Edit: great article GM.

To me... Rights are absolute...to the individual. Im fairly certain that everyone views their right to life that way, regardless of what another might think. I know I do. You don't view your right to life as "absolute?" Doug? Crafty? Your wives' lives?

Fair question. Is their right to life absolute? Because... If theirs and your right to life is absolute.... then so is your right to defend it, against any enemy, including when that enemy is dressed in a uniform, pretending to have dominion over you.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: We the Well-armed People (gun and knife rights stuff )
« Reply #2124 on: November 13, 2020, 02:56:12 PM »
At least as much as you do, it seems.


You don't like answering questions, do you?

If someone murders your loved one, do they have an absolute right to their life?



Not to repeat myself, GM....but to repeat myself.... Is the right to life absolute? A simple "yes" or "no" will suffice.... The smoke cloud attempting to distract a clear act of aggression and pawning it off as freedom of speech isn't what we're discussing here.

We're discussing defense of self. I'm confident that you can grasp that without attempting to twist it into child porn.

Is the right to life absolute? Yes or no?
 
So, if there is an absolute freedom of speech, then would that include the freedom to publish child exploitation media?

In my LE career, I deal with more than a few individuals who were in the system for such things. One individual was charged for possessing images of a 4 year old being violently sodomized. Was this individual wrongly imprisoned?



If no right is "absolute," then a constitution, illegally drafted, and never consented to, by anyone other than the authors....even less.

Edit: great article GM.

To me... Rights are absolute...to the individual. Im fairly certain that everyone views their right to life that way, regardless of what another might think. I know I do. You don't view your right to life as "absolute?" Doug? Crafty? Your wives' lives?

Fair question. Is their right to life absolute? Because... If theirs and your right to life is absolute.... then so is your right to defend it, against any enemy, including when that enemy is dressed in a uniform, pretending to have dominion over you.

Tordislung

  • Frequent Poster
  • **
  • Posts: 60
    • View Profile
Re: We the Well-armed People (gun and knife rights stuff )
« Reply #2125 on: November 13, 2020, 03:01:36 PM »
Maybe something we picked up at work. Maybe not.

At least as much as you do, it seems.



G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: We the Well-armed People (gun and knife rights stuff )
« Reply #2126 on: November 13, 2020, 03:06:49 PM »
How can one use deadly force in self defense if the other party has an ABSOLUTE right to life?

Maybe something we picked up at work. Maybe not.

At least as much as you do, it seems.



Tordislung

  • Frequent Poster
  • **
  • Posts: 60
    • View Profile
Re: We the Well-armed People (gun and knife rights stuff )
« Reply #2127 on: November 13, 2020, 03:37:07 PM »
The right is absolute until you give it away....by attempting to deprive another of theirs.

Still absolute.

Modifying this to cite an example that others also hold this view.
https://www.ag.gov.au/rights-and-protections/human-rights-and-anti-discrimination/human-rights-scrutiny/public-sector-guidance-sheets/absolute-rights

Really any government position is meaningless, as all governments require a consent that in practice, is absent; which, is why I earlier stated that the rights are absolute to the individual, because any wolf will quickly justify why the sheep's life doesn't matter, so long as they retain the upper hand. This, is a given.

Rights are absolute, or they aren't "rights," and they remain that way, until one attempts to take another's, and are only surrendered to that other, while the moment of aggression exists. As soon as the aggression is over, so os the offering of the right that was being surrendered.

I've no doubt that others will disagree, but that goes to prove my point.... Lysander said a lot about this...

If you're already saying that rights are not absolute... Then why even bother using the term? To do so is dishonest. Call them what you think they are - privileges given to the subjects of a ruler.

:D
How can one use deadly force in self defense if the other party has an ABSOLUTE right to life?

Maybe something we picked up at work. Maybe not.

At least as much as you do, it seems.


« Last Edit: November 13, 2020, 04:21:49 PM by Tordislung »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72322
    • View Profile
Re: We the Well-armed People (gun and knife rights stuff )
« Reply #2128 on: November 13, 2020, 04:15:31 PM »
While GM and Tordislung are busy being snarky with each other, I would like to add to my answer above:

As the military/police power of the State increases, so too must the the ability of the people so as to maintain their ability to overthrow it should it become necessary.

Tordislung

  • Frequent Poster
  • **
  • Posts: 60
    • View Profile
Re: We the Well-armed People (gun and knife rights stuff )
« Reply #2129 on: November 13, 2020, 04:16:19 PM »
While GM and Tordislung are busy being snarky with each other, I would like to add to my answer above:

As the military/police power of the State increases, so too must the the ability of the people so as to maintain their ability to overthrow it should it become necessary.

Wholeheartedly agree.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19460
    • View Profile
Re: We the Well-armed People (gun and knife rights stuff )
« Reply #2130 on: November 13, 2020, 04:32:06 PM »
Yes, lots of discussion already but I'll answer what is asked of me.  My view:  No.  Right to life is wonderful, crucial, sacred, paramount, but not absolute.

Taking another run at this, take a look at the right to self defense or other instance of justifiable homicide (yes there is such a thing).  If I'm the perpetrator in your self defense act, let's say charging at you or your child or spouse with a spear and you have a gun and are willing to use it and justified in law and logic and morals to shoot to kill me to stop me, I lose my right to life.  It's an exception or limitation on an important right.
https://definitions.uslegal.com/j/justifiable-homicide/

To me, that makes it not absolute.  Maybe it's just definitions...

I asked about falsely hollering fire in a crowded theater endangering lives and safety.  It's a widely agreed exception to freedom of speech.  The danger presented rises above the right of speech in that instance.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater

GM's example, exception to freedom of press is also a good analogy IMHO.  First amendment, second amendment.

Back to arms:  Private ownership of cannons, private ownership of warships, that is amazing.  But a private party owning nuclear warheads and missile delivery systems and all levels of government blocked from restricting that - and it's all protected in the constitution - is pretty far out there.  I tried to take the example to the point of absurd.   I don't believe it's what the Founders intended and I don't think you'll find one in a hundred persuadable to that view.  That doesn't make it wrong, but perhaps impracticable.         

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: We the Well-armed People (gun and knife rights stuff )
« Reply #2131 on: November 13, 2020, 04:38:09 PM »
"The right is absolute until you give it away....by attempting to deprive another of theirs."

So, then it's not absolute, by definition.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/absolute

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: We the Well-armed People (gun and knife rights stuff )
« Reply #2132 on: November 13, 2020, 04:47:51 PM »
It's about dividing power between entities and individuals, so that no one can ABSOLUTELY dominate the others.


Yes, lots of discussion already but I'll answer what is asked of me.  My view:  No.  Right to life is wonderful, crucial, sacred, paramount, but not absolute.

Taking another run at this, take a look at the right to self defense or other instance of justifiable homicide (yes there is such a thing).  If I'm the perpetrator in your self defense act, let's say charging at you or your child or spouse with a spear and you have a gun and are willing to use it and justified in law and logic and morals to shoot to kill me to stop me, I lose my right to life.  It's an exception or limitation on an important right.
https://definitions.uslegal.com/j/justifiable-homicide/

To me, that makes it not absolute.  Maybe it's just definitions...

I asked about falsely hollering fire in a crowded theater endangering lives and safety.  It's a widely agreed exception to freedom of speech.  The danger presented rises above the right of speech in that instance.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater

GM's example, exception to freedom of press is also a good analogy IMHO.  First amendment, second amendment.

Back to arms:  Private ownership of cannons, private ownership of warships, that is amazing.  But a private party owning nuclear warheads and missile delivery systems and all levels of government blocked from restricting that - and it's all protected in the constitution - is pretty far out there.  I tried to take the example to the point of absurd.   I don't believe it's what the Founders intended and I don't think you'll find one in a hundred persuadable to that view.  That doesn't make it wrong, but perhaps impracticable.       

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72322
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72322
    • View Profile
Biden gun tax proposals coming
« Reply #2134 on: November 21, 2020, 06:44:17 AM »
I posted this in the Tax thread already and I post it here with the coming Biden gun tax proposals in mind.

https://fee.org/articles/the-power-to-tax-is-the-power-to-destroy/

The additional variable present here is that the subject of the taxation is a fundamental constitutional right.



G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: Biden gun tax proposals coming
« Reply #2135 on: November 21, 2020, 07:02:26 AM »
I posted this in the Tax thread already and I post it here with the coming Biden gun tax proposals in mind.

https://fee.org/articles/the-power-to-tax-is-the-power-to-destroy/

The additional variable present here is that the subject of the taxation is a fundamental constitutional right.

Say, what would be the line in the sand for millions of Americans?

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72322
    • View Profile
Re: We the Well-armed People (gun and knife rights stuff )
« Reply #2136 on: November 21, 2020, 07:06:04 AM »
That would appear to be THE key question.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19460
    • View Profile
Re: Biden gun tax proposals coming
« Reply #2137 on: November 21, 2020, 07:54:54 AM »
I posted this in the Tax thread already and I post it here with the coming Biden gun tax proposals in mind.

https://fee.org/articles/the-power-to-tax-is-the-power-to-destroy/

The additional variable present here is that the subject of the taxation is a fundamental constitutional right.

Say, what would be the line in the sand for millions of Americans?

Agree.  I would add these questions:

Is there a right of privacy attached to your right to bear arms and defend yourself?  Aren't arms as private as birth control?  Griswold v. Connecticut             

Isn't it a taking or partial taking of a right to require you to disclose the exact number, type, quantity, capability and location of all the arms you bear - to your potential adversary? You've lost part of the ability to defend yourself when you disclose what you have and where you keep it.

Doesn't this (also) have both intent and capability to take your arms through tax evasion?  By exerting your of privacy on what you own, you've evaded a tax, committed a crime, and if caught and charged could lose the right to bear arms - all for the crime of exerting a fundamental right.     

We could postpone a civil war by striking down clearly unconstitutional laws quickly.       
« Last Edit: November 21, 2020, 07:57:35 AM by DougMacG »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72322
    • View Profile
Re: We the Well-armed People (gun and knife rights stuff )
« Reply #2138 on: November 21, 2020, 09:36:13 AM »
Mmmm , , , that feels a bit muddy to me.

I would say that there is a Ninth Amendment right to self defense though.

That said, the issue at hand in this moment is the taxation issue.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72322
    • View Profile




Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72322
    • View Profile
WSJ: ATF and ghost guns
« Reply #2144 on: December 26, 2020, 02:34:44 PM »
https://i2.wp.com/www.powerlineblog.com/ed-assets/2020/12/KiQSgjp.jpg?resize=396%2C600&ssl=1

Federal agents on Thursday raided one of the nation’s largest manufacturers of ghost-gun parts, a sign that federal law enforcement is cracking down on kits that allow people to make weapons at home.

The raid target, Nevada-based Polymer80, is suspected of illegally manufacturing and distributing firearms, failing to pay taxes, shipping guns across state lines and failing to conduct background investigations, according to an application for a search warrant unsealed Thursday after the raid took place.

The probe focuses on Polymer80’s “Buy Build Shoot Kit,” which includes the parts to build a “ghost” handgun. The kit, which Polymer80 sells online, meets the definition of a firearm, ATF investigators determined according to the warrant application. That means it would have to be stamped with a serial number and couldn’t be sold to consumers who haven’t first passed a background check.

Polymer80 chief executive David Borges didn’t return phone calls or texts seeking comment Thursday evening.

Agents seized records and other evidence in Thursday’s raid in Dayton, close to Carson City, a law-enforcement official with knowledge of the investigation said. No Polymer80 employees were arrested and no charges have been filed.


The raid by agents with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives comes after ghost guns have been used more frequently in high-profile attacks. In September, two Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department deputies were shot while sitting in their patrol vehicle by a man using a handgun built from Polymer80 parts, according to the documents. Last year, a 16-year-old killed two fellow students and wounded three others at Saugus High School in Southern California with a homemade handgun.

Thursday’s raid is the most significant action against a ghost-gun company to date, according to the law-enforcement officials, and suggests the federal government is scrutinizing the growing industry.

Homemade ghost guns have grown in popularity in recent years and can’t be traced in criminal investigations because they lack serial numbers. Law-enforcement officials say they appeal to people who can’t pass background checks.


When people buy fully made guns from dealers, the weapons have serial numbers and purchasers must go through a background check.

Approximately 10,000 ghost guns were recovered by law enforcement in 2019, according to the warrant application. As part of the investigation, the ATF identified multiple Polymer80 customers who were prohibited from buying guns because of prior criminal convictions.

The starting point for building a ghost gun is an “unfinished receiver,” a metal or polymer piece that houses the firing mechanism. It can be purchased without a background check, because the ATF doesn’t classify the part as a firearm. Buyers can finish the receiver with a drill press or a computerized metal-cutting machine and then add the remaining pieces to complete the gun.

The ATF previously gave Polymer80 permission to sell unfinished receivers. But the Buy Build Shoot Kits, which are advertised as having “all the necessary components to build a complete...pistol” weren’t submitted to the agency for approval, according to the application for the search warrant. These kits can be “assembled into fully functional firearms in a matter of minutes,” the warrant application says.

Write to Zusha Elinson at zusha.elinson@wsj.com




DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19460
    • View Profile
Colorado
« Reply #2148 on: January 13, 2021, 05:22:07 AM »
https://coloradosun.com/2021/01/11/colorado-gun-control-laws-2021-preview/

planning to introduce at least three pieces of gun-control legislation this year, including a measure that would require a waiting period — potentially of five days — between when someone purchases a firearm and when they can access that weapon.

The other two bills would require gun owners to safely store their weapons and to report to authorities if one of their firearms is lost or stolen.

“This isn’t going to end the crisis of gun violence in our society,” said state Rep. Tom Sullivan, a Centennial Democrat whose son, Alex, was murdered in the 2012 Aurora theater shooting. “But it will help to curtail it.”

While other gun-control policies run by Colorado Democrats in the past decade have been focused on mass shootings, the bills this year mainly are aimed at reducing accidental shootings and suicides, the legislative sponsors say.
« Last Edit: January 13, 2021, 07:53:12 AM by Crafty_Dog »

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile