Amazing! I can't believe after all this time someone finally passed this common sense legislation.
this post was submitted on 11 Apr 2024
121 points (98.4% liked)
United States | News & Politics
7186 readers
761 users here now
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
This is election year performative action with no direct effect on reducing gun crime.
Actually violent crime has been dropping consistently for decades!
There's no correlation between the violent crime rate and firearms regulations in the US.
Beyond false. Couldn't be further from the truth lol.
Poverty is the real problem. Everything else is Band-Aid...which can be effective in stopping some of the bleeding. Its just the only tool the ownership class can accept
Owner class would love nothing more than to disarm the working class.
Gun ownership is growing fastest among non traditional gun owners. LGBTQ, Latinos, Black people. The problem makers have their guns, and their dads guns, and his dads guns, all passed down to them.
The legislation that directed these rules to be written was actually passed by Congress a few years ago.
It takes quite some time for new federal regulations to be written and enacted, with lengthy public comment periods.
That's a bit disingenuous. The actual legislation doesn't mention this issue at all, and one of the co-authors has even come out and said that the ATF's reliance on that law is perversion of the intent of the legislation.
Anything involving a constitutional right should have significantly more say by elected officials and significantly less say by agency bureaucrats.
This won't actually do anything from my understanding though. I thought this wasn't going to change the private sales between people walking around gun shows from selling to each other, just the vendors in booths who are already required to do back ground checks.
There are some exceptions, including for hobbyists who are selling firearms from their collection and people who sell firearms they inherited.
This makes the law toothless. People who were selling mainly for a profit just at gun shows were already in violation of the law, just that nobody did anything about it.
Now they'll just claim to be hobbyists and can continue as if nothing changed.
The only way they can make this stick is if they determine that "for profit" means you make more money than you bought it for, rather than intending to make more money that you bought it for, which would be ridiculous.
It includes a specific set of rules for making the determination.
This would mean that anybody ever selling any firearm for any reason will have to register as an FFL? How asinine would that be lol. Either used firearm costs would plummet, as everyone selling would gradually lower the cost of the gun if they resold it, or nobody would ever sell their guns, which would be wasteful and anti-free trade.
It means that if you're making a business out of selling guns, you need to register as an FFL. If you're selling off well-worn equipment that you yourself used, not so much.
This is a dumb take. You can still sell it, but you must sell it through an FFL. Makes perfect sense. Legit 0 reasons to be against this.
What is this, just nics for private party transfers?
Yup looks like it.
That sucks and is stupid. Thanks for confirming though.
This is insane. They are trying to backdoor outlaw private sales without going through Congress. This should be challenged and thrown out.
In other countries, we call this law common sense. Oh no, imagine having to actually check the person who is buying this gun isn't a criminal?
You can argue guns are for self defense and this law is needed, or you can argue guns should be banned.
You can't argue against both. Here in Australia, we mostly banned them, which is why the mass shootings in Australia page is so short after the laws took place
You can still make the occasional private sale of your used firearm. What you can't do is make a business out of it.
As usual with these rule changes, the devil is in the details. From what I have seen it is hundreds to pages and creates a framework where there is a lot of discretion and subjectivity on the part of the ATF to charge people under the rule. There is no bright-line rule with regard to the number or frequency of transfers. It gives feds too broad of discretion to selectively apply criminal law. If you don't believe me, look how ATF and DOJ have handled literally every other firearms related issue under this administration.
No other constitutional right is as heavily-regulated as the Second Amendment. The idea that one needs to ask permission from the government before exercising a constitutionally-protected right is anathema the entire concept of inherent rights.
If you were making this argument about the right to protest no one would have a problem agreeing with you which indicates they are downvoting you because they don't want what you are saying to be true. There is nothing wrong with logic of your statement. People too often let what they want to be true color their interpretation of what actually is true.
In this case the truth is that you're absolutely correct, explicitly enumerated constitutional rights should not be infringed by anything other than a constitutional amendment. If someone is bothered by the 2nd amendment they should be advocating for an amendment to change it.
I understand that passing something like that is a practical impossibility and therefore quite frustrating for advocates of stricter gun control, but trying to bypass that process can only open the door for much more insidious restrictions. In other words, if we allow the 2nd amendment to have additional terms and conditions added to it what is stopping a second term Donald Trump presidency from using that precedent to limit free speech or the rights of a free press? We have enough to be concerned about with a second Trump presidency without giving him a clear legal path to bypassing constitutional amendments.
It's a bit more complicated than that. The second amendment has been "infringed upon" for roughly a century because it isn't as straight forward as second amendment advocates claim.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
That doesn't say:
The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Which is what a lot of second amendment advocates wish it says.
If you read the sentence:
With the impending meteor, we must have daily meetings for safety.
it's pretty clear the meteor is a factor.
The United States did not have a standing army when the second amendment was ratified. So this could be interpreted more as "the people have a right to security from threats to their freedoms foreign and domestic."
Now that said, it's true (to my knowledge) that the founding fathers were not opposed to violent revolution in the face of a tyrannical government. So the "militia" portion of that really just muddies the waters.
It's also quite possible that many of the people downvoting me are Europeans or Canadians or something. Keep in mind that the US remains to this day somewhat of a novelty in its approach to rights. In most other democracies, rights are not considered inherent, but are rather granted to citizens by the government. In the US, rights are considered inherent, and the Bill of Rights actually limits the Government rather than grants said rights to the people.
iT’s AlSo QuItE pOsSiBlE tHaT mAnY oF tHe PeOpLe DoWnVoTiNg Me ArE eUrOpEaNs Or CaNaDiAnS oR sOmEtHiNg.
Found one.
Nope it was just intentionally ignorant as fuck lol
And libs (I count myself as one) are constantly posting arguments as if gun ownership in not a right. It is. And the courts agree, and have historically.
Doesn't matter if one likes it or not, it's a fact.
And for my fellow libs, I have questions: Just how limited do you want this right if Trump wins again? Still want a national registry? Do you know what a Brown Shirt was?
How about the fact that women, POC and LGBT folks are the largest gun buying demographic? Are those the people you imagine when you hear "gun owner"?
I can go on about how silly and ineffective gun legislation tends to be, even if it sounds "common sense" to those who don't understand the details. But all Democrats are doing is tossing votes to the wind. If they would give up the gun grabbing, they would landslide every election.
I just want the cops to do their fucking jobs once in a while and actually write shit up. How many times has there been a school shooting and the perp was very fucking well known to law enforcement, but still legally bought a firearm because nothing showed up on the background check?
Gimme that and federal law that holds adults responsible for unsecured firearms that their kids get a hold of and I think I'll be content.
Right? There should be zero new gun regulations until law enforcement actually starts enforcing the ones already on the books.
Yes, less laws around firearms is actually the solution... /s
Despite the comment I just posted articulating how the second amendment is muddy. I agree with you, it's time to drop the gun grabbing tone and focus on other strategies.
What exactly makes these rights inherent? Because some dude wrote it down?
They need these rights to exist on some untouchable level so they can block progress but of course, calling something a "right" doesn't instantly make it moral.
The people who wrote the constitution had the right to own slaves. Would the 2A crowd be defending slavery if it was in the constitution? Probably, but we wouldn't let them get away with it, no matter how much slave traders donated to Republicans.
Sounds like the constitution needs changing then.