Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

flamin lib

(14,559 posts)
Wed Dec 30, 2020, 11:50 AM Dec 2020

Why we can't have nice things part 3.

Before part 3 I have an addendum to part 2. It appears that the ATF has also noticed that the difference between a SBR and a 'pistol' with an arm brace is indiscernible. They posted a request for comment regarding these definitions and receiving only answers from gunners have decided to make no changes to the ATF handbook. So, having admitted that the two are the same one remains legal and the other not. Go figure.

Now to continue:

These are guns. I think we can all agree on that, right? Pretty obvious.

This is also a gun. It is a gun because the ATF handbook defines a gun as the 'receiver' or the part of a gun to which the barrel, trigger and other parts are attached. Because it is a gun it has a serial number and is traceable from the point of manufacture (or import) to the final sale through a FFL (Federal Firearms Licensee).

This is NOT a gun. It has no serial number and therefore cannot be traced. It can be bought over the internet by anyone of any age without a background check. ANYONE. Including felons, people with a mental health restriction and underage minors. Anyone can also all the other 'parts' and 'accessories' that are not classified as 'guns' and serial numbered.

Why is it NOT a gun? Because it cannot be fitted with some of the parts necessary to meet the ATF's handbook definition of a 'gun'. Compare it to the 'gun' above and you will notice that there are some holes drilled in the 'gun' that don't appear in the 'not a gun'. It is, in gun parlance, an 80% receiver; not completely finished. Anyone with an inexpensive drill press from Home Depot can drill those holes with enough precision to make it a 'gun' and it is legal for anyone to complete weapon assembled from this 80% receiver and other non regulated parts and accessories. The only restriction is that it can't be sold. Confused yet? Yeah, me too.

So anyone, including criminals, can buy and assemble a gun from 'parts and accessories'. These are known as Ghost Guns and they are entirely unregulated and becoming a major problem for law enforcement.




30% of crime guns in CA are Ghost Guns.

This epidemic has no vaccine. It's up to us, you and me, to bring this insanity under control. Join an anti gun violence organization of your choice. Give money, join, go to meetings, write letters to the editor and your representatives. Make your voice heard.

Part 1 here:

Part 2 here:

3 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Why we can't have nice things part 3. (Original Post) flamin lib Dec 2020 OP
Very informative! FM123 Dec 2020 #1
Because the legal definitions and debates are endless... Sancho Dec 2020 #2
I admire your approach and well thought through proposal. flamin lib Dec 2020 #3


(9,073 posts)
2. Because the legal definitions and debates are endless...
Wed Dec 30, 2020, 01:59 PM
Dec 2020

...and I have no problem with gun regulations, there also needs to be regulation of people:

People Control, Not Gun Control

This is my generic response to gun threads where people are shot and killed by the dumb or criminal possession of guns. For the record, I grew up in the South and on military bases. I was taught about firearms as a child, and I grew up hunting, was a member of the NRA, and I still own guns. In the 70’s, I dropped out of the NRA because they become more radical and less interested in safety and training. Some personal experiences where people I know were involved in shootings caused me to realize that anyone could obtain and posses a gun no matter how illogical it was for them to have a gun. Also, easy access to more powerful guns, guns in the hands of children, and guns that weren’t secured are out of control in our society. As such, here’s what I now think ought to be the requirements to possess a gun. I’m not debating the legal language, I just think it’s the reasonable way to stop the shootings. Notice, none of this restricts the type of guns sold. This is aimed at the people who shoot others, because it’s clear that they should never have had a gun.

1.) Anyone in possession of a gun (whether they own it or not) should have a regularly renewed license. If you want to call it a permit, certificate, or something else that's fine.
2.) To get a license, you should have a background check, and be examined by a professional for emotional and mental stability appropriate for gun possession. It might be appropriate to require that examination to be accompanied by references from family, friends, employers, etc. This check is not to subject you to a mental health diagnosis, just check on your superficial and apparent gun-worthyness.
3.) To get the license, you should be required to take a safety course and pass a test appropriate to the type of gun you want to use.
4.) To get a license, you should be over 21. Under 21, you could only use a gun under direct supervision of a licensed person and after obtaining a learner’s license. Your license might be restricted if you have children or criminals or other unsafe people living in your home. (If you want to argue 18 or 25 or some other age, fine. 21 makes sense to me.)
5.) If you possess a gun, you would have to carry a liability insurance policy specifically for gun ownership - and likely you would have to provide proof of appropriate storage, security, and whatever statistical reasons that emerge that would drive the costs and ability to get insurance.
6.) You could not purchase a gun or ammunition without a license, and purchases would have a waiting period.
7.) If you possess a gun without a license, you go to jail, the gun is impounded, and a judge will have to let you go (just like a DUI).
8.) No one should carry an unsecured gun (except in a locked case, unloaded) when outside of home. Guns should be secure when transporting to a shooting event without demonstrating a special need. Their license should indicate training and special carry circumstances beyond recreational shooting (security guard, etc.). If you are carrying your gun while under the influence of drugs or alcohol, you lose your gun and license.
9.) If you buy, sell, give away, or inherit a gun, your license information should be recorded.
10.) If you accidentally discharge your gun, commit a crime, get referred by a mental health professional, are served a restraining order, etc., you should lose your license and guns until reinstated by a serious relicensing process.

Most of you know that a license is no big deal. Besides a driver’s license you need a license to fish, operate a boat, or many other activities. I realize these differ by state, but that is not a reason to let anyone without a bit of sense pack a semiautomatic weapon in public, on the roads, and in schools. I think we need to make it much harder for some people to have guns.

flamin lib

(14,559 posts)
3. I admire your approach and well thought through proposal.
Wed Dec 30, 2020, 04:20 PM
Dec 2020

It would go a long way to solving a number of issues we face with the ongoing epidemic of death and injury we in the US face.

That said, as the gunners oft repeat, law abiding citizens aren't the problem. As I've tried to point out in this series, the issue is the increasing lethality of weaponry commonly available over the counter at American gun stores. Law abiding gun owners are law abiding until they are NOT. Sandy Hook, Pulse Nightclub, Las Vegas concert, Walmart El Paso and 80% of other atrocities were performed by 'law abiding citizens' who presumably could have met all the people control you have spent so much thought on.

It is clear that no amount of well intentioned legislation, education, licensing, background checking is going end the violence.

With all this in mind I have come to the conclusion that we need to simply limit the lethality of weaponry available. Australia has done so with very good results. Semi auto guns of any type are not available there, neither are any rapid loading guns like lever action and pump action.

Sandy hook, 500 rounds in five minutes. Pulse Nightclub uncounted rounds in first 10 minutes. Las Vegas 1000 rounds in 10 minutes. What if all these shooters were limited to five rounds in a fixed magazine bolt action rifle?

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Gun Control Reform Activism»Why we can't have nice th...