Is there a tougher background check?

[moroza]

I don't deny my elitism in the slightest, I just 1. point out that everyone has one or another flavor of it, more or less hidden, and 2. refuse to respect financial wealth as a legitimate basis for it. Since we're on the subject of viewpoints, I'll add a couple of mine. I believe that...
* It's an injustice to people and an offense to the concepts of reason and rationality that there is no way, short of what seems a rather onerous and highly restrictive manufacturing/government contracting scheme, to legally make an MG or own one made after an arbitrary cutoff date.
* The presentation in media of suppressors as anything resembling what could accurately be called a "silencer" is ridiculous. Why an aural-health-promoting nuisance-reducing device with no lethality enhancement is regulated so strictly... is just as unfathomable, probably related to the former, and empirically quite unjustified (look at Finland).
* The various AWBs were written by, to be polite, people who are deeply ignorant about guns, and whose failure to recognize their own ignorance makes them unfit for public office or positions of power of any kind.
* The same applies to every major advocate for gun control I've ever heard, without exception (I'm genuinely interested in finding one). To be fair, I only recently started paying attention, but my goodness, is common sense and actually being informed about the subject matter rare!
* The same applies, with some exceptions, to every major provision of gun laws and their enforcement that I've encountered.
* Some slack deserves to be cut for otherwise reasonable people on the other side of a debate - on any subject - against such vocal morons, especially when the former know what they're talking about, and that the latter don't. Perhaps some of yall can relate? That level of discourse doesn't bring out the best in anybody.
* That said, there are some serious problems that aren't being addressed because they're drowned out by the buzzword crossfire. This ranges from everyday folks at the bar to the highest levels of government.
* Gun control seems to be the poster child for the broader systemic pattern, especially common in the US, of polarization - one or the other, no middle ground, no nuance, color within the lines, choose the lesser of two evils, you're either with us or against us, absolute conformity or absolute opposition, either it's "any person, any gun, anywhere, for any reason" or "why do you hate freedom"... bleh. My inclination to get into anything resembling a political debate, let alone in such a paradigm, is severely limited. This is mainly to humor you.

 

[American123]

Freedom of the market includes the freedom to refuse to sell to anyone I don't like for any reason, such as a penchant for spouting knee-jerk blanket statements and buzzwords. But I will defend your freedom to say them anyway. Thanks for playing.

Actually, that alone wouldn't earn a denial in my book. If you're on this subforum, especially if you like AKs, I'm betting high that you'll probably want one of these toys ifnwhen it becomes available. I would just want some articulable cause to believe that it won't be misused.

I didn't come here expecting my position to be popular, I came here to get a factual answer to a factual question, and to glean some familiarity with the Class 3 buying process in general. Can we keep it to that?

Logic would dictate that anyone who already possess significant arms and ammo and has not already committed felony crime with them is unlikely to commit felony crime in the future with any other guns.

I personally have no interest in class three items, but the possession of them isn't really a big deal in regards to crime, someone with desire to harm others isn't going to wait to legally by a class three item to use it for felonies.

 

[Koda]

Logic would dictate that anyone who already possess significant arms and ammo and has not already committed felony crime with them is unlikely to commit felony crime in the future with any other guns.

Forgive me for playing devils advocate here but the Vegas Tower shooter legally possessed significant arms and ammo and had no previous record prohibiting him from any guns. I think the concern Moroza is attempting to address here is adding class 3 to the mix.... ( imagine trying to find his position if he had a silencer).

 

[Kruel J]

I'm in favor of restricting rights of someone's seriously and repeatedly demonstrated inclinations to violate others' rights, in addition to direct proof of smaller-scale crimes, and significant evidence of having committed bigger ones in the past and gotten away with it. Similarly to how I support free political speech up to and not including the advocacy of a legal and political system, such as Sharia law, that would undo the very rights that allowed it to gain traction.

The statistic you quote is exactly what I had in mind - if one had to jump through the same hoops as for a legal MG, hopefully the likelihood of criminal use will be similarly near nil. It just offends me that money is the obstacle as much or more than effort or merit. The Hughes Amendment, IMO, is deeply flawed no matter where one stands on gun control.

I've tried to respond to this but honestly I just have too many questions to type them all out. I'll just say I'm unsure how to interpret these restrictions of rights, or why anyone thinks it's ok to do so to an otherwise free and non-felonious US citizen….

 

[American123]

Forgive me for playing devils advocate here but the Vegas Tower shooter legally possessed significant arms and ammo and had no previous record prohibiting him from any guns. I think the concern Moroza is attempting to address here is adding class 3 to the mix.... ( imagine trying to find his position if he had a silencer).

Responding to devils advocate argument:

#1 I'm personally of the belief that guy did not act alone.

#2 a silencer on a .223 is still earsplitting loud and it would not have kept people from becoming aware of the shots, especially those on the same floor of the hotel or in the vicinity in general.

#3 Since he reportedly chose to use multiple bump stocks and several different rifles that were not class three, it is clear he didn't wait to buy a class three gun anyway, even though he seemingly, financially, easily could have.

#4 I don't believe the official story of the event considering how slowly details came out compared to how quickly details emerge in other shootings.

 

[Lilhigbee]

The Feds play by a set of rules. Does your new toy qualify as an NFA item?? They'll treat it as such. Is it a Firearm or AOW?? Again, that's how they'll treat it. None of the above?? Then it's a free-for-all as far as the Feds are concerned. you are free to vet your customers any way you wish, though I'd be careful about protected classes. The Feds aren't going to develop special procedures to suit you. Good luck in your venture.

 

[moroza]

I'm certain that my gadget is not a Class 3 item. However, because it increases lethality in some situations, I would like its acquisition to require comparable will and scrutiny to one. Keeping it out of the hands of someone inclined to do a mass shooting isn't going to stop it - I agree fully with the basic idea behind "guns don't kill people, people do", and understand that someone so inclined will find other ways - but it could well lower the body count. Speaking selfishly, the less bad rap "assault rifles" and such get, the easier a time we enthusiasts will have. Speaking altruistically, one innocent life is worth everybody having to wait and jump through some hoops to acquire what is hopefully for nobody anything near a necessity.

 

[Cavedweller]

I'm certain that my gadget is not a Class 3 item. However, because it increases lethality in some situations, I would like its acquisition to require comparable will and scrutiny to one. Keeping it out of the hands of someone inclined to do a mass shooting isn't going to stop it - I agree fully with the basic idea behind "guns don't kill people, people do", and understand that someone so inclined will find other ways - but it could well lower the body count. Speaking selfishly, the less bad rap "assault rifles" and such get, the easier a time we enthusiasts will have. Speaking altruistically, one innocent life is worth everybody having to wait and jump through some hoops to acquire what is hopefully for nobody anything near a necessity.

So are you going to perform these enhanced background checks yourself, and just want to know how to do it, or did you expect the feds to alter their ways of doing business just for you?

 

[Will_White]

I'm certain that my gadget is not a Class 3 item. However, because it increases lethality in some situations, I would like its acquisition to require comparable will and scrutiny to one. Keeping it out of the hands of someone inclined to do a mass shooting isn't going to stop it - I agree fully with the basic idea behind "guns don't kill people, people do", and understand that someone so inclined will find other ways - but it could well lower the body count. Speaking selfishly, the less bad rap "assault rifles" and such get, the easier a time we enthusiasts will have. Speaking altruistically, one innocent life is worth everybody having to wait and jump through some hoops to acquire what is hopefully for nobody anything near a necessity.

The best you can do is make it only available on a NFA item, pistols with a foregrip transfer for 5 dollars, or be OK with a nics check, or don't invade potential customers privacy over something that will have a negligible effect on lethality,

 

[moroza]

Neither. I was wondering if there was a system in place that gave some wiggle room of discretion in the ATF's classification of a firearms-related item. Which I guess... would amount to them deeming something a Class 3 even if it could be argued not to be. Ok, disregard the previous. And yes, I see, they play by fairly strict and well-defined rules, so the whole thing about BGC++ is likely moot.

The effect on lethality is not negligible. No invasions of privacy in mind - and I'm not at all inclined to scrutinize every potential customer myself; I have better things to do - but if someone's publically posting credible threats about gunning down the entire cheerleading squad because none of them would go to the prom, I wouldn't feel right offering them more firepower. Would you?

 

[American123]

I'm certain that my gadget is not a Class 3 item. However, because it increases lethality in some situations, I would like its acquisition to require comparable will and scrutiny to one. Keeping it out of the hands of someone inclined to do a mass shooting isn't going to stop it - I agree fully with the basic idea behind "guns don't kill people, people do", and understand that someone so inclined will find other ways - but it could well lower the body count. Speaking selfishly, the less bad rap "assault rifles" and such get, the easier a time we enthusiasts will have. Speaking altruistically, one innocent life is worth everybody having to wait and jump through some hoops to acquire what is hopefully for nobody anything near a necessity.

I disagree about 1 innocent life being worth everyone having to wait and jump through some hoops (have their rights suspended). That line of thinking would lead us all to be deprived of all our civil rights because "if it saves just 1 life, it's worth it" type thinking would, at it's extreme, lead to a controlled state of existence.

For example, if nearly everyone rode public transportation instead of drove cars there would be less vehicle related deaths. "If it saves just 1 life, it's worth it." So everyone now doesn't get to drive, you have to use public transit.

 

[moroza]

That's a reasonable argument. I'd say the differences are 1. transportation is a lot more of a necessity than guns beyond a certain level, 2. banning private cars will lead to meaningful and sometimes severe hardship, and many indirect and even a few direct deaths by other causes (I once had to take someone to the hospital in a real hurry after their altercation with a chainsaw. We were 15 minutes from cell service, 20 from the nearest gas station, at least that but probably 40 from a clinic that *might* have had an ambulance), so the tradeoffs are qualitatively different in my view. Where I absolutely agree are situations where the death/pain/suffering to be avoided is the victim's own fault, not someone else's. Just get me started on FMVSS 208 and what it reads between the lines of airbag regulations, especially before 1998...

 

[American123]

That's a reasonable argument. I'd say the differences are 1. transportation is a lot more of a necessity than guns beyond a certain level, 2. banning private cars will lead to meaningful and sometimes severe hardship, and many indirect and even a few direct deaths by other causes (I once had to take someone to the hospital in a real hurry after their altercation with a chainsaw. We were 15 minutes from cell service, 20 from the nearest gas station, at least that but probably 40 from a clinic that *might* have had an ambulance), so the tradeoffs are qualitatively different in my view. Where I absolutely agree are situations where the death/pain/suffering to be avoided is the victim's own fault, not someone else's. Just get me started on FMVSS 208 and what it reads between the lines of airbag regulations, especially before 1998...

The necessity argument is a bit of a loaded topic. For example, when governments slaughter people in mass, historically, they don't typically ban owning transportation ahead of time. They do ban guns though, so guns seem very much a necessity when the situation calls for them.

The chainsaw situation, government would say ban chainsaws except for select chainsaw operators approved by the government, because "if it saves just one life, it's worth it."

Government could also say living outside / going outside of cell service is not allowed, because "if it saves just one life, it's worth it."

 

[moroza]

IMO, a life that's forcibly confined to the infrastructure of urban civilization has already been lost, but I digress.

The whole thing is a loaded topic, in part because the consequences of any position taken to its extreme (there's that pesky polarization thing again) can include, with ample historical evidence, mass slaughter of innocents. People tend to find that pretty icky, an emotional response that doesn't encourage reasonable middle grounds.

On a personal note, I arrived on this continent some decades ago as an asylum seeker from a regime whose victims can't even be counted to the nearest couple million. I've heard reports from some family that stayed behind of rampant organized crime following its collapse (organized by other than the government, that is), in one case a single old man defending himself from a carload of invaders with something belt-fed he had left over as a war souvenir. Sure, in certain contexts, that level of firepower is a reasonable necessity. Do you really think the US in 2021 is that context?

If we're talking about restriction on the weapons themselves - and this is a serious question, not rhetorical - where do you draw the line? Pistol grips? Ridiculous to even mention them. SBR and suppressors? Surely not. Do you think your neighbors should be allowed to mount an M60 on their Jeep? Ok, how about an M61? On their bulldozer, covered in Chobham while we're at it? How about an M65 (I don't mean the Tikka)?

I find the whole paradigm flawed; we should be paying attention to who's using these tools, not their technical minutae. Give open society, a neutral observer, reasonable grounds to believe you won't misuse it, and go ahead with your armor-piercing belt-fed folding-stock short-barreled whatever. Advocate genocide, have a history of robbery, or of assaulting someone for looking at your wife a bit too long, and you shouldn't get so much as a musket. Instead, we have too much firepower available to the untrustworthy (to be clear, a minority), while honest and peaceful folks have to put up with ridiculous nonsense like the AWB. The worst of both worlds; the brushstrokes aren't just too broad, they're in the wrong direction.

 

[Member 34319]

I'm thoroughly lost. What does all these long winded responses have to do with anything but your own opinionated views?

If your product is legal it's legal. Simple as that.

If your conscience is too heavy to sell to those that are legal to own it, don't sell it.

Otherwise, the laws in place are the laws in place.

The second amendment still insures those that have not committed a crime can legally by a firearm. Those that want to buy a pre 86 transferable machine gun, CAN IF LEGAL.

The only issue at hand here seems to be your conscience.

Also, please define "more lethal"?

 

[LDmax]

^

 

[American123]

IMO, a life that's forcibly confined to the infrastructure of urban civilization has already been lost, but I digress.

The whole thing is a loaded topic, in part because the consequences of any position taken to its extreme (there's that pesky polarization thing again) can include, with ample historical evidence, mass slaughter of innocents. People tend to find that pretty icky, an emotional response that doesn't encourage reasonable middle grounds.

On a personal note, I arrived on this continent some decades ago as an asylum seeker from a regime whose victims can't even be counted to the nearest couple million. I've heard reports from some family that stayed behind of rampant organized crime following its collapse (organized by other than the government, that is), in one case a single old man defending himself from a carload of invaders with something belt-fed he had left over as a war souvenir. Sure, in certain contexts, that level of firepower is a reasonable necessity. Do you really think the US in 2021 is that context?

If we're talking about restriction on the weapons themselves - and this is a serious question, not rhetorical - where do you draw the line? Pistol grips? Ridiculous to even mention them. SBR and suppressors? Surely not. Do you think your neighbors should be allowed to mount an M60 on their Jeep? Ok, how about an M61? On their bulldozer, covered in Chobham while we're at it? How about an M65 (I don't mean the Tikka)?

I find the whole paradigm flawed; we should be paying attention to who's using these tools, not their technical minutae. Give open society, a neutral observer, reasonable grounds to believe you won't misuse it, and go ahead with your armor-piercing belt-fed folding-stock short-barreled whatever. Advocate genocide, have a history of robbery, or of assaulting someone for looking at your wife a bit too long, and you shouldn't get so much as a musket. Instead, we have too much firepower available to the untrustworthy (to be clear, a minority), while honest and peaceful folks have to put up with ridiculous nonsense like the AWB. The worst of both worlds; the brushstrokes aren't just too broad, they're in the wrong direction.

I draw the line at where it was drawn when the constitution was written. The founders thought they were being rather clear about that.

As far as "problematic people" go. I'd prefer a system where people were not punished prematurely, but those that couldn't follow the basic expectations of not significantly hurting others for criminal purposes could just be permanently removed.

 

[oremike]

You came here as an asylum seeker presumably because it was better than where you were and now want to bend our laws to your will? How's that working out for you?

 

[Knobgoblin]

If you're worried about your intellectual property causing harm, just keep it locked up in Pandora's box . Once it's out, you have no control.
I don't know you at all. Simply stated, you can't achieve the level of control you desire. This is not an insult , merely a statement of fact. It's a universal truth that knowledge can't be destroyed. And if your better mousetrap is indeed what you claim, then it would be copied in weeks and available for easy purchase ( probably cheaper too).

No offense.

 

[Will_White]

we're talking about restriction on the weapons themselves - and this is a serious question, not rhetorical - where do you draw the line? Pistol grips? Ridiculous to even mention them. SBR and suppressors? Surely not. Do you think your neighbors should be allowed to mount an M60 on their Jeep? Ok, how about an M61? On their bulldozer, covered in Chobham while we're at it? How about an M65 (I don't mean the Tikka)?

Any Non N.B.C. weapon that is man portable, and any Non N.B.C. weapon not man portable is available with a license.