Should "ghost guns" be eliminated?

[BahamaBob]

Here we go again. Sleepy Joe is trying to penalize legitimate gun owners instead of going after criminals. While I have never bought a kit, I have assembled several guns. That way you can select the barrel, trigger assembly, action, stalk, and other options of the weapon you want. It is much cheaper than buying an assembled weapon then changing out half the parts.

This law will in no way keep guns out of the hands of criminals.

 

[KingLeo]

Should sites like this one be restricted?

Ghost Guns | Ghost Guns™ specializes in private weapons builds you can do yourself

Ghost Guns™ specializes in private weapons builds you can do yourself

ghostguns.com

or this one

Buy AR15 Build Kit | Ghost Gun Kit | Ghost Firearms

AR15 Build Kit have all the products you will need to assemble a complete rifle or pistol minus a lower receiver. Ghost Gun Kit are ready to be assembled

www.ghostrifles.com

or many others.

Yes.

 

[TurtleDude]

Rights have limits.

so do government powers-and those are generally spelled out

 

[SMTA]

Are you kidding? He is reading a teleprompter, reading a speech someone else wrote. His dementia shows up when he has to has to talk unprepared. That is why he never takes questions. If someone doesn't tell him what to say he has no clue.

Are you kidding? He is reading a teleprompter, reading a speech someone else wrote. His dementia shows up when he has to has to talk unprepared. That is why he never takes questions. If someone doesn't tell him what to say he has no clue.

Bullshit post

 

[TurtleDude]

Should sites like this one be restricted?

Ghost Guns | Ghost Guns™ specializes in private weapons builds you can do yourself

Ghost Guns™ specializes in private weapons builds you can do yourself

ghostguns.com

or this one

Buy AR15 Build Kit | Ghost Gun Kit | Ghost Firearms

AR15 Build Kit have all the products you will need to assemble a complete rifle or pistol minus a lower receiver. Ghost Gun Kit are ready to be assembled

www.ghostrifles.com

or many others.

Yes.

minus the lower receiver

 

[KingLeo]

minus the lower receiver

And we both know those are not that hard to find.

 

[Chillfolks]

So if you buy all of the parts for a gun in one kit you do not think that is a "gun", really?

If you buy a kit car and one of the boxes falls on your foot is that an auto accident? Is a beer making kit a drinkable beer? I don’t consider a steel bar a knife until it has had some work done to it.

 

[Chillfolks]

Should sites like this one be restricted?

Ghost Guns | Ghost Guns™ specializes in private weapons builds you can do yourself

Ghost Guns™ specializes in private weapons builds you can do yourself

ghostguns.com

or this one

Buy AR15 Build Kit | Ghost Gun Kit | Ghost Firearms

AR15 Build Kit have all the products you will need to assemble a complete rifle or pistol minus a lower receiver. Ghost Gun Kit are ready to be assembled

www.ghostrifles.com

or many others.

Yes.

No more than some specialty auto parts sites should be because they can modify a car to perform better

 

[Rucker61]

So if you buy all of the parts for a gun in one kit you do not think that is a "gun", really?

Not if any of the parts are in and of it self a "gun".

 

[Rucker61]

Rights have limits.

Scalia in Heller and Alito in McDonald, later, expressed a very limited view of what gun control laws could be considered Constitutional.
DC v Heller
"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons."
Chicago v McDonald.

"We made it clear in Heller that our holding did not cast doubt on such longstanding regulatory measures as “prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill,” “laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.” Id., at ___–___ (slip op., at 54–55). We repeat those assurances here. "

The restrictions listed in these two opinions, all existing laws, are the only ones that can be presumed to be Constitutional

 

[BahamaBob]

Bullshit post

View attachment 67385095

Soo, you don't think he is reading a teleprompter? Okay, ignorance comes in all forms.

 

[TurtleDude]

And we both know those are not that hard to find.

true, but they are treated exactly the same as complete firearms when you buy them. You cannot buy them through the mail and have them delivered to your house. You have to fill out a Form 44 73 You cannot buy one from a private citizen if he doesn't live in your state nor can you sell them to someone who lives in another state.

 

[Rucker61]

Should sites like this one be restricted?

Ghost Guns | Ghost Guns™ specializes in private weapons builds you can do yourself

Ghost Guns™ specializes in private weapons builds you can do yourself

ghostguns.com

or this one

Buy AR15 Build Kit | Ghost Gun Kit | Ghost Firearms

AR15 Build Kit have all the products you will need to assemble a complete rifle or pistol minus a lower receiver. Ghost Gun Kit are ready to be assembled

www.ghostrifles.com

or many others.

You realize for the second one you still need to either purchase a completed lower receiver with a background check or an 80% lower and convert a partially finished block of aluminum into a completed receiver which is intended solely for your personal use?

 

[BahamaBob]

You realize for the second one you still need to either purchase a completed lower receiver with a background check or an 80% lower and convert a partially finished block of aluminum into a completed receiver which is intended solely for your personal use?

My guess is they don't realize that without a lower receiver, it is not a gun. It is just a pile of parts.

 

[WillyPete]

So called ghost guns are ending up in the hands of felons who can not buy regular guns. Hey are ending up in every increasing crime scenes since the people who use them know they can not be traced. Biden is presently trying to have the kits that are used to make the ghost guns named as guns and not parts, nd require them to have serial numbers. Do yo agree with this, or do you want the ghost guns to continue to be "legal"?

It doesn't strike me as something that can be directly controlled, so it's not wise to try to control it.

It also whiffs of fear-mongering, like the old "porcelain gun" scare back in the day.

It's always been possible to produce a machine gun from a schematic if you have a machine shop. Today it's easier with 3D printing. When that develops to the point you can make appropriate metal parts, then people will be able to produce firearms on demand.

So how do we get our arms around that with policy? Just saying it's illegal changes nothing on it's own.

 

[independentusa]

Not the second amendment.

The Bill of Rights explicitly states that "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall NOT be infringed".

Limits are infringements. The founders were very clear on this.

If they had intended for the right to have a gun should be limited, they would have said "shall not be infringed, unless absolutely necessary". Or something like that.

There is the first Amendment which guarantees free speech, but the courts say you can not yell fire in a crowded theater. And to say that parts in a kit sold to make a gun can be required to have a serial number is not stopping you from buying the kit or making the gun. It is not infringing you right to buy it, it is just requiring manufacturers to put serial numbers on the parts.

 

[VanceMack]

again, the problem is that without serial numbers it is impossible to back track and find out who sold the criminals guns. You are right it will not stop crime, but we can punish those who sell guns to criminals.

Most states allow individuals to sell firearms with no record of who the weapon is sold to. The government is not allowed to hold a registry. To say nothing of the fact that a criminal can easily remove serial numbers. This wont punish anyone. What it WILL do is move us towards a government registry.

The biggest probelm (other than the fact that its just more gun control that doesnt work) is that it is an example of a president or agency creating law...and thats forbidden. Biden has no authority to establish law. He cannot establish new legal requirements. Thats the job of congress.

 

[Rucker61]

There is the first Amendment which guarantees free speech, but the courts say you can not yell fire in a crowded theater.

Sure you can, multiple ways, and legally. See Brandenburg v Ohio.

And to say that parts in a kit sold to make a gun can be required to have a serial number is not stopping you from buying the kit or making the gun. It is not infringing you right to buy it, it is just requiring manufacturers to put serial numbers on the parts.

Seriously you want every single part for a rifle to be serialized? How would you serialize the pivot pin retaining spring? Would a buyer need a background check for each item?

 

[SMTA]

Soo, you don't think he is reading a teleprompter? Okay, ignorance comes in all forms.

Never said that
Learn to read and comprehend English

 

[Gateman_Wen]

Not the second amendment.

Yes, it does. Felons, for instance, can't own guns. All rights have limits.

Deal with it.

 

[Gateman_Wen]

Please read Heller.

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court ruling that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms, unconnected with service in a militia, for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home, and that the District of Columbia's handgun ban and requirement that lawfully owned rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock" violated this guarantee.[1] It also stated that the right to bear arms is not unlimited and that guns and gun ownership would continue to be regulated. It was the first Supreme Court case to decide whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense or if the right was intended for state militias.

You can't own a naval rifle.

Rights have limits. All of them,

Deal with it.

 

[Rucker61]

Yes, it does. Felons, for instance, can't own guns. All rights have limits.

Deal with it.

Not all limits are allowed. Address that.

 

[Gateman_Wen]

Scalia in Heller and Alito in McDonald, later, expressed a very limited view of what gun control laws could be considered Constitutional.
DC v Heller
"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons."
Chicago v McDonald.

"We made it clear in Heller that our holding did not cast doubt on such longstanding regulatory measures as “prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill,” “laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.” Id., at ___–___ (slip op., at 54–55). We repeat those assurances here. "

The restrictions listed in these two opinions, all existing laws, are the only ones that can be presumed to be Constitutional

Until the 2008 reinterpretation of the second amendment get re-reinterpreted.

 

[Rucker61]

You can't own a naval rifle.

Rights have limits. All of them,

Deal with it.

Ibid.

 

[Rucker61]

Until the 2008 reinterpretation of the second amendment get re-reinterpreted.

In US v Cruikshank,1876, SCOTUS recognized that "The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence." The decision recognized the right of two former slaves to keep a bear arms, two men who were not in the militia, would not have been allowed to be in the militia, in a state where the militia had been disbanded.

Without the recognition of an individual right to keep and bear arms, Miller, whose entire appeal was based upon that right, would have no standing to have his case reviewed by SCOTUS.

There have been six major pieces of gun control legislation passed by Congress, all prior to Heller: NFA 1934, Gun Control Act of 1968, Firearm Owners Protection Act (including the Hughes Amendment) of 1986, the Brady Act, the Assault Weapons Ban and the Lautenburg Amendment.


The word militia isn't mentioned a single time in any of them. The words "individual", "person" and "citizen" are repeated hundreds of times.


In 1982 the Senate published a bipartisan report entitled "the right to keep and bear arms report" that affirmed an individual rights viewpoint.

In 1990 in US v Verdugo-Urquidez SCOTUS affirmed: "...it suggests that "the people" protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community."


There's a lot of precedence and stare decisis to overcome there, hoss.