Senate Passes "Assault Weapons" Ban

[BoredShirtless]

but I see no legitamate need to own assault weapons.

[Sarcastic]
Think about the hunters. They can probably kill animals twice as hard with assault weapons. Not to mention farmers, who have to contend with crafty rabbits and viscous rats. Dude assault weapons don't kill people, people kill people, they're just tools. Any maniac can pick up a chainsaw and wipe out 14 students and 1 teacher, should chainsaws be banned too?
[/Sarcastic]

[Xon]

You're about to get a lecture on the definition of 'assault weapons' methinks- something I've never really paid attention to myself (I personally don't know what exactly the exact issue is either), because I'm Australian and therefore don't care.

In Australia, we dont ban 'assault weapons', its any automatics and/or semi-automatics that are illegal (possessing, selling or using all illegal). Except for sporting cubs and such.

But like Vympel said, us Australians arent too big on the caring part.

[Xon]

but I see no legitamate need to own assault weapons.

[Sarcastic]
Think about the hunters. They can probably kill animals twice as hard with assault weapons. Not to mention farmers, who have to contend with crafty rabbits and viscous rats. Dude assault weapons don't kill people, people kill people, they're just tools. Any maniac can pick up a chainsaw and wipe out 14 students and 1 teacher, should chainsaws be banned too?
[/Sarcastic]

In Australia, if someone when on a rampage with a chainsaw and killed ~15 people, you would see new regulations & laws about chainsaws fast tracked in a few weeks.

[Knife]

but I see no legitamate need to own assault weapons.

[Sarcastic]
Think about the hunters. They can probably kill animals twice as hard with assault weapons. Not to mention farmers, who have to contend with crafty rabbits and viscous rats. Dude assault weapons don't kill people, people kill people, they're just tools. Any maniac can pick up a chainsaw and wipe out 14 students and 1 teacher, should chainsaws be banned too?
[/Sarcastic]

You are confusing automatic weapons with 'assult weapons'. Automatic weapons are already banned (with exception of jumping through extreme hoops, but we've been through that recently). Assualt weapons as described by the AWB is a cosmetic term. They ban weapons that are 'mean' looking, to sum it up in a nutshell.

There are alot of more dangerous weapons out there than a AR15. Guns with bigger rounds and better range. But the AR15 is banned because it looks scary and militeristic. Oooooh Ahhhhhhhh.

If the AWB was ditched tomarrow, fully automatic M16's would still not be available to the public nor would M60's.

[Gil Hamilton]

In Australia, if someone when on a rampage with a chainsaw and killed ~15 people, you would see new regulations & laws about chainsaws fast tracked in a few weeks.

Doesn't that happen twice a day Down Under? What about Murder by Giant Poisonous Animal or Crocodile?


Anyway, it's unfortunate that the AWB was passed, but not wholly unexpected.

[Glocksman]

46 Senaters voted against closing the "gun show loophole". 46 Senaters need their heads examined.

Your title fits you.

THERE IS NO 'GUN SHOW LOOPHOLE'!

Yes there is. See below.

Any FFL holder who sells guns at a gun show must comply with the Brady act and run a NICS check on any firearms purchaser.

And if there's an unlicensed person dealing in guns at a gun show, that's already illegal, as it's a crime to deal in firearms without an FFL.

Wrong. From http://www.cdfactioncouncil.org/gunshow%20loophole.htm:

....as the law currently stands, private dealers who are not "engaged in the business" of selling guns for a profit are not required to have a license. Thus, these unlicensed sellers at gun shows are not required to keep a record of sales or to perform Brady background checks on potential buyers.

Comprende? All an unlicensed dealer has to do is tell the authorities that he isn't making money from his sales. And if he doesn't have the receipts from when he bought them, what can the authorities do? Nothing, that's what. That's called a "loophole".

You'd be better served by looking up the laws yourself:

Title 18, United States Code Chapter 44-Firearms
Section 921: Definintions

(21) The term "engaged in the business" means -
(A) as applied to a manufacturer of firearms, a person who devotes time,
attention, and labor to manufacturing firearms as a regular course of trade or
business with the principal objective of livelihood and profit through the sale or
distribution of the firearms manufactured;
(B) as applied to a manufacturer of ammunition, a person who devotes time,
attention, and labor to manufacturing ammunition as a regular course of trade or
business with the principal objective of livelihood and profit through the sale or
distribution of the ammunition manufactured;
(C) as applied to a dealer in firearms, as defined in section 921(a)(11)(A), a
person who devotes time, attention, and labor to dealing in firearms as a regular
course of trade or business with the principal objective of livelihood and profit
through the repetitive purchase and resale of firearms, but such term shall not
include a person who makes occasional sales, exchanges, or purchases of firearms
for the enhancement of a personal collection or for a hobby, or who sells all or
part of his personal collection of firearms;
(D) as applied to a dealer in firearms, as defined in section 921(a)(11)(B), a
person who devotes time, attention, and labor to engaging in such activity as a
regular course of trade or business with the principal objective of livelihood and
profit, but such term shall not include a person who makes occasional repairs of
firearms, or who occasionally fits special barrels, stocks, or trigger mechanisms
to firearms;
(E) as applied to an importer of firearms, a person who devotes time,
attention, and labor to importing firearms as a regular course of trade or
business with the principal objective of livelihood and profit through the sale or
distribution of the firearms imported; and
(F) as applied to an importer of ammunition, a person who devotes time,
attention, and labor to importing ammunition as a regular course of trade or
business with the principal objective of livelihood and profit through the sale or
distribution of the ammunition imported.
(22) The term "with the principal objective of livelihood and profit" means that
the intent underlying the sale or disposition of firearms is predominantly one of
obtaining livelihood and pecuniary gain, as opposed to other intents, such as
improving or liquidating a personal firearms collection: Provided, That proof of
profit shall not be required as to a person who engages in the regular and repetitive
purchase and disposition of firearms for criminal purposes or terrorism.

So if we have a person deliberately dodging the gun laws by dealing in firearms without a license, proof of profit is not required in order to prosecute them if criminal intent was behind the sales. In other words, if Joe Bob was buying guns and then reselling them at cost (why anyone would do that is beyond me) in order to evade the NICS checks on purchasers or with any other criminal intent, he can be prosecuted.

The only situation in which current laws would bar the prosecution of someone selling guns without a license at a gunshow would be someone who is 'improving or liquidating a personal firearms collection'.

Speaking from personal experience here, I've only been to 2 gunshows (out of the 20 or so I've been to over the years) where I've seen nonlicensed people selling guns. Both of them had perhaps 5 or 6 pieces and they were collector's guns easily worth $1000 or more.

I wish I could find someone who'd sell me guns at cost.

The only thing this amendment does is force sales between private individuals to go through an FFL to conduct the transfer and as I mentioned above, if the person is found to be 'dealing' in firearms as opposed the 'occasional sale', it's illegal.

The authorities can't tell whether some guy at a gun show is selling "occasionally" or "for a profit" without a paper trail. Which means he needs to either be a licensed dealer, or sell through a licensed dealer. Plus, conducting a background check shifts the blame from the seller to the government if the buyer goes berzerk, which is a good thing unless you like the insides of court rooms. Deal with it.

Every firearm made or sold at retail since 1968 has a paper trail by law up to the sale at retail by the licensed dealer. After the initial purchase, there isn't a paper trail unless the gun goes back into the hands of a licensed dealer and is entered into his bound book.

Besides, a paper trail isn't needed to prosecute if the unlicensed person is selling guns with criminal intent.

As far as background checks and legal liability goes, why in the hell do you think the bill that was killed yesterday was needed? Background checks don't keep dealers and manufacturers from seeing courtrooms on legitimate sales.

God forbid that I decide to sell one of my rifles to a friend and not add $30-$50 to the price to run him through a government background check.

So sad, too bad.

Next time, read the law instead of what the CDF (Hillary Clinton's favorite 'Charity') wants you to believe.

[Glocksman]

Forgot to add:

Four of the guns used in the shooting were purchased at a gun show. However, Congress has yet to pass effective gun safety legislation to ensure background checks are conducted for all gun sales. It is time to close the gun show loophole!

Indeed, the guns were purchased at a gun show.

By the girlfriend of one of the perpetrators who was of legal age and had no disability to bar her from purchasing the guns and from a 22 year old who bought a pistol at a gun show a year before he illegally (as Harris was under 21, the age at which one can legally purchase a handgun) sold it to them.

Story

GOLDEN, Colo. (AP) - A 22-year-old computer programmer pleaded guilty Wednesday, admitting he sold a semiautomatic pistol to the Columbine gunmen and purchased 100 rounds of ammunition for one of them the night before the deadly rampage

Manes is one of two people who were accused of helping Harris and Klebold acquire the TEC-DC 9 semiautomatic pistol, one of four weapons used in the rampage.

A former Columbine student, Manes purchased the weapon at a gun show last fall. Philip Duran, a pizza shop employee who worked with Harris and Klebold, is accused of introducing them to Manes when Duran learned they were looking for weapons.

Duran, 22, is scheduled to appear in court next week. He is charged with providing a gun to a minor, which carries a maximum sentence of six years in prison and a $500,000 fine.

Harris and Klebold also used two shotguns and a rifle legally purchased by Klebold's friend Robyn Anderson. Under Colorado law, an 18-year-old without a felony record can furnish minors with rifles and shotguns. Investigators have characterized Ms. Anderson as a witness, not a suspect.

In other words, the CDF's favored legislation would have done nothing to prevent Columbine, as the sales made were to people who had no legal bars to purchasing firearms.

Interestingly enough, I wonder why they didn't prosecute Ms. Anderson?
What she did is known as a 'straw purchase' and is a federal offense.

Damn, can't the CDF tell the truth without spinning it out of existence?

[Xon]

In Australia, if someone when on a rampage with a chainsaw and killed ~15 people, you would see new regulations & laws about chainsaws fast tracked in a few weeks.

Doesn't that happen twice a day Down Under?

We have had a few riots lately. Once cos some Aboriginal kid got killed over something, and the police involved were back on duty soon after, and another one has the what looks to be new legislation to make parents of misbehaving kids directly responsibility for any actions(but it could just be roubling at this point).

But generally the Great Australian Apathy affects all factors of life.

Just dont call the local natives "abos" in a derogatory tone. We dont need more riots and (near)dead Americans.

What about Murder by Giant Poisonous Animal or Crocodile?

The idea to help limit the Crocodile population explosion is to allow big game hunters to hunt them. And pay us for the pleasure.

So we are getting someone else todo the hardword, and getting payed for it.

[Glocksman]

Paging Bored Shirtless.

Is the BATF lying and the CDF telling the truth?

Concession accepted.

[Knife]

Paging Bored Shirtless.

Is the BATF lying and the CDF telling the truth?

Concession accepted.

He's put the gun issue on the back burner to re-focus on Bush bashing.

[theski]

and you forgot BS vs CRACKPOT wars......

[Knife]

and you forgot BS vs CRACKPOT wars......

Well, I hate to say it, but I like reading the Crackpot/BS wars. There fun. The Vympel/Axis wars are a little long and wordy for me but CP/BS mix it up real well. Those goofy two just crack me up.

[Vympel]

Well, I hate to say it, but I like reading the Crackpot/BS wars. There fun. The Vympel/Axis wars are a little long and wordy for me but CP/BS mix it up real well. Those goofy two just crack me up.

You know, if Kast didn't embarass himself with a ridiculous thread like the Baghdad Tiger one the next time there's a heated discussion, I'd probably ask Mike about having his title changed. He's a fantastic enemy that bloke.

[UltraViolence83]

Weapons...Ban...Urge to kill...RISING...KILL WITH KNIFE!


I don't own any guns yet, but believe me I will in the future. I don't need the government telling me what guns I can have and which ones I can't. Good thing Ohio's Governor Taft passed a law that we can carry concealed weapons! And it takes effect the day after my 21st birthday, too!

Assault weapons are actually a problem around where I live. A few miles from here is Youngstown, the crack-den of Ohio. I think it was a couple years back when a good portion of the city (including my mom) lost their power because some crazy with an AK-47 shot up the electrical substation. This is aside from the fact that crooks have 'em, too.

Now, no one I know who lives there isn't against owning AWs. Why do these pussies need to restrict our choice to own massive killing machines?
What makes them think that this will stop AWs from being owned? It just makes them black market.

Gah, some things I'm quite liberal on, but hell, it's things like this AWB that pushes me to the right.

[Knife]

You know, if Kast didn't embarass himself with a ridiculous thread like the Baghdad Tiger one the next time there's a heated discussion, I'd probably ask Mike about having his title changed. He's a fantastic enemy that bloke.

Pure comedy gold.

[BoredShirtless]

Paging Bored Shirtless.

Is the BATF lying and the CDF telling the truth?

Concession accepted.

Wait I'll get back to you, I've just gotta finish a deliverable at work first.

[Worlds Spanner]

Why the hell do we need the liability protection? Why should the gun industry be protected like that? It's bullshit. I'm upset it passed at all, and if these amendments can hurt the bill in the House, excellent.

[Glocksman]

Why the hell do we need the liability protection? Why should the gun industry be protected like that? It's bullshit. I'm upset it passed at all, and if these amendments can hurt the bill in the House, excellent.

The bill is dead.

The reason the bill was needed is that the announced intention of many of the people behind such suits is to drive the gunmakers out of business by bankrupting them.

If they lose, they don't really care as they have accomplished the purpose of forcing gunmakers to spend money defending the suits. It's the 'death of a thousand cuts' being played out in a courtroom instead of a torture table.

For all of the hand-wringing about the gunmakers buying Congress, they are actually fairly small companies who don't have the bottomless pockets needed to defend themselves against assholes like Richard Daley who use public funds to initiate such suits.

And contrary to the bullshit put out by the Bradys and Feinstein, the bill would have done nothing to ban suits based on defective products.

PDF of bill

a) FINDINGS- The Congress finds the following:

(1) Citizens have a right, protected by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, to keep and bear arms.

(2) Lawsuits have been commenced against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and importers of firearms that operate as designed and intended, which seek money damages and other relief for the harm caused by the misuse of firearms by third parties, including criminals.

(3) The manufacture, importation, possession, sale, and use of firearms and ammunition in the United States are heavily regulated by Federal, State, and local laws. Such Federal laws include the Gun Control Act of 1968, the National Firearms Act, and the Arms Export Control Act.

(4) Businesses in the United States that are engaged in interstate and foreign commerce through the lawful design, manufacture, marketing, distribution, importation, or sale to the public of firearms or ammunition that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce are not, and should not, be liable for the harm caused by those who criminally or unlawfully misuse firearm products or ammunition products that function as designed and intended.

(5) The possibility of imposing liability on an entire industry for harm that is solely caused by others is an abuse of the legal system, erodes public confidence in our Nation's laws, threatens the diminution of a basic constitutional right and civil liberty, invites the disassembly and destabilization of other industries and economic sectors lawfully competing in the free enterprise system of the United States, and constitutes an unreasonable burden on interstate and foreign commerce of the United States.

(6) The liability actions commenced or contemplated by the Federal Government, States, municipalities, and private interest groups are based on theories without foundation in hundreds of years of the common law and jurisprudence of the United States and do not represent a bona fide expansion of the common law. The possible sustaining of these actions by a maverick judicial officer or petit jury would expand civil liability in a manner never contemplated by the framers of the Constitution, by Congress, or by the legislatures of the several States. Such an expansion of liability would constitute a deprivation of the rights, privileges, and immunities guaranteed to a citizen of the United States under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Sounds reasonable to me.

[Worlds Spanner]

The reason the bill was needed is that the announced intention of many of the people behind such suits is to drive the gunmakers out of business by bankrupting them.

If they lose, they don't really care as they have accomplished the purpose of forcing gunmakers to spend money defending the suits. It's the 'death of a thousand cuts' being played out in a courtroom instead of a torture table.

I'll buy this analysis of the problem, but the cure is still unacceptable.

If these suits are being brought solely in order to waste money, they are obviously frivolous. The court system has a responsibility to dismiss frivolous cases quickly. I know that this isn't happening, but that is a problem with the courts. Better judges, or perhaps judges who care, may be needed, legislation such as this is not.

I realize that the legislation is *much* more quick'n'easy than changing the entire court culture, but it is still the wrong answer.

[Worlds Spanner]

Reading your quoted text more carefully, I see they even use the phrase maverick judicial officer or petit jury.

It's bullshit. Congress is literally saying that it wants to usurp the precident creating power of the judiciary.

They cite the concern that courts could rule against existing precedent...but this is why there are appeals courts!

A preposterous power grab that seems as anti-constituional as the problem it claims to address.

[Glocksman]

Most of them are thrown out.

Grunow v. Valor Corp. of Florida

On November 14, 2002, a jury awarded a $24 million verdict in a case brought by the family of a Florida schoolteacher killed in his classroom by a 13-year-old student with a handgun. The complaint, filed in a Palm Beach County court on October 4, 2000, sought to hold a gun distributor and dealer liable for selling a gun that was unreasonably dangerous and defective because it lacked a locking system or other safety feature to prevent unauthorized use

Some details the Bradys are leaving out.

1. The gun was legally bought by Mr. McCray more than a decade before Brazill stole it.
2. There is no legal requirement in either Federal or Florida law that there be a 'locking system' to prevent unauthorized use.
3. The Judge threw out the verdict as 'fatally flawed'.

Although gun manufacturers have the ability to design weapons that will fire only in the hands of authorized users

She's been watching too much Star Trek. Gun makers have been testing prototypes of such pistols for some time. The problem is that none of the mechanisms are 100% reliable. I don't know about you, but I certainly wouldn't want a 'safety device' that failed 1 in 10 times on a tool that I would use for self defense.

Apparently the police don't, as the laws that mandate this type of device in states such as Maryland and the PRNJ exempt the police from the 'safety device' requirement.

The judge in this case followed the law. The jury didn't. There's no guarantee that another judge would follow the law.

[Worlds Spanner]

The judge followed the law, so no problem. If the judge didn't follow the law, there would be an appeal. Still no problem.

[Glocksman]

Congress is literally saying that it wants to usurp the precident creating power of the judiciary

I submit that if judicial precedent goes either against the intent of Congress or creates new law out of thin air (as an upholding of one of these suits would do), then Congress has a duty to address it.

Judicial precedent isn't enshrined in the Constitution. The lawmaking power of Congress *is*.

They cite the concern that courts could rule against existing precedent...but this is why there are appeals courts!

Forcing the companies to spend yet more money.

A preposterous power grab that seems as anti-constituional as the problem it claims to address.

It's not unconstitutional at all.

Congress has the power to write the laws and regulation of the commerce in firearms would fall under the interstate commerce clause.

[Worlds Spanner]

They cite the concern that courts could rule against existing precedent...but this is why there are appeals courts!

Forcing the companies to spend yet more money.

....if suits are thrown out, don't those who bring them have to cover costs? Even if I'm wring and they don't, the gun companies can bring a counter-suit seeking compensation for their time and money.

A preposterous power grab that seems as anti-constituional as the problem it claims to address.

It's not unconstitutional at all.

Congress has the power to write the laws and regulation of the commerce in firearms would fall under the interstate commerce clause.

Correct. I used "anti-constitutional" instead of "unconstitutional" very deliberately, because it is my opinion that this subverts the spirit of the constitution as it has always been interpreted - although as you say judicial precedent is not enshrined in the text. I should have been clearer about this.

[Sea Skimmer]

....if suits are thrown out, don't those who bring them have to cover costs?

Nope, not in the US.

Even if I'm wring and they don't, the gun companies can bring a counter-suit seeking compensation for their time and money.

Those almost never happen, and IIRC almost always result in a loss for the plaintiff.