Select-fire

[maestro pistolero]

Well said, USAFNoDak. I maintain that there needs to be SOME path available to a law abiding, not-prohibited person from having one that doesn't include purchasing a $20k M16.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Originally Posted by USAFNoDak

I personally don't believe there is a whole lot of difference between full auto and semiauto firearms, other than the mechanism that makes one pull the trigger repeatedly in the case of the semi auto. That is a tangent point.

I think there is a much larger spectrum there than you are acknowledging. What I find in many of these debates is that those who want full access to FA tend to exhibit in their case the "lowest common denominator" meaning the 3 round burst M-16 as opposed to say a M2 .50 cal., SAW or minigun because the 3-round burst M-16 seems a lot tamer than the others. All are FA and they are quite different from one another and are quite different than the semi-auto rifles in common use today. Then we get the "all except crew-served" reply. However, the term crew-served is a military term and does not mean that it takes two of more people to fire it. It just means that in a military organization more than one person may be assigned to it in operation mostly to help carry the ammo. Then it is no exploding ordinance but that too may be successfully carried and fired by a single person. On and on we go so I find it a better criteria to draw the bright line at FA.

Originally Posted by USAFNoDak

The antis take the position that since the government can regulate and ban full auto, they can also regulate and ban semi auto. Using this line of reasoning, the government can then ban handguns which are semi auto and can ban handguns which cost too little, as is the case with saturday night specials.

Disagree. I don't think antis believe such. They wish to ban guns because they think they are dangerous to public safety. Just because they ban FA is just another step in the process. They would ban them all if they could and the NFA has not helped them ban other guns in any way I can see. They just say "we should ban these guns because" (take your pick) they are too small, too big, too ugly, too effcient, too whatever.

I think Heller when incorporated will prohibit states from banning weapons in common use by civilians for lawful purposes. That definitely include handguns and may or may not include AR-15 types or .50 BMG. We'll see.

Originally Posted by USAFNoDak

but how long can we hold out without going on offense at least once in a while?

I would say Heller and McDonald are pretty offensive to the antis. CCW too. However, IMHO you can forget about FA, ain't happening either in the court or Congress or public opinion.

[maestro pistolero]

However, IMHO you can forget about FA, ain't happening either in the court or Congress or public opinion.

Let's not forget that they are legal RIGHT NOW, in most states. For the rich. The closing of the registration was a back-door, underhanded way to avoid appearing like they created a gun ban, which, in practical terms, they did. It's the difference between chopping off the frogs head, and slowly turning up the heat on the water pot. In the end the result is the same.

[USAFNoDak]

Disagree. I don't think antis believe such. They wish to ban guns because they think they are dangerous to public safety. Just because they ban FA is just another step in the process. They would ban them all if they could and the NFA has not helped them ban other guns in any way I can see. They just say "we should ban these guns because" (take your pick) they are too small, too big, too ugly, too effcient, too whatever.

They wish to ban guns because they don't like them or they think they are dangerous, etc. I agree. However, they consistently bring up the issue of machine guns when they discuss banning other types of firearms. As an example, they purposely tried to confuse the issue over semiautos vs. machine guns because they knew that the general public is "scared" of machine guns. Thus, if they could fool people into thinking that a semi auto is a "machine gun", it would help to ban the semi autos as well. That is a stated agenda by a notable anti gunner. I can provide the details if you'd like.

Also, look at things that John Kerry said when they were trying to renew the assault weapons ban. He said something to the effect that those are weapons of war and do not belong anywhere outside of a battlefield and certainly not on the streets of america. He said that if americans wanted to use assault weapons, which are weapons of war, there is a place for them, and it's called the US military, and we'd welcome you.

So, the facts and the statements by well known antis would seem to refute your claims that the antis don't try to use the issue of machine guns in their efforts to ban even more types of firearms.

[USAFNoDak]

Tennessee Gentleman posted:

I think there is a much larger spectrum there than you are acknowledging. What I find in many of these debates is that those who want full access to FA tend to exhibit in their case the "lowest common denominator" meaning the 3 round burst M-16 as opposed to say a M2 .50 cal., SAW or minigun because the 3-round burst M-16 seems a lot tamer than the others. All are FA and they are quite different from one another and are quite different than the semi-auto rifles in common use today.

I don't see a lot of difference between a Barrett (sp?) .50 cal and a .50 cal machine gun, except that you can fire more rounds in a shorter amount of time with the machine gun. The minigun is a different story because there is no semiauto or other action style similar to it and it would seem very hard to handle by one individual, despite Jesse the Body Ventura in Predator. He was my former governor by the way, but I didn't think he was a top notch governor.

I agree that there is a broad spectrum of firearms available to the military, and whether civilians should have unlimited access to any and all of those is open for debate, due to the issue of the public safety involved. For instance, if you had live grenades and kept them in your highrise appartment complex, what is the collateral damage if one or more were to go off? We can take that debate into many avenues. I was more specifically referring to the difference between non ordnance, hand carriable, or portable firearms. Something as one might see a common infantry soldier carrying. I know that modern infantry soldiers can carry all sorts of things like mortars and such, but again, I was hoping to keep the debate on rifles and handguns.

[maestro pistolero]

I propose this for a future standard:
Complete 2A protection for small arms up to and including FA with heightened regulation for FA (Perhaps a greater level of training and screening would be appropriate for FA, but it has to be an achievable path for those not prohibited). And definitely not cost prohibitive for the average person. And if FA ends up outside of 2A protection, then apply this standard to everything below FA, and make the bright line as clear and unambiguous as possible.

[USAFNoDak]

I agree. We should allow FA with slightly more regulations. I would even allow for NRA/BATFE approved training courses, conducted by private, not government, instructors. Similar to how we do concealed carry permits in most states. And I'd also like to nationalize CC permits, if we must have them, so that Massachusetts must recognize Minnesota's permits as well as other states. We do that for driver's licenses and more people are killed via licensed automobile drivers than are killed by licensed concealed handgun carriers. Now criminal misuse is a totally different ball game, although the antis try to merge the two whenever they can get away with it.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Originally Posted by USAFNoDak

So, the facts and the statements by well known antis would seem to refute your claims that the antis don't try to use the issue of machine guns in their efforts to ban even more types of firearms.

Antis bring up FA because they know that the mention of them brings a visceral negative response from the public. They are not using machinegun regulation to get more of the same as much as they are lying to the public and telling them that non-FA is FA in order to scare them. It like using crime as a code word for race. However, you said:

Originally Posted by USAFNoDak

The antis take the position that since the government can regulate and ban full auto, they can also regulate and ban semi auto.

And I don't think they care one way or another about how these weapons (full or semi) operate rather that they want them all banned. I listened the other day to Denis Henigan of Brady and he conceded that people (even in other countries) are violent and have as much violence as we do in the USA. His point was that guns make violence more lethal and so if we reduce who can get guns it makes violence less lethal. He never mentioned FA and he didn't need to. Therefore, the fact that FA is regulated gives little if any momentum to the antis philosophically. The operation of the gun is not what drives their thinking.

Originally Posted by USAFNoDak

I don't see a lot of difference between a Barrett (sp?) .50 cal and a .50 cal machine gun, except that you can fire more rounds in a shorter amount of time with the machine gun.

Having fired both, I would disagree fundamentally. There is no comparision between the destructiveness of a M2 machinegun and a Barrett rifle.

Originally Posted by maestro pistolero

Complete 2A protection for small arms up to and including FA with heightened regulation for FA (Perhaps a greater level of training and screening would be appropriate for FA, but it has to be an achievable path for those not prohibited). And definitely not cost prohibitive for the average person.

Get rid of Hughes and you would have that but with training you would actually make FA more restricted than it is under the NFA.

Originally Posted by USAFNoDak

And I'd also like to nationalize CC permits, if we must have them, so that Massachusetts must recognize Minnesota's permits as well as other states. We do that for driver's licenses and more people are killed via licensed automobile drivers than are killed by licensed concealed handgun carriers.

You know that driver's license reciprocity is not driven by the fed? The states did it individually which is better IMO. That way it is stronger and harder for temporary national politicians to rescind. I prefer the way we do it now. State by state. TN has done a bangup job getting reciprocity in about 35 other states.

[zukiphile]

You know that driver's license reciprocity is not driven by the fed? The states did it individually which is better IMO.

That is incorrect. See "full faith and credit". This doctrine of the federal constitution requires that many public documents rendered by one state be recognised as legitimate in all other states.

I would raise the issue of whether states still have the right to regulate the possession (not carry) of any sort small arm, since that area is already federally regulated. As a matter of policy we allow states to regulate possession (sort of the way California can still impose separate environmental restrictions on new automobiles even though that area is federally regulated), but the reasoning behind the interstate commerce clause would work against that local regulation.

[Al Norris]

Originally Posted by zukiphile

That is incorrect. See "full faith and credit". This doctrine of the federal constitution requires that many public documents rendered by one state be recognised as legitimate in all other states.

TG has it exactly correct. Reciprocity, State by State was the driving force behind your being able to drive in any other State with your issued license.

The "Full Faith and Credit" clause of the US Constitution does not figure into this at all. If it did, then why does a licensed plumber from Texas, require a New York plumbers license to ply his trade in New York? Or an Electrician? A Barber? An Attorney?

[zukiphile]

The "Full Faith and Credit" clause of the US Constitution does not figure into this at all. If it did, then why does a licensed plumber from Texas, require a New York plumbers license to ply his trade in New York? Or an Electrician? A Barber? An Attorney?

Even an attorney, who is an officer of the state courts, does not need a NY license to practice in NY so long as the court in which he appears accepts his motion pro hac vice.

Presumably, not every license is fungible. There have been historical instances of agricultural states permitting the very young to operate machinery on roads with licenses that were not comparable to those granted in more urban states. Now DL requirements largely are similar and don't fall within any of the public policy exceptions for FF&C or 28 U.S.C. § 1738. Until recent changes in the marriage laws of some states, FF&C wasn't an issue with respect to certificates of marriage. That DL administration is largely handled through an interstate compact does not mean that FF&C do not apply. Even drivers from states who are not member of the compact can legally drive in non-compact states.

I am aware of no current public policy argument against granting FF&C to DLs of other states. Are you?

[USAFNoDak]

TG posted in response to me:

Antis bring up FA because they know that the mention of them brings a visceral negative response from the public. They are not using machinegun regulation to get more of the same as much as they are lying to the public and telling them that non-FA is FA in order to scare them. It like using crime as a code word for race. However, you said:

And I don't think they care one way or another about how these weapons (full or semi) operate rather that they want them all banned. I listened the other day to Denis Henigan of Brady and he conceded that people (even in other countries) are violent and have as much violence as we do in the USA. His point was that guns make violence more lethal and so if we reduce who can get guns it makes violence less lethal. He never mentioned FA and he didn't need to. Therefore, the fact that FA is regulated gives little if any momentum to the antis philosophically. The operation of the gun is not what drives their thinking.

You are correct that the antis don't care how the firearms operate, they want them banned. But they have to come up with "reasonable" demands to ban them. Even if they don't explicity say it, they know that the public has generally accepted the ban on full autos. Thus, if they can make semiautos and handguns appear to be as dangerous as full autos, they are convinced that the public may generally support the semi auto and handgun bans as well. They may not explicity say they want to ban handguns because it's acceptable to ban machine guns, but they go about it in a round about way. After "Heller", which was about handguns, the antis were already claiming that the USSC reaffirmed the government's "right" to ban dangerous weapons. I can't recall who said it, but they said that the USSC certainly was not giving the green light to own machine guns in their findings on Heller. Thus, handguns, which are also dangerous, may also be banned if the USSC declares them to be "dangerous and not in common use at the time". Handguns certainly are not in common use by the law abiding in D.C. We all know that.

What they do is make the claim that guns which are too dangerous, such as handguns and assault weapons, can be banned outright. They always then point to the banning of machine guns and tell us that this has been an accepted practice since 1939 and never hesitate to refer to US vs. Miller. They try to make the pro gun rights folks look radical by saying things such as, "I suppose you want to legalize machine guns too". We all know they are "legal" if they are of a certain vintage and if you jump through the hoops to own one that fits the vintage, but that's beside the point.

If you don't think the antis use the fact that machine guns have been "illegal" since 1939 to further the idea that the government has not only a "right", but a duty to ban other more dangerous firearms such as assault weapons and handguns, you aren't paying enough attention to the battle.

Having fired both, I would disagree fundamentally. There is no comparision between the destructiveness of a M2 machinegun and a Barrett rifle.

If you get hit by 1 round from a Barrett .50 cal, are you any less likely to die than getting hit from 1 round of a M2? The M2 can more quickly dump rounds on any particular target, which may give it more destructive power in a shorter period of time. I'll grant you that. But the Barrett .50 cal is no slouch when it comes to busting through some material, even with 1 round. Why do the antis want to ban them? Because the anti's claim the Barrett .50 cal has too much destructiveness.

You know that driver's license reciprocity is not driven by the fed? The states did it individually which is better IMO. That way it is stronger and harder for temporary national politicians to rescind. I prefer the way we do it now. State by state. TN has done a bangup job getting reciprocity in about 35 other states.

Well, I'd be all for letting the states do it, but we all know that several of them will never agree. NY, CA, IL, and several other Nordeastern states would probably never agree. If they would, then I'd agree with you that the states taking care of it would be the better solution.

[Yellowfin]

^ PRECISELY, NoDAK. It is exactly that very reason, to the very detail as you perfectly describe it, why we must be 100% committed to educating the public of this reality, especially in the states that still have '94 AWB style laws still in place. Debunking the myth that it has anything at all to do with safety is personal priority of mine in pro 2A efforts, and I'm working as much as I can to build up our NYS site NYShooters.net to get that message out. It is simply mind blowing just how horribly anti gun laws set into the mind of the public and how many people simply don't know any better. They won't know better unless we inform them.

[Hkmp5sd]

why does a licensed plumber from Texas, require a New York plumbers license to ply his trade in New York? Or an Electrician? A Barber? An Attorney?

Same reason states do not accept each others hunting or fishing licenses.

Money.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by zukiphile

Even an attorney, who is an officer of the state courts, does not need a NY license to practice in NY so long as the court in which he appears accepts his motion pro hac vice....

Except such motions are granted only for a particular case, and in most states the out-of-state lawyer must associate a locally licensed lawyer.

[zukiphile]

Except such motions are granted only for a particular case, and in most states the out-of-state lawyer must associate a locally licensed lawyer.

Indeed, and there are sound reasons for those requirements, not to mention maintaining the authority of any state court system in regulating who can practice in it. As we see often from discussions here, laws can vary from one state to another very considerably.

There are no similarly important issues of public policy that militate against honoring a certificate of a conventional marriage or a driver's license issued by another state.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by zukiphile

Indeed, and there are sound reasons for those requirements, not to mention maintaining the authority of any state court system in regulating who can practice in it. As we see often from discussions here, laws can vary from one state to another very considerably.

There are no similarly important issues of public policy that militate against honoring a certificate of a conventional marriage or a driver's license issued by another state.

True enough. I was just pointing out that the examples aren't parallel.

[Webleymkv]

The problem I see with national CCL reciprocity is this: in order for such a thing to work, there would have to be some standardization in the laws, particularly in the requirements to obtain a license. It doesn't seem as though many who demand national reciprocity realize the degree of variances.

Currently, there are far too many variances in current CCL requirements between the various states. For example, my home state of Indiana is a shall issue state, has no training requirement, and has a minimum age of 18 years old. Many other states require not only some sort of training, but the amount and type of training vary from state to state. While some states require only a few hours of classroom type training, many other require a multi-day course with live-fire exercise and minimum accuracy standards. The lack of a training requirement was the reason given by ohio for not honoring Indiana's CCL (though we call it a LTCH here as open carry is legal). Likewise, while most states have a minimum age of 21, this is not universally so as Indiana, Vermont, and Alaska all allow CC at the age of 18 (though no license is required in Vermont or Alaska) and if I'm not mistaken at least one state had a minimum age of 23 years old at one time. Finally, there is the issue of may issue states which require an applicant to provide a reason for wanting a CCL or approval of the local Chief LEO.

Driver's licenses, on the other hand, are fairly uniform from state to state. Nearly all states have a minimum age of 16, a certain period that one may only drive in the company of an already licensed driver, similar requirements from proof of identification, and a test of proficiency prior to issuing the license. Similarly, the traffic laws are fairly uniform across the country unlike the carry laws. Where, how, and what you may carry varies greatly across state lines. For example, Texas has two licenses allowing carry of either a revolver or both revolver and semi-automatic, many states mandate that a holster of some sort must be used while others do not, and restrictions on carrying in places such as alcohol-serving establishments, public places like parks, and college campuses vary greatly from state to state. While ignorance of the law is no excuse, the great degree of variance would make it nearly impossible for the average CCL holder to ensure he or she stays on the right side of the law in whatever state he or she may travel to.

My concern with national CCL reciprocity would be how to decide where to set the standard. At the national level, the only way I would see for CCL reciprocity to work would be to mandate a starndardized set of CCL laws for all the states. My fear is that such a set of nation-wide CCL laws would default to those of the most restrictive states. While I would be willing to tolerate slightly more restrictive laws here in Indiana such as some sort of training requirement, I would be vehemently opposed to say Massachussetts-type requirements. Simply stated, I distrust too many members of the "Grand Old Asylum" (Congress) such as Schumer, Feinstein, Boxer, Pelosi, and McCarthy to let them have input in my state's CCL laws.

I agree with TG that the best way to go about achieving nationwide CCL-reciprocity is to have an agreement between all 50 states. However, before that can reasonably happen, there is a lot of work that needs to be done within many states. First, we still need to get CC in Illinois and Wisconsin. Next, we need to convert the may-issue states into shall-issue states and bring the most restrictive states more into line with the mainstream. After that, we can start ironing out the details of a nationwide agreement.

[maestro pistolero]

Excellent points, everyone, but perhaps we could nudge this back on topic.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Originally Posted by USAFNoDak

If you don't think the antis use the fact that machine guns have been "illegal" since 1939 to further the idea that the government has not only a "right", but a duty to ban other more dangerous firearms such as assault weapons and handguns, you aren't paying enough attention to the battle.

Maybe I am not paying attention but I don't believe as you say that the NFA gives much PR ammunition to the antis. The public looks very differently at a handgun vice a machingun and consider machineguns much more dangerous and not needed. Handguns are a different matter. Most Joe Civilians know the difference between. I have never heard a Brady or anti say: "Well we heavily regulate machine guns so we should do the same with shotguns" Won't work. Maybe firearms to cars will work better but I don't think the NFA plays into the debate today UNLESS somebody (I won't mention any names ) starts talking about deregulating access to FA, THEN you will hear them chirp! :barf:

[Glenn E. Meyer]

The research shows that different types of firearms have differential abilities to cue varying negative attitudes. While it hasn't been tested with Fully Auto guns vs. others, it's clear that for the average person - military derivative guns (like the ARs) are seen as more negative.

That's why we have efforts by folks like the NSSF to emphasize the 'sports' nature of the AR platform - although that has a danger in emphasizing guns as sporting tools - a position which is not a real civil right.

[zukiphile]

That's why we have efforts by folks like the NSSF to emphasize the 'sports' nature of the AR platform - although that has a danger in emphasizing guns as sporting tools - a position which is not a real civil right.

While I agree that sport isn't the basis of the right, I don't see a real downside to a sporting use that publicizes arms to the culture in a benign light.

As interesting as we find constitutional and legal positions, I imagine that fewer than 1% of the population is really moved by them. The underlying problem is cultural, i.e. the growth of a culture that seeks for us all a child-proofed, danger free and care free environment. Sports can be the thin end of a wedge that undermines the poor image of arms painted over the last several decades.

That's part of the reason I try to introduce anyone with any interest in shooting to a .22lr. It makes a relatively unthreatening gateway arm. I would also like to see urban .22lr only ranges to which minors could have supervised access. That could remove the forbidden fruit aspect of the weirder aspects of gun culture, while destigmatising use amongst those whose hysteria arises from unfamiliarity.

[USAFNoDak]

Tennessee Gentleman responded to me with:

Maybe I am not paying attention but I don't believe as you say that the NFA gives much PR ammunition to the antis. The public looks very differently at a handgun vice a machingun and consider machineguns much more dangerous and not needed. Handguns are a different matter. Most Joe Civilians know the difference between. I have never heard a Brady or anti say: "Well we heavily regulate machine guns so we should do the same with shotguns" Won't work. Maybe firearms to cars will work better but I don't think the NFA plays into the debate today UNLESS somebody (I won't mention any names ) starts talking about deregulating access to FA, THEN you will hear them chirp!

I easily found an example regarding the Heller case and have posted it for us here, from this link:

http://www.nationalgunrights.org/truthaboutheller.shtml

D.C.'s anti-gun Mayor Adrian Fenty believes that Heller's .45 ACP pistol is no different than a machine gun, since it is loaded by a magazine. D.C. bans even legal machine guns, so they believe it is perfectly reasonable to also ban pistols that are magazine-fed.

While this is not totally related to the federal ban on machine guns, it gives us a window into the minds of the antis and how they DO link machine gun bans to bans on other weapons. I'll see if I can find some more examples, but I'm sort of busy today, so I may not get to it in a timely fashion.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

USAFNoDak,

This site you link to has some rather bizarre comments from it's "director" Dudley Brown. Seems like he thinks Heller has done a lot more harm than good. I question your source and the National Assocation for Gun Rights. Are they in bed with the "Oath Keepers"? Follow the money....

Nevertheless your quote:

Originally Posted by USAFNoDak

While this is not totally related to the federal ban on machine guns, it gives us a window into the minds of the antis and how they DO link machine gun bans to bans on other weapons.

Seems to make the point for me. That is the antis try to call certain firearms "machineguns" to scare people into banning them. I don't think that has anything to do with the NFA but rather the public's fear of such weapons. Therefore, the fear of these weapons is the motivation not the NFA which Fenty never mentioned. It is a city law that defines semiautos as such not the NFA. This is not related to the NFA at all.

You haven't made your case that the NFA gives any kind of license or motivation to the antis to ban semiautos.

[zukiphile]

I question your source and the National Assocation for Gun Rights. Are they in bed with the "Oath Keepers"? Follow the money....

Tennessee Gentleman, how does that standard apply to your use of ADL links?

D.C.'s anti-gun Mayor Adrian Fenty believes that Heller's .45 ACP pistol is no different than a machine gun, since it is loaded by a magazine. D.C. bans even legal machine guns, so they believe it is perfectly reasonable to also ban pistols that are magazine-fed.

"Machine guns" are burdened with the stigma of near illegality. Fenty utilises the stigma in an effort to defend a ban on Heller's .45ACP by alleging the lack of meaningful difference between a "machine gun" and Heller's pistol. Thus the stigma of NFA status is spread to an ordinary pistol.