Why can't we simply regulate Assault Rifles like Machine Guns?

[Xipe Totec]

Machine guns aren't illegal, but they are highly regulated.

This goes back to the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA), which was enacted as part of the Internal Revenue Code, and was the first federal regulation of the manufacture and transfer of firearms. The NFA restricted the sales, ownership, use, and transport of short-barreled rifles and shotguns, machine guns, silencers and suppressors and an all-encompassing "destructive device." The latter included such things as modern artillery, rocket launchers, and military explosives.

...

Buying a machine gun requires an extensive background check, and while certain firearms – those that fall into the category of Curios & Relics (C&R) guns – can be transferred directly from one owner to another, in most cases this sort of sale requires an actual Class III dealer. It involves filling out some very detailed paperwork, getting fingerprinted by local law enforcement or other approved service, providing a pair of passport photos, and submitting a $200 fee, which is the tax for said transfer.

...

Once this is done you wait. And then you wait some more. Unlike the National Instant Criminal Background Check that is used to buy a firearm at a gun shop, nothing is "instant," "quick" or "speedy" in this procedure. This is a slow process and due to the coronavirus will likely only be slower, once the NFA branch, which is located in Martinsburg, West Virginia, is reopened.

When buying any NFA item, patience isn't a virtue, it is required. There is no way to rush the process and generally takes around nine months. After that, the seller, or in most cases the dealer who handled the process, is provided the paperwork and stamp, and the buyer can pick up his/her machine gun.

...

Machine guns are complex items to buy, but as noted there is a small collector market. Buying such items isn't easy, but then again it shouldn't be. Since 1934 no legally owned machine gun has been used in a crime.

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/reboot/yes-machine-guns-are-legal-here-comes-all-catches-163921

So, why can't we update the National Firearms Act to include assault rifles?

[elleng]

1. We CAN, we have to decide to do so.

[exboyfil]

2. All the 2A arguments they use against semi-automatic regulations also apply to automatic regulations

Of course if you force the issue they might say fine - make automatics as readily available as semi-automatics.

[MichMan]

3. Machine guns are clearly defined as automatic firearms

Assault weapons are semi automatic. So are many handguns and hunting rifles.

The previous ban generally defined them by features such as a pistol grip, bayonet mount and detachable stock. Would those be the same appearance characteristics that would be used ?

I'm not disagreeing, but we need to be able to define what we are banning.

What do you do with all of them that people currently own? Ask them to fill out paperwork, or voluntarily turn them in ? Go door to door with search warrants and seize them? Or just ban the sale of new ones?

FYI, I have never owned a gun

[CivicGrief]

4. Yes, ask them to turn them in.

And confiscate them at gun ranges. We can do this if we want to.

[anarch]

7. just send the army door to door to take them, then?

maybe just set up checkpoints to stop anyone entering or leaving major urban areas, and if they have any weapons just round them up and put them in a camp? Explain how this will work.

[CivicGrief]

16. Yeah, that's what I'm suggesting.

They have to play with their "toys" somewhere. Just curious, why urban areas only in your exaggerated world?

[MarineCombatEngineer]

19. Just curious as to what makes you think the military will obey such

an unconstitutional order?

You sure you're in the right place?

[CivicGrief]

25. I didn't say anything about the military.

Is the 2nd amendment absolute in your opinion?

[MarineCombatEngineer]

29. .....

Is the 2nd amendment absolute in your opinion?

I'm not getting into that.

[anarch]

64. urban areas because that's where the population is most dense

and you can sort of put a gate or a wall around it or something--basically I'm saying this kind of regulation would have to be something like going back to the days of castles and walled cities and all that; you'll never be able to enforce gun control on rural populations anyway, unless you literally send a military force to go door to door like the Russians would need to do in Ukraine.

But you could build walls around all our cities, and demand that people give up their guns before entering...why not, if that's what it's come down to? Like this:

[TomSlick]

34. The Army cannot enforce domestic law under the Posse Comitatus Act.

If possession of military-style weapons by civilians was made illegal, enforcement would be up to civilian authorities.

If possession of such weapons be civilians was made illegal, no one would be put "in a camp." Instead, they would be sentenced to prison.

[anarch]

38. DHS police then

and sure, prison instead of a camp then, but it would need to be a pretty big prison I think, given the number of gun fanatics in this country. Maybe you could consider owning any firearm that looks like a military weapon to be an act of terrorism, then you could just go ahead and execute anyone you find with one (after due process of course).


(I am not trying to be an asshole here by the way, I'm just trying to point out that there is no easy regulatory solution to what amounts to a fundamental failing of our society...and I am so angry and upset right now, so I apologize if I'm coming off as flippant, I'm just pissed off that this keeps happening over and over and over, and I don't think we are looking at the right things to fix it)

[TomSlick]

53. Oh, I don't know.

When Australia enacted a mandatory gun buy-back, millions of guns were turned in.

Despite their big talk, most gun nuts have no interest in going to prison.

[anarch]

65. that's true, they have no interest in prison, but they fantasize about going out in a blaze of glory

and plenty of them would act out that fantasy if we did what seems to be suggested here. That is no exaggeration; people are desperate and angry, and first and foremost we need to do something to improve the material conditions of peoples' lives (including mental health care and all that is going to be shouted about over the coming weeks). We need to talk about realistic approaches that will actually alleviate our many critical issues, and I think we need to focus on root causes in order to really do that.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

11. So, IOW, civil war?

Because that's what would happen if your scheme were put into play

[MIpen03]

28. Who's going to confiscate them?

The police, who are very often on the right wing of the spectrum, who are frequently gun owners themselves? It seems that a tactical team is required to confront a shooter. Are those cops in Uvalde going to suddenly go door to door taking guns?

The military? Aren’t there fairly strict rules surrounding military operations on US soil, aside from the fact that many servicemembers would balk at the order?

This is why feasible solutions need to be proffered or n good faith. This mass-confiscation idea is fantasy.

[exboyfil]

24. Ban anything that is magazine fed

Alternatively limit magazine size to six rounds. Possibly eliminating the recoil-reload feature of semiautomatic weapons as well.

Probably not possible now of course, but if you primary interest is lethality count and ability to combat a mass shooter, these are the most direct ways to address it.

It is far from solving our overall gun problem in this country since most shootings could be done just as well with a revolver or a bolt action rifle. Lever action rifles can hold up to 14 rounds in general, and, you know from The Rifleman, you can fire them nearly as fast as a semi-automatic. Difference being once you are done, reloading takes quite a while.

While revolvers have only six rounds usually speed loaders can make the change almost like a magazine fed pistol.

Somehow we need to slow it down and reduce the capacity if a full ban is not possible. The performance of the cops is a pretty good indication why a full ban on weapons seems like a really bad idea. It is also not a tenable political position in the US.

[MichMan]

33. The vast majority of shootings and murders every day are from handguns

Many of the victims happen to be children

[Hav]

45. So it would at least be a start

It would be a response to the recent shooting that used the kind of weapons the OP had in mind.

[anarch]

66. "check out our new belt-fed, bolt-action AR-style sporting carbine! 100% compliant!"

apologies again, I'm not trying to be an asshole, just trying to say that the only way to stop people from going on killing rampages is to eliminate conditions that would drive someone into such extreme rage in the first place.

And there are a lot of other regulatory approaches that could work pretty well, which is why I wish people wouldn't focus on what they tend to with this issue. We need to fix it, not uselessly go back and forth quibbling over technical details that are problematic to even define clearly enough for them to be effective, IMO.

[essaynnc]

5. Thank you for this thread

I've been wondering for quite a while why some weapons are "legal" to own, and others not. How come I can't go down to the local Wally World and buy an anti tank rocket, or a grenade launcher? Because all of these, in the hands of the wrong person, could do incredible damage to property and lives. Sound familiar?

Of course, stopping the purchase would only be part of the solution. We obviously have a mental health crisis on our hands that needs to be addressed. And there are other issues and solutions too. Since the lid was lifted off doing research on gun violence, lots of useful information has been compiled. Our lawmakers need to do their research and make BIPARTISIAN (LOL!) changes.

Money and willpower is what it'll take. We shall see if we have the political determination to address this.

[anarch]

6. because regulating the way something looks would be useless?

I guess you could require the civilian guns to be bright orange instead of black/brown/camo or whatever, but you have to draw the line at some kind of technical specification I think--which at the moment is, basically, only rich people who can afford the licensing fee can legally own fully automatic weapons.

And as things stand now, there are limitations on the size and types of ammunition that regular folks can have, at least in theory I guess, with respect to "armor piercing" bullets or high-explosive or incendiary rounds and so on...you have to be really rich to have something like a 20mm minigun, and I'm not even sure if people are allowed to have things like howitzers at all.

so yeah, we could always just allow only rich people and their lackeys to be armed, by means of imposing taxes and licensing fees and so on that ordinary people could never afford, that's one thing we could do.

if you want to ban something though you'd need to be more specific

[CivicGrief]

8. Then let's be fucking specific.

Starting with clip capacity.

[anarch]

10. OK, how many? 5? 10 rounds?

maybe all civilian firearms of any type should be single-shot only?

[CivicGrief]

17. Sure. Sounds good.

[honest.abe]

52. Yes.

[Xipe Totec]

20. I didn't mean to say classify ARs as machine guns I meant craft a regulation for

I meant craft a regulation for assault rifles modeled after the National Firearms Act regulation of machine guns.

Describe what you want to regulate, then regulate it.

[anarch]

39. therein lies the problem

it's not going to happen with this legislature and SCOTUS, but I suppose you could put a hefty price tag on owning any kind of auto-loading firearm (not sure if that should include revolvers)--then what you have is effectively a ban on the poor/working class having such weapons, with no particular restrictions for rich people or corporations.

I guess that kind of thing might happen at some point--it would probably get considerable support from wealthy interests actually.

[Red Mountain]

43. Why do the wealthy or corporations need them?

Bit of a straw man argument there.

[EX500rider]

47. The point being if the license & purchase of the weapon is very expensive (like full auto is)

..then only the rich & Corps will be able to afford them.

[Xipe Totec]

59. The license is not expensive; it's the weapon itself because of scarcity.

The article in the OP talks about that.

But the things I like about the regulation are the extensive background check and the long wait period ( ~9 months). Enough time to think over what you're doing.

[anarch]

63. now that kind of thing I personally am totally on board with--and more food for thought....

is this, if anyone cares to hear the perspective:

[anarch]

60. because they are the ones with all the stuff

like, do you think the banks are going to agree to disarm their security guards? Or rich people with huge estates? What if a bunch of poors get tired of not being able to afford food or rent, and come after them in their homes?

anyway someone already explained what I was saying--and yes, the scarcity of the things themselves is the main driver of the price for pre-1986 machine guns, or else people can apply for special licensing and pay annual taxes on their newer automatic weapons if they can pass muster to get a Federal Firearms License.

So maybe there is some path to expanding the type of guns that are covered by the NFA regulations, you'd just need to very specifically define the technical aspects that you're regulating, which goes back to the first question: what exactly are those? Just an auto-loading capability (e.g., semi-automatic weapons that would cover the vast majority of guns sold in the U.S. today)? Like, would you require a special license to own a .22 like someone might keep as a "varmint gun" on a farm or whatever? Those have the same basic technical qualities as an AR-15.

Of course the SCOTUS would quickly rule any such thing to be unconstitutional, but you could try I guess. But again, any regulation that basically just requires people to pay more money to have something is effectively just a ban on the poor and working class having such things.

[Red Mountain]

69. Neither banks nor the rich would be 'disarmed'

I don't see bank/armored car guards with rifles, ever. They may have access but they don't carry them.

The rich might have to make do with less. One permit per person seems adequate. If their guards need their own weapons let them apply as individuals. Point is to permit the person, not the weapon. Boss can pay for it if they want to.

Not every permit application would need to be approved.

Sure, if it comes right down to it if the technical qualities are what define a class of weapon why differentiate? Treat them all the same regardless of caliber.

For the record I am a gun owner.

[sir pball]

76. Why go through the extra effort? It would be much simpler to just write them into the NFA

I've often said that might be a good move - expand the NFA to cover semi-autos, as a carrot (and by necessity) the registry gets re-opened so new automatics can be sold. Public safety wouldn't be impacted; there's been something like three murders with NFA weapons in the 90 years it's been around. It's rather effective gun control.

[Xipe Totec]

80. I think we're saying the same thing.

I'm saying that rather than shoehorn semi-autos into an existing category so that the NFA rules apply, extend the NFA to cover semi-autos and high velocity munitions as well.

Whether it's a separate law of an amendment to the existing NFA I don't think changes the outcome.

I think you're saying something similar, but stating a preference for amending the existing NFA instead of crafting a new law.

I'm okay with either solutions.

[roamer65]

9. If we have the political will, it can be done.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

13. And therein lies the problem. nt

[Hekate]

12. Cue the entrance of the gun-terminology-'splainers to make sure we feel embarrassed...

…for not knowing the minutia of descriptive words for weapons designed and produced specifically to slaughter mass numbers of humans in a short amount of time.

Let me be pre-emptively ashamed of myself for not grasping the fine points of why everyone needs a military-grade weapon in their home — one that can so efficiently explode a child's head that DNA is needed to identify them.

Me: embarrassed

[Gaugamela]

14. +1

[PTWB]

18. To be fair, there are a relatively small number of words people like to harp on

And when we are talking about passing meaningful legislation, we ought to at least know the definition of the words we are using, otherwise how will we pass anything that has any effect at all?

Folks can’t seem to grasp the difference between automatic and semi-automatic and I’ve seen folks patiently explain the difference, across numerous online forums, for 25 years.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

21. Just like some can't seem to grasp the difference between a clip and a magazine. nt

[Celerity]

26. A clip is a device used to load a magazine, and a magazine is a device or holding area where

ammunition is fed into the chamber of a firearm.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

30. Absolutely correct!!! nt

[Scrivener7]

73. Or maybe they don't give a shit about the terminology of your hobby and they

just don't want their 10 year olds ripped in half in their 4th grade classroom.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

74. Nice screed.

Oh, BTW, it's not my hobby, I don't own or want any firearms in my home or my trucks.

[Scrivener7]

75. Lol! That's a screed? How delicate.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

77. LOL.

Just can't let if go can you?

Have a great Sunday.

[Scrivener7]

79. Can you?

[Hekate]

22. Oooo

[NickB79]

23. Asking for a definition isn't an attempt at embarrassing posters here

Without a well-thought-out definition of exactly what an assault weapon is, you run into the same problem we've had for 30 years. You use cosmetic features to define them, the manufacturers remove said features, and sell legal, but functionally the same, AR-15's. And nothing changes.

Asking for a definition is absolutely VITAL to stopping future mass shootings, because it allows us to identify characteristics to regulate that have real-world impacts on how rapidly a gun can be aimed, fired, and reloaded. These are the characteristics that separate an acceptable hunting rifle or home defense gun from a weapon of war.

[Hekate]

27. STOP. THE. FUCKING. SLAUGHTER.

Ooo now I’m ashamed of my bad language.

[NickB79]

36. That's what we both want

[exboyfil]

32. Yes it all comes down to the firing mechanism and how it is fed

Number of shots between ammo changes
Speed the weapon can be fired
Time to reload

[MIpen03]

31. You can't glibly talk of regulation and confiscation

Without knowing what exactly you’re talking about. Military-style? That’s legally meaningless. Assault weapon has been defined but people were able to stay within the law and own things that regulations thought they had banned.

There’s a picture online of a hallway with a sign that states “no running, no biking, no skateboarding”, as a kid on a unicycle rolls past it down the hall, with the caption “gun owners obeying ATF regulations”.

[Hekate]

35. The Gungeon is thataway --- you'll fit right in. Meanwhile, I feel so chastised...

[MIpen03]

41. I'm not chastising you

But “do something” is understandable but unworkable. The reason assault weapons never went away is because regulators left so many loopholes. Glibly suggesting “ban all guns” is about as useful as trying to lasso the moon. “Ban all semiautomatics” isn’t going to happen. “Confiscate them” isn’t going to happen. Requiring a license for assault weapons, could happen, if we properly define assault weapon. That’s my point.

[Zeitghost]

49. If you want to ban certain items

It's seems to me that you should be familiar with just what it is you're actually banning.

If not, you end up like us here in California where AWB's have no real effect on what can be purchased because the lawmakers didn't think through what it was they were actually banning.

[Chainfire]

50. I will try to reply to your post without mirroring your sarcasm,

Anyone who you may attempt to sway, may know the subject under discussion, without a little knowledge, they will just dismiss your arguments out of hand. They will use your ignorance of the subject against you and you are left with nothing but emotion; I would find that really embarrassing. Knowledge is power. You do not sacrifice your liberal credentials by knowing the basics of firearms 101. Please note my language, I am not calling you or implying that you are ignorant, even a genius doesn't know zilch about some subjects.

I thought that I could do a quick web search and come up with a source of information to help you. It turns out that most of the information I came across was "how to" not "what is." Perhaps there is a need to provide a source of information for progressives on firearm terminology. I am a veteran, I learned a little bit about firearms in the service, and would be happy to help you if you wish.

Sun Tzu wrote, in The Art of War

“If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles.
If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat.
If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.”

[Kaleva]

62. People who are interested in an issue learn about it. Those wo aren't, don't.

[hack89]

68. The value of knowing the correct terminology is you don't write crappy laws like the first AWB

with massive loopholes that make them totally ineffective.

If more people had understood exactly how flawed the AWB was, perhaps it could have been fixed before it was enacted.

[texasfiddler]

15. Because the second amendment does not have the word regulate in it..... oh! wait yes it does.

Sorry for the sarcasm, it just bothers me that the third word in the second amendment is regulated and we are forced to have these conversations.

[Chainfire]

37. And while we talk, the forward motion of the "non-regulation" people continues.

The '34 gun laws, restricting machine guns, are not sacred today either. Machine guns aren't expensive because they are harder to make than a semi-auto, they are expensive because new ones can not enter the civilian market. It would not surprise me a bit, if a case were to get to the present SC, they might strike those laws down, and most of the people with semi-auto rifles could convert them to machine guns, in their kitchen, for under $20.00. Then nuts could kill by the score rather than by the tens.

The Republicans are partially correct when they say that "We don't have a gun problem." What we have is a leadership problem.

It is very easy to see how restricting access to firearms has worked in other countries. We have plenty of models to choose from. What we don't have is the will, or the ability, to fight the Gun and Ammo oligarchs. The situation will continue to get worse until we demand otherwise. Unfortunately we can't talk the problem away.

[NickB79]

67. Too late. Look up binary and forced reset triggers

Fully legal, purchase online or in a gun store, drop-in trigger group replacement, with the firing rate of a fully automatic weapon.

[Kingofalldems]

40. Oh look ---the gunsplainers showed up.

Tiresome.

[Hekate]

42. Always so handy with the 'splaining & meanwhile more innocents are slaughtered

[Red Mountain]

44. maybe gun owners should carry insurance

I know. Criminals won't bother.

That's why you make the penalty for not having insurance a felony punishable for a minimum of 10 years in prison and a $5000 fine.

Repeat offenders get multiples of those numbers.

[EX500rider]

48. But insurance for what?

Insurance providers won't cover illegal acts.

[Red Mountain]

56. They wouldn't be required to

It's more of a registration system for law abiding citizens. Rates should be cheap, right?

Accidents do happen and the insurance would cover those instances.

[MichMan]

54. Not sure I understand when a gun owner would be expected to prove he was insured

After shooting someone? When brandishing a firearm in public? If stopped for an expired license plate?

Our legal system isn't supposed to allow police to randomly stop people and ask for something like proof of insurance, or other documents, without first having some element of probable cause.

Gun owner insurance would be very inexpensive because the sheer number of gun owners vs. the number that are ever involved in crimes is very low. Seems like it would be much more effective to pass laws that anyone using or possessing a gun while committing any type of criminal infraction face a minimum of 5 years behind bars, zero exceptions.

[Red Mountain]

57. It would establish a framework

for differentiating the responsible gun owners from the irresponsible ones.

Possibly provide a mechanism for confiscating firearms from people who have mental issues or have run afoul of the law in some way.

There has to be a system for putting 2 and 2 together. There isn't now.

[gulliver]

83. Yep, all to the good imo

There would be a huge market for the insurance, so one would expect insurance companies to drool over the prospect. As to liabilities, there could be limits of, say, $10M for each injury or death.

It would work the same as for drunk driving.

And I like your idea of making it a felony not to have the insurance. That would deter criminals and give police a reason for probable cause arrests and searches. The criminals who didn't register could be turned in by a disgruntled spouse, for example.

One of the main things insurance does is that it incentivizes good background checks.

[SYFROYH]

46. Ive thought aboit this too and its doable.

It would probably have to be at the level of all semi-autos with detachable magazines

It would help to not have a fee - at least initially. It would take ten years and a massive staff to work through the backlog.

It might hekp to take some things put of NFA suppressors, SBSs, and SBRs. Nothing wrong with offering some carrots when trying to make change.

[Zeitghost]

51. First

You will need to describe just what you mean by "Assault Weapon". Because anything short of banning all semiautomatic firearms is going to be very easy to work around by manufacturers and banning all semiautomatic firearms is politically impossible now and for the foreseeable future.

[Meowmee]

55. Because they make too much money

Selling ar 15 etc to crazy people like this shooter. Ultimately it is all about the profits gun manufacturers, sellers and lobbyists/ politicians make off of marketing them to young males mostly. The sales/ profits jumped tremendously when they started that.

Check out the successful suit by Sandy Hook family victims and their lawyer. Unfortunately 74 million is not going to make a dent in this but it’s a precedent to have more lawsuits. Hold these groups liable on some level, a financial one, for the destruction they are responsible for.

[Hekate]

58. This, from Gus Bova of the Texas Observer...

The Uvalde shooter did not kill those children with his purported mental health struggles. He did not shoot them with estrangement; he did not murder them with malaise; he did not ravage their little bodies with the inchoate rage of his misguided youth. He killed them with a goddamn assault rifle, and high-capacity magazines, designed for the precise purpose of human annihilation.

https://www.texasobserver.org/greg-abbott-uvalde-shooting/

[SYFROYH]

71. No one would feel any better if he used a 22lr or 9mm handgun

At least I wouldnt.

[Paladin]

78. Let us know, the next time some psycho uses a .22lr to kill a whole classroom of kids and teachers.

20 school slaughters in the future, the weapon of choice will still be an AR-15 style assault weapon. No great mystery as to why: Gun industry marketing, designed to put as many AR's as possible into the hands of young, isolated, troubled young men. The kind of guys who think an assault weapon will make them confident and attractive. The kind of guys who end up in bloody classrooms and grocery stores, over and over and over again.

[Zeitghost]

81. The most deadly school shooting in US history

Was done with two pistols chambered in .22LR and 9mm.

[Paladin]

82. I stand by my comment, for obvious reasons. (nt)

[SYFROYH]

84. Will do. Just as long as we all know that school massacres...

…will still happen and at large numbers even if we were able to ride the world of every AR and other so-called assault weapons

That an AR ban is ineffective legislation except to help get Republicans both Houses.

[Kaleva]

61. Assault rifles are regulated by the NFA of '34. You are talking about semiautomatics being included.

As assault rifle is a gun capable of automatic fire so by definition, it is highly regulated.

[fescuerescue]

85. Do you think that would stand with todays Supreme Court?

I wouldn't be surprised if they struck down a new proposed law, plus the 1934 and 1986 law all in one swoop.