Hacker News Reader

Pro-2A folks push back against further restrictions because the restrictions are already numerous and do not achieve their stated aim.

Limiting magazine sizes is really annoying for people who comply with the law - it has no affect on those breaking it. Extending and manufacturing many common magazines is trivial.

Red flag laws are used before a crime is committed to limit a right. There is no defense to them since you can't defend a non-crime and it is impossible to reclaim your property. They are ripe for abuse by anyone upset at you.

There is already a safe storage requirement AND a mandate that locks be issued with a firearm. What is not required is that someone spend $400 or more for a 200lb box that may not be practical to install in an apartment - a requirement which would most heavily impact poor and minority firearm owners.

I have debated many folks who support gun control - they believe people do not have a right to bear arms, often do not understand firearms or the current firearm laws, and are afraid of firearms.

One only needs to look at California to see that even the most insane gun control has no affect except to limit a constitutional right to those who can afford lawyers and insane requirements.

If you think voter ID is a naked attempt at jim crow, you have no right demanding licensing requirements for firearms.

> One only needs to look at California to see that even the most insane gun control has no affect except to limit a constitutional right to those who can afford lawyers and insane requirements.

Except those laws are there on the books next to states with laws that are basically non-existent for gun control. so it's trivial to go there and get a non-complying gun.

regardless of your stance on guns that's not a good argument.

With some exceptions not relevant here (e.g. people holding Federal Firearms Licenses), it is unlawful to buy a handgun in a state where one is not a resident. No gun store will sell or transfer a handgun to a non-resident. And if the state in question allows face to face private transactions, federal law requires the seller determine if the buyer is a resident of the state.

The last part isn't accurate. There is no law that requires this from non-licensees.

As a practical matter, I won't sell to someone I can't verify is a legal resident of my state and has a CCW permit, that way I know they're not a prohibited person -- but there's no law that requires me to do so.

Your correction is incorrect for at least some states. Texas requires a good faith belief (but not evidence per se) that the transferee is a legal resident of Texas (and they recommend but don't require asking for some kind of ID).

https://faq.sll.texas.gov/questions/44008

It sounds like you said what I said... Except that the discussion was specifically about federal law, there are various states that have additional laws.

>it's trivial to go there and get a non-complying gun.

Is it? I haven't tried buying a gun in another state because that's illegal, but I'm assuming it would take some effort.

And honestly, what's the point? For the most part, the things that California bans aren't guns themselves. The bans are focused on how you put the pieces together, as well as what plastic doodads you attach to the gun. It would take about 3 minutes and a screwdriver to turn my two California-legal rifles into two felonies. No need to drive to Arizona and find a gun seller who is willing to break the law by selling to someone from out of state.

> it's trivial to go there and get a non-complying gun.

Completely false. It’s illegal for an out of state dealer to sell you a gun (or for any dealer to sell you a gun without a background check), and it’s illegal for you to bring a gun back into California unless you lived outside the state, or it was a gift from a parent or child.

If you are willing to buy guns illegally, you can do so more easily within California than by going out of state to do so.

>Gun owners are not allowed to even entertain tougher gun laws whether they be red flag laws, requiring you own a safe, restrictions on magazine size, etc.

Why would people who's seen their rights restricted in piecemeal fashion over the last century be willing to compromise? Seems perfectly logical for them to draw a line in the sand and not give an inch.

I suspect they'll lose everything then.

I think because a plurality, or nearly, favors stricter gun laws. I believe it’s very likely this plurality will grow and the risk gun owners face is they won’t be the ones leading the discussion, or even have a seat at the table.

This is an opportunity to lead and propose effective solutions that don’t infringe. Otherwise the plurality could grow and just do it on their terms. Or get large enough to revoke 2a (which wound be awful imo) and use military force to confiscate firearms and lock offenders in prison.

Gun owners already don't have a seat at the table when it comes to gun control laws. There is no room for discussion, no give and take, just take.

> reversing the National Firearms Act that restricts ownership of fully automatic weapons, legalizing silencers, etc.

That's wrong. IIRC, the NFA only requires that machine guns and silencers be registered and taxed. See this Forgotten Weapons episode: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=po715YGEzTY. It's for a fully automatic M-16 with a device that makes it sound like an AK-47 that's regulated as a silencer. It was up for auction, but the winner would have to pay double the tax because it's a "two stamp" gun.

I know, that's why I used "restricted".

> I know, that's why I used "restricted".

Well, I suppose that's technically correct (e.g. restricts ownership to people who can pay the $200 tax and fill out some forms), but I wouldn't describe that as a meaningful "restrict[ion on] ownership," which I think would be things like bans or hard-to-get licensing requirements.

With the Hughes amendment closing the machinegun registry, it effectively restricts machinegun ownership to those who can afford to pay $5,000 for a low quality item and $20,000 or more for something for something decent.

You can't register new full-auto weapons since the 1986 Hughes Amendment.

The NFA is an outdated, obsolete and unconstitutional.

You need a $200 tax stamp with a 9+ month waiting period to buy a short barrel rifle, but not for a .556 AR or AK "Pistol", even though they are almost identical.

You can't put a vertical forward grip on your AR "Pistol" because then it would become an illegal AOW (any other weapon). But if you put a bipod or some other substitute on it, then it's still a handgun.

You need a $200 stamp with a 9+ month waiting period to buy a suppressor, even though in other countries with supposedly stricter gun laws, suppressors are over the counter items.

You can't modify your gun to shoot full-auto, but you can put a binary trigger on it, which fires 1 shot when you pull the trigger, and another when you release it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eol8fvMfENc