ATF strikes again - Forced reset triggers

[Peter]

Handwavium, as expected. If you're going to criticize, that means that you recognize a flaw in the process. If you've gotten that far you should be able to see how to address that flaw.

How did the UK get all of the guns away from their criminals who owned them in 1995?

Erm, I think the main way was just asking for them as the whole country was in such shock at the time.
Such mass shootings are so rare here that they always create huge news and almost all the guns were voluntarily handed in.

There was national outrage at the time and I think even the criminals felt it but Icoul be wrong.
It was certainly a very strongly felt issue across the entire country.
We just don't have an afinty with firearms as you guys do.

 

[Rucker61]

Erm, I think the main way was just asking for them as the whole country was in such shock at the time.
Such mass shootings are so rare here that they always create huge news and almost all the guns were voluntarily handed in.

So you're claiming that the criminals who felt that they needed guns for criminal enterprise and protection from other criminals pre-Dunblane decided after Dunblane to simply turn those guns in?

There was national outrage at the time and I think even the criminals felt it but Icoul be wrong.
It was certainly a very strongly felt issue across the entire country.

Our criminals who possess firearms illegally have no problems firing at other sets of criminals or into crowds at public gatherings. They aren't outraged by the shootings that they are causing themselves.

 

[Peter]

So you're claiming that the criminals who felt that they needed guns for criminal enterprise and protection from other criminals pre-Dunblane decided after Dunblane to simply turn those guns in?


Our criminals who possess firearms illegally have no problems firing at other sets of criminals or into crowds at public gatherings. They aren't outraged by the shootings that they are causing themselves.

I'm not claiming anything as I can't speak for UK gun owners as I've never owned a gun.
I'm only speaking from my view as a UK resident who was around at the time.
The feeling in the country was mass outrage the likes of which I don't think I've seen for anything else.

The UK also doesn't really have he people to go on vast gun grabbing raids as we just don't have anywhere near as many police as you do.

 

[Rucker61]

I'm not claiming anything as I can't speak for UK gun owners as I've never owned a gun.
I'm only speaking from my view as a UK resident who was around at the time.
The feeling in the country was mass outrage the likes of which I don't think I've seen for anything else.

Noted.

The UK also doesn't really have he people to go on vast gun grabbing raids as we just don't have anywhere near as many police as you do.

Nor would all of law enforcement even participate. The sheriffs in the Western US would certainly refuse to confiscate guns from their fellow law abiding citizens.

 

[Peter]

Noted.

Nor would all of law enforcement even participate. The sheriffs in the Western US would certainly refuse to confiscate guns from their fellow law abiding citizens.

Do you think the police would refuse direct orders to do so if there was a legal and binding vote of the public in the area for them to do so?

 

[Rucker61]

Do you think the police would refuse direct orders to do so if there was a legal and binding vote of the public in the area for them to do so?

Yep. Laws that violate the Constitution don't need to be followed or enforced, and state, county and local law enforcement are not obligated to enforce federal laws.

State's Sheriffs Refuse To Enforce New Gun Laws

State's Sheriffs Refuse To Enforce New Gun Laws

www.huffpost.com

Sheriffs Refuse to Enforce Laws on Gun Control (Published 2013)

The resistance of sheriffs in Colorado to enforcing certain gun laws is raising questions about whether tougher rules passed since Newtown have a muted effect in parts of the nation where gun ownership is common.

www.nytimes.com

The Arms Guide

Expert Reviews: Firearms, Reloading, Safes

thearmsguide.com

 

[notquiteright]

again, do you believe the federal government was properly given any power to regulate firearms through the commerce clause or was that a fiction that the FDR court made up?

Again, do you think you are correct, and the Supreme Court is wrong???

While is seems a concept you can't grasp- what I think isn't relevant. Far as I know it was proper mostly due to the fact the Supreme Court hasn't rejected it. They certainly acted when 'defense' of marriage was floated.

I certainly believe the Supremes over you. I recall how you frothed about when politicians didn't do what you think was correct. You spouted on and on about its treason and they should be hung. Wish I could remember the particulars for that hate stream, but I do recall being shocked an educated, DA who supports the rule of law would spout all that.

Now maybe your memory is as bad as mine. I have answered your question multiples of multiple times. You have one track argument in these discussions, and it always comes back to 1934. A tax on certain firearms. You should be ranting about Reagan signing the Hughs Amendment BANNING the continued sale of Automatic weapons to civilians. Typically, you blame the nearest Democrat when it was the Godfather of the resurgent Republican Party who BANNED automatic weapons for civilians....

 

[notquiteright]

That's the government's position. They ignored thr Constitution to create a new rule that didn't align wirh what Congress passed on 1934, and they didn't offer any opportunity to register and keep bump stocks. To be frank, that goes to a 19 tonne truck, followed by a rifle that's been exempt from every "assault weapons ban" by name - the Ruger Ranch Rifle. Agreed. I don't think our 90mm gunners ever fired anything but the subcaliber round. Likewise I'm amazed the they didn't even try to pass the Hearing Protection Act.

Where was the Supreme Court when this happened??? Where was the NRA when this happened??? I always find it difficult to believe the 'violates the Constitution' opinion when the Supremes didn't block it...

My thought is the Bump stock makers didn't have enough money to buy a few lobbyists and thus a few Congressmen. The NRA saw it as small potatoes (didn't get their vig to take on the court challenge)

Now, it seems no self respecting mass murderer would dare contemplate his killing rampage without an AR/AK. The day of the also ran weapons is over- the AR is literally number one with a bullet.

FYI, I'm not for banning the AR/AK, do want the FRT to be Class 3. I respect those who 'fear' the looks and body count of the AR series on American soil. However those of us who the Army taught 'Violence IS the answer' the AR doesn't hold much fear. The numb nut on the trigger does.

In the 9th, once a year all designated 90 gunners shot one (1) real round. Subs IIRC at least once a quarter. We looked forward to it as it meant as it meant (annual test excluded) we didn't have to hump ALICE 20 Klicks that day...

The BushII years of piss poor congressional action tells me that just like the Religious Right, the Republicans talk the talk but not walk the walk until the Party is hijacked by the more extreme members of the group. Even tRumps one term seemed far more interested in erasing the Obama legacy, (try as they might they couldn't repeal and replace the ACA with the AHCA) than promoting the interests of firearm owners.

Does seem like the way the Religious Right was treated up until tRump....

 

[Rucker61]

Where was the Supreme Court when this happened??? Where was the NRA when this happened??? I always find it difficult to believe the 'violates the Constitution' opinion when the Supremes didn't block it...

Why did it take 50 years to overturn Korematsu v. United States, Hirabayashi v. United States and Yasui v. United States? The NRA isn't a strong supporter of the Constitution much anymore.

My thought is the Bump stock makers didn't have enough money to buy a few lobbyists and thus a few Congressmen. The NRA saw it as small potatoes (didn't get their vig to take on the court challenge)

The NFA suggested that the ATF take another look at it, perhaps thinking the law was clear. They evidently were wrong or else complicit.

Now, it seems no self respecting mass murderer would dare contemplate his killing rampage without an AR/AK. The day of the also ran weapons is over- the AR is literally number one with a bullet.

Nope, handguns were and still the most commonly used type of firearm in mass shootings.

US mass shootings, 1982–2025: Data from Mother Jones’ investigation

The full data set from our in-depth investigation into mass shootings.

www.motherjones.com

FYI, I'm not for banning the AR/AK, do want the FRT to be Class 3. I respect those who 'fear' the looks and body count of the AR series on American soil. However those of us who the Army taught 'Violence IS the answer' the AR doesn't hold much fear. The numb nut on the trigger does.

In the 9th, once a year all designated 90 gunners shot one (1) real round. Subs IIRC at least once a quarter. We looked forward to it as it meant as it meant (annual test excluded) we didn't have to hump ALICE 20 Klicks that day...

So I guess you missed out of the motorized version of the 9th.

The BushII years of piss poor congressional action tells me that just like the Religious Right, the Republicans talk the talk but not walk the walk until the Party is hijacked by the more extreme members of the group. Even tRumps one term seemed far more interested in erasing the Obama legacy, (try as they might they couldn't repeal and replace the ACA with the AHCA) than promoting the interests of firearm owners.

Does seem like the way the Religious Right was treated up until tRump....

Republican politicians have issues for sure.

 

[TurtleDude]

Again, do you think you are correct, and the Supreme Court is wrong???

While is seems a concept you can't grasp- what I think isn't relevant. Far as I know it was proper mostly due to the fact the Supreme Court hasn't rejected it. They certainly acted when 'defense' of marriage was floated.

I certainly believe the Supremes over you. I recall how you frothed about when politicians didn't do what you think was correct. You spouted on and on about its treason and they should be hung. Wish I could remember the particulars for that hate stream, but I do recall being shocked an educated, DA who supports the rule of law would spout all that.

Now maybe your memory is as bad as mine. I have answered your question multiples of multiple times. You have one track argument in these discussions, and it always comes back to 1934. A tax on certain firearms. You should be ranting about Reagan signing the Hughs Amendment BANNING the continued sale of Automatic weapons to civilians. Typically, you blame the nearest Democrat when it was the Godfather of the resurgent Republican Party who BANNED automatic weapons for civilians....

I explained-on this board-over 40 times, why Reagan signed a mostly good bill that has a poison pill. You apparently don't remember that. I would bet that if you were on this board before Heller was decided-you'd have claimed the DC gun ban was constitutional. I said it wasn't.

 

[notquiteright]

I explained-on this board-over 40 times, why Reagan signed a mostly good bill that has a poison pill. You apparently don't remember that. I would bet that if you were on this board before Heller was decided-you'd have claimed the DC gun ban was constitutional. I said it wasn't.

Well, more like excuses for why he didn't stand up to Congress at the height of his popularity. He charmed the tax cuts through, sooooo...
Obviously, he, like many Republicans, didn't see the 'gun' lobby as going to the dems...

Lavish lip service instead of realistic action. Just like the Religious Right until they revolted and seized power.

Claiming I see bans to all firearms as Constitutional shows your bias and the fact you never read any of my posts on how Heller is a good start. I strongly believe home defense is well within the Constitutional boundaries. Stop propping up strawman to 'fight' instead of the topic. (That includes dragging the NFA 1934 issue into every discussion we have over firearms....

I'll go further in what should be repealed. Once a felon serves all his/her time all the rights of citizenship should be re-instated...

 

[notquiteright]

Why did it take 50 years to overturn Korematsu v. United States, Hirabayashi v. United States and Yasui v. United States? The NRA isn't a strong supporter of the Constitution much anymore. The NFA suggested that the ATF take another look at it, perhaps thinking the law was clear. They evidently were wrong or else complicit.
Nope, handguns were and still the most commonly used type of firearm in mass shootings.

US mass shootings, 1982–2025: Data from Mother Jones’ investigation

The full data set from our in-depth investigation into mass shootings.

www.motherjones.com

So I guess you missed out of the motorized version of the 9th. Republican politicians have issues for sure.

The NRA is a very strong supporter of the Constitution- if you pay well...

Suggesting something doesn't jibe with the fund raising letters I'm getting. Haven't been a member of the NRA for decades- suddenly I'm getting a steady stream of garment rending rants. Might have more to do with their financial troubles than fear of the 'gun' grabbers.

One way of looking at mass murder is weapon of choice. Another is looking at the incidents where more than 10 people are killed. Hands down since 2017 the weapon of choice was an AR, one incident with AK clone, and one shotgun. There was one where two semi pistols were used- with extended magazines- something I'd argue should be treated like bump stocks and FRTs.

Might have been for the better. I'm told the Dune Buggy Warriors suffered enough injury do to accidents, and a distinct vulnerability to any weapon used on them. I was in the LPC 9th.

Republican politicians sure have 'issues', but the bulk of R voters hold their noses and vote for the MAGA candidate anyway....

 

[CLAX1911]

Oh, try explaining that to the families of the dead.
This is why the US will never change and the carnage will continue.

I'll explain it to anybody guns don't possess the ability to get up on their own accord and fly around and kill people they have to be used by a person to kill.

The only way to stop the Carnage is to figure out why the person wants to kill.

Interfering with my right to own a farm won't do anything at all at any time to affect the Carnage.

I'm not the person causing it

 

[CLAX1911]

The NRA is a very strong supporter of the Constitution- if you pay well...

Suggesting something doesn't jibe with the fund raising letters I'm getting. Haven't been a member of the NRA for decades- suddenly I'm getting a steady stream of garment rending rants. Might have more to do with their financial troubles than fear of the 'gun' grabbers.

One way of looking at mass murder is weapon of choice. Another is looking at the incidents where more than 10 people are killed. Hands down since 2017 the weapon of choice was an AR, one incident with AK clone, and one shotgun. There was one where two semi pistols were used- with extended magazines- something I'd argue should be treated like bump stocks and FRTs.

Only available to criminals?

 

[Rucker61]

One way of looking at mass murder is weapon of choice. Another is looking at the incidents where more than 10 people are killed.

Why not set the limit at 40, and you can then claim that all mass murders were committed with AR style firearms?

Hands down since 2017 the weapon of choice was an AR, one incident with AK clone, and one shotgun.

Why start at 2017? To create your narrative?

Using industry standard terms, with mass murder = 3 or more killed, the handgun is still the weapon of choice for mass murders.

There was one where two semi pistols were used- with extended magazines- something I'd argue should be treated like bump stocks and FRTs.

Define "extended magazine"

 

[poppopfox]

I'll explain it to anybody guns don't possess the ability to get up on their own accord and fly around and kill people they have to be used by a person to kill.

Good explanation!

The only way to stop the Carnage is to figure out why the person wants to kill.

The only way?

Interfering with my right to own a farm won't do anything at all at any time to affect the Carnage.

Agreed

I'm not the person causing it

You're not the person preventing it either. Point?

 

[zsu2357]

Do you think the police would refuse direct orders to do so if there was a legal and binding vote of the public in the area for them to do so?

In the area such as a township? If so who voted for it? Yes a lot of police wouldn't do it. Do you think they would go after family and friends? I don't.

 

[CLAX1911]

Good explanation!

The only way?

I should correct that it's not the only way. Another way is to put them down. But you have to wait till right before they do it otherwise it's a felony.

Agreed

You're not the person preventing it either. Point?

There's the point is to stop crime then why not focus on the crime instead of something that has nothing to do with it.

Further I am preventing it by carrying a firearm skilled enough to use it defensively. That's how we wind up with 22,000 murders versus 2.2million

 

[Peter]

In the area such as a township? If so who voted for it? Yes a lot of police wouldn't do it. Do you think they would go after family and friends? I don't.

Do you also think people would be willing to shoot at police who tried to get those guns?
The police are after all just doing the job they're paid to do.
Let's say a State voted for a ban on guns.

 

[Rucker61]

Do you also think people would be willing to shoot at police who tried to get those guns?
The police are after all just doing the job they're paid to do.
Let's say a State voted for a ban on guns.

The sheriffs in nearly all of the counties in Colorado would arrest any state or local cops who tried to enforce such a law.

 

[Peter]

The sheriffs in nearly all of the counties in Colorado would arrest any state or local cops who tried to enforce such a law.

So you'd have a situation where one branch of government is arresting another branch for enacting the result of a state ballot?

How would that even work?

 

[Rucker61]

So you'd have a situation where one branch of government is arresting another branch for enacting the result of a state ballot?

How would that even work?

You should read up on the power of a county sheriff in the US, and such a vote would be patently unconstitutional to begin with.

 

[Rich2018]

This neutral CDC?

Yes, the one pro-gunners keep quoting regarding supposed defensive gun uses.

The CDC doesn't have any experts on staff. They'll have to contract out. Who do you think they're going to contract with?

Yet pro-gunners treat their lists of defensive gun uses as gospel ?

Are you implying all of the other studies that the Democrats refuse to accept were biased.

Or dated, or irrelevant context, or incomplete, or imprecise...

That's the only folks they're preaching to.

So how are you aware of it ?

I damn them for calling for a need for evidence while at the same time ignoring this need for evidence to give a long laundry list of items that are needed for "gun safety". Can you not see the cognitive dissonance here?

There is only one item needed: a law banning guns*

*with exemptions previously discussed.

Can we call out every gun control proponent on this site every time that they cite a current study as citing unscientific, flawed studies? You're telling us that all of them are flawed and only the CDC can provide the Truth.

Yes, just as you can call out every unscientific, biased or flawed studies cited by pro-gunners.

It would take a police state to stop mass shootings.

Well "stopping" is relative
The UK has experienced 2 (arguably 3) mass shootings in 26 years, with a pop circa 60m, and is far from a "police state"

If the USA had Britain's record on mass shootings, I think you may well say mass shootings had be "stopped" (if not totally eradicated).

 

[Fledermaus]

There is only one item needed: a law banning guns*

*with exemptions previously discussed.

 

[zsu2357]

You should read up on the power of a county sheriff in the US, and such a vote would be patently unconstitutional to begin with.

He's under the delusion we are like they are across The Big Water.