TargetTalk

The proposed NY state law also has a new provision outlawing pistols with magazine wells outside the pistol grip, so say goodby to your Pardini's and Walther's and other similar European made .22 target pistols. It took them about 5 years to get an exception into law when California did the same thing. Also, where are you going to get a 7 round mag for your High Standards, Rugers, Hammerlis, etc.

Any exemption for target shooting on page 25 is almost unreadable as there is no preceding or following language saying what it is talking about, that I can find.

Here it is:

7-F. POSSESSION AND USE OF A MAGAZINE, BELT, FEED STRIP OR SIMILAR DEVICE, THAT CONTAINS MORE THAN SEVEN ROUNDS OF AMMUNITION, BUT THAT DOES NOT HAVE A CAPACITY OF OR CAN READILY BE RESTORED OR CONVERTED TO ACCEPT MORE THAN TEN ROUNDS OF AMMUNITION, AT AN INDOOR OR OUTDOOR FIRING RANGE LOCATED IN OR ON PREMISES OWNED OR OCCUPIED BY A DULY INCORPORATED ORGANIZATION ORGANIZED FOR CONSERVATION PURPOSES OR TO FOSTER PROFICIENCY IN ARMS; AT AN INDOOR OR OUTDOOR FIRING RANGE FOR THE PURPOSE OF FIRING A RIFLE OR SHOTGUN; AT A COLLEGIATE, OLYMPIC OR TARGET SHOOTING COMPETITION UNDER THE AUSPICES OF OR APPROVED BY THE NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION; OR AT AN ORGANIZED MATCH SANCTIONED BY THE INTERNATIONAL HANDGUN METALLIC SILHOUETTE ASSOCIATION.

Paul, good job in finding that.

Not only do these folks appear to know very little about firearms, I am not sure they passed middle school english, this appears to be one gigantic sentence fragment. WOW!!!

'Dude

Isabel1130 wrote: The federal government can affect the future sale and transfer across state lines, of firearms, and darn little else. It is beyond their federal powers to ban or confiscate. This would violate not only the Second Amendment, but several others.

This can be a very complicated topic, but I'll do my best to keep it simple. The federal government could easily create an amendment to the 1934 National Firearms Act [NFA] which has very successfully controlled the manufacture, transfer and possession of, for example, fully automatic firearms and silencers.

A simply worded and clearly defined bill classifying high capacity magazines as NFA devices would subject every one in existence, present or future, to the transfer tax and manufacturers, sellers and buyers to much stricter scrutiny than the normal instant check.

I know the 2nd Amendment purists will object to the idea, but I'd be interested in comments from those to whom reasoned discussion isn't anathema.

william wrote:

Isabel1130 wrote: The federal government can affect the future sale and transfer across state lines, of firearms, and darn little else. It is beyond their federal powers to ban or confiscate. This would violate not only the Second Amendment, but several others.

This can be a very complicated topic, but I'll do my best to keep it simple. The federal government could easily create an amendment to the 1934 National Firearms Act [NFA] which has very successfully controlled the manufacture, transfer and possession of, for example, fully automatic firearms and silencers.

A simply worded and clearly defined bill classifying high capacity magazines as NFA devices would subject every one in existence, present or future, to the transfer tax and manufacturers, sellers and buyers to much stricter scrutiny than the normal instant check.

I know the 2nd Amendment purists will object to the idea, but I'd be interested in comments from those to whom reasoned discussion isn't anathema.

I think in principle it "might" be constitutional, if the tax was not so high that it effectively prohibited ownership. The larger problem, is how do you control the transfer and manufacture of an item, that is essentially a simple piece of sheet metal, and not even a serial numbered item that almost anyone can make? It would be like trying to track and tax screwdrivers, or dinner forks. A simple piece of metal, that almost anyone can make. How do you propose to enforce non compliance?

You think the drug war is a logistical nightmare? Try regulating a small metal box with a spring in it.

Isabel wrote:

william wrote:

Isabel1130 wrote: The federal government can affect the future sale and transfer across state lines, of firearms, and darn little else. It is beyond their federal powers to ban or confiscate. This would violate not only the Second Amendment, but several others.

This can be a very complicated topic, but I'll do my best to keep it simple. The federal government could easily create an amendment to the 1934 National Firearms Act [NFA] which has very successfully controlled the manufacture, transfer and possession of, for example, fully automatic firearms and silencers.

A simply worded and clearly defined bill classifying high capacity magazines as NFA devices would subject every one in existence, present or future, to the transfer tax and manufacturers, sellers and buyers to much stricter scrutiny than the normal instant check.

I know the 2nd Amendment purists will object to the idea, but I'd be interested in comments from those to whom reasoned discussion isn't anathema.

I think in principle it "might" be constitutional, if the tax was not so high that it effectively prohibited ownership. The larger problem, is how do you control the transfer and manufacture of an item, that is essentially a simple piece of sheet metal, and not even a serial numbered item that almost anyone can make? It would be like trying to track and tax screwdrivers, or dinner forks. A simple piece of metal, that almost anyone can make. How do you propose to enforce non compliance?

You think the drug war is a logistical nightmare? Try regulating a small metal box with a spring in it.

With the fantastic improvements in 3D printers people are going to be able to manufacture almost any fairly simple item at home at any time they want.

Another thing you have to remember. The 1934 law, and the Gun Control Act of 1968 were both before Heller, and McDonald. Those two court cases will control the constitutionality of any further federal gun regulations.

In reality, I believe nothing you have proposed will make it through Congress. Could Obama try to do this through an executive order? Of course he could, but Executive orders can really only provide directives under existing laws. They can't expand them, without a lot of legal scrutiny, and I believe your proposal would fail this test if it was issued as an executive order.

Isabel1130 wrote:Another thing you have to remember. The 1934 law, and the Gun Control Act of 1968 were both before Heller, and McDonald. Those two court cases will control the constitutionality of any further federal gun regulations.

In reality, I believe nothing you have proposed will make it through Congress. Could Obama try to do this through an executive order? Of course he could, but Executive orders can really only provide directives under existing laws. They can't expand them, without a lot of legal scrutiny, and I believe your proposal would fail this test if it was issued as an executive order.

but 1934 has not been subjected to heller and mcdonald, and until they are, the order and any law would stand.
917 gun shot deaths since sandy hook.

zuckerman wrote:

Isabel1130 wrote:Another thing you have to remember. The 1934 law, and the Gun Control Act of 1968 were both before Heller, and McDonald. Those two court cases will control the constitutionality of any further federal gun regulations.

In reality, I believe nothing you have proposed will make it through Congress. Could Obama try to do this through an executive order? Of course he could, but Executive orders can really only provide directives under existing laws. They can't expand them, without a lot of legal scrutiny, and I believe your proposal would fail this test if it was issued as an executive order.

but 1934 has not been subjected to heller and mcdonald, and until they are, the order and any law would stand.
917 gun shot deaths since sandy hook.

Not really, if we get back to William's original question, he asked if it would be possible for the "federal government" to pass an amendment to the 1934 NFA that would subject high capacity magazines to a transfer tax. First of all, lets define "federal government" I hope you are talking about Congress, because any new laws, even amendments to existing laws, have to pass both the Senate and the House. They cannot be mandated through an executive order.
After any law is passed, it can be challenged in court for constitutionality. You don't get to sneak it into the code by pretending, it is just a "clarification" of the 1934 law, when it attemps to regulate a totally different thing (magazines) rather than machine guns.

The Supreme Court in Heller upheld the right to own, and keep a semi automatic handgun, and they would have to rule as to whether William's proposed magazine tax, was onerous enough to effectively destroy your ability to use such a weapon.

Since such a law, in my opinion, won't pass the House, and has dim prospects in the Senate, I doubt if we need to get into the Constitutional arguments.


Did you even read the article I linked in a previous post which explains why clever little semantic games won't fool the Supreme Court?

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... games.html

Isabel1130 wrote:
Did you even read the article I linked in a previous post which explains why clever little semantic games won't fool the Supreme Court?

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... games.html

I read it, and I found the article by the same author (which was linked in the "word games" article) even more relevant to this whole discussion. While I don't agree with everything in it, it's the best synopsis I've read so far explaining why all the gun control regulation that's about to be foisted on us is worthless. I would urge JamesH and Gerard and Zuckerman to read this article, because it answers a lot of your concerns in a logical and sympathetic manner.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... sacre.html

FredB

FredB wrote:

Isabel1130 wrote:
Did you even read the article I linked in a previous post which explains why clever little semantic games won't fool the Supreme Court?

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... games.html

I read it, and I found the article by the same author (which was linked in the "word games" article) even more relevant to this whole discussion. While I don't agree with everything in it, it's the best synopsis I've read so far explaining why all the gun control regulation that's about to be foisted on us is worthless. I would urge JamesH and Gerard and Zuckerman to read this article, because it answers a lot of your concerns in a logical and sympathetic manner.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... sacre.html

FredB

Another essay along the lines of "we don't have any ideas, and they wouldn't work even if we did"

As it stands now you're going to have worthless legislation foisted on you, which won't change the shooting murder rate - which is by itself about triple the total murder rate of most developed countries - but will negatively impact on shooting sports and enthusiasts.

I would be looking for solutions, not complaining that everything is impossible.

JamesH wrote:As it stands now you're going to have worthless legislation foisted on you, which won't change the shooting murder rate...but will negatively impact on shooting sports and enthusiasts.

I would be looking for solutions, not complaining that everything is impossible.

Solutions to what? Stupid politicians? That's why those of us who care about this join the NRA which uses our dollars to educate politicians that voting for gun control is a bad idea, both for the country and for their jobs.

The only problem that needs a solution is the violence built into our culture. Even without guns we'd be violent. That's been our way. I have no answer why people in Malta or the Czech Republic or Switzerland or Finland, where firearms possession rates are comparable to ours (though oftentimes illegally) don't feel the need to shoot each other as often as we do.

At the moment, I think it has mainly to do with a permanent underclass feeding the prison-industrial complex revolving door due to an idiotic war on drugs. But we were a violent culture (far more so than today, in fact) a century-plus ago when all drugs were legal.

The U.S.A. is violent. Some cultures simply are. We just happen to be the biggest and richest and therefore most obvious. How to fix that problem? I have no idea.

The war on drugs is a big driver of violent crime and just crime in general. The vast, vast majority of the homicides are simply business dealings gone bad and market share protection. Drug dealers can't take their grievances to court like normal businesses can so the justice is taken out on the street. The US has not only a large consumption of drugs but is also a major hub for the distribution of narcotics. History plainly shows these prohibitions drive violence, one just needs look at the prohibition of alcohol in the 1930’s.

If you remove the drug related murders from the mix the US is likely no more violent then most other places in the world.

These people move drugs by the ton, so moving a few firearms along with them is not difficult. One of the reasons why criminals still do and always will have guns.

zuckerman wrote:917 gun shot deaths since sandy hook.

What a useless and worthless statement.
So what?

How many were with legally held firearms and how many illegal? How many self defense, how many murder or manslaughter in the commission of a crime (e.g. burglary gone bad).


The reason I ask is that firearm laws do not impact the black market.
If assault rifles were banned, then the nutjob that ambushed those firemen would still have had his, because it came off the black market. Adam Lanza would have been limited to pistol, shotgun, or "non assault rifle".
The "assault rifle" hysteria in the media linking those shootings is totally stupid. They are not related, because one obtained his firearm through a channel you can control with legislation - the other obtained his through a channel you can only control with enforcement.


If you have a lot of deaths coming from legally held firearms then you need to look at legislation to control licensing and possession, mental health of owners, etc.

If you have a lot of deaths coming from illegally held firearms then you need to look at border controls, law enforcement, resource allocation for guns and gangs unit. Banning something they already bought illegally off the black market is hardly going to be a deterrent.



For instance, in the UK, the pistol ban ostensibly prevented another Dunblane by removing pistols from legal owners (although Derrick Bird managed with a double barrel shotgun and a CZ 452 hunting rifle).

It did not remove a single unregistered pistol from the hands of criminals. That is the domain of Police operations like Operations Trident & Trafalgar (the big London gun & gangs unit).


You could ban all guns in the states tomorrow (well they can't, but for the sake of argument), and the criminals will carry on business as usual. You'll get a few less shootings from negligent discharges and suchlike, as well as crimes of passion/domestic shootings (although there will be a slight increase in knife crime in the extreme cases).

So the question is, what are you trying to solve? "Gun deaths" is not an answer. It's like trying to stop "deaths". Some are murders, some manslaughter, some traffic accidents. Clearly road safety is different to industrial health and safety.

At the first stage you have to split out deaths from legal/illegal firearms, because your response to those is very different. If it's not, you're doing it wrong.

Zuckerman:
Two-thirds of the commonly reported "gun deaths" figures are suicides. Are suicides included in the figures you keep posting? You've already said that you're not sure of the accuracy of your figures, so what is your point in posting them?

JamesH:
You have said over and over

JamesH wrote:I would be looking for solutions, not complaining that everything is impossible.

We have repeatedly explained why there are no available solutions (= quick fixes?). Since you have been so generous with your advice from afar, I'd suggest that it's now time for you to provide the solutions, or, failing that, to quit harping on it.

FredB

hemmers says:

"So what? "


so what.

such a callous and vindictive statement. so what that over 900 people have died due to gunshot deaths in less than a month? try saying that statement to the families of the gunshot dead. such a high horse you sit on, anonymous and faceless. heartless. guns seem to mean more than people to you. how very sad.
your statement is a perfect example of why many people react with disdain when guns come up in a conversation.

here's the data source I quote from:
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_ ... oting.html

926 USA gunshot deaths since sandy hook

The stupid number Zuckerman likes to post he already answered a page or so ago that the number is meaningless (yet he still posts it).

Well two good things came from this tragedy;

1. I stopped watching CNN, if I do turn it there soon as they talk about guns or the shooting I turn it off.

2. I joined the NRA, I'm not in the US but they did support us during our fight against the long gun registry. The repeal of the registry was a rare reversal of the anti gun agenda. Plus as things go in the US they usually follow suit here eventually.

>>you're not sure of the accuracy of your figures

the numbers I give are, by their very nature, INCOMPLETE not inaccurate, they come from one guy who is posting them and HE appears to be using an algorithm to scan LOCAL news reports for gun shot deaths (this statement is my GUESS OF HIS METHOD OF GATHERING INFORMATION, from the type of source (LOCAL NEWSPAPER REPORTS) he gives to support the numbers, and all his numbers are supported, with sources.
Does this mean his numbers are incorrect or flat out wrong, NO. incomplete, YES, due to the mass of data his algorithm seems to be running, the vagaries of how local newspapers headline gunshot deaths, so that a multitude of missed articles/gunshot deaths, can arise, which would mean his counting of gunshot deaths of all types is low.

meaningless? gunshot deaths are meaningless? sad, very sad....

Your number is meaningless, you have issues understanding the English language? Nice try bud.

zuckerman wrote:here's the data source I quote from:
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_ ... oting.html

926 USA gunshot deaths since sandy hook

Zuckerman:

Now that you have finally given us a link to your source, I have a better idea of its value. Without disrespect to the people who have undoubtedly died by whatever means since Newtown, I can say that the Slate "death watch" is extremely inaccurate and highly manipulative propaganda. Their data collection is self-described as a "crowdsourced interactive." Give me a break! They acknowledge that it is "incomplete", but they don't acknowledge that it could, and probably does, contain fabricated information. In addition, given their "crowdsource", I have no doubt it includes suicides, which are a completely different issue than the kind of violence we are discussing.

I believe you are genuinely concerned about the ongoing violence in our country, as am I, but reflexively repeating propaganda "data" doesn't help deal with the situation, any more than surrounding yourself with children while announcing useless restrictions on guns does.

FredB