CDZ Do we need to treat guns and gun modifiers as separate issues?

[MarathonMike]

Recently much of the focus in the gun debate is not on guns at all, but gun "modifiers" such as silencers, extended magazines and bump stocks. Should that be a totally separate category from guns and debated as such? I don't see how limiting these modifiers is impinging on Second Amendment rights since you are not limiting the ownership of small arms. I am not a gun expert so I'm putting it out there for those who are. Is there an issue with limiting gun modifiers only? If so please state clearly what that problem is.

 

[william the wie]

Paddock or anyone else could have built a low noise and flashless weapon with greater killing power, lower rate of fire and no need to register. The information for several weapons with those characteristics can be found very easily on line or hard copy. My game research for pre-1860 weapons shocked me but selecting materials that would not be traced is not hard either.

 

[Toronado3800]

I think an item which modifies a gun in a way which would make the gun illegal should be illegal.

Now sawzalls which can make a shotgun too short obvioisly can't be made illegal so some reason needs applied

 

[Skull Pilot]

Paddock or anyone else could have built a low noise and flashless weapon with greater killing power, lower rate of fire and no need to register. The information for several weapons with those characteristics can be found very easily on line or hard copy. My game research for pre-1860 weapons shocked me but selecting materials that would not be traced is not hard either.

Ghost Firearms | Rifles - Build Kits - Barrels - Uppers - Lowers |

untraceable

 

[beagle9]

I think an item which modifies a gun in a way which would make the gun illegal should be illegal.

Now sawzalls which can make a shotgun too short obvioisly can't be made illegal so some reason needs applied

. Not the sawsall, but the weapon after being modified is what is illegal. The bump stock not being attached to a weapon is of no threat, but once attached it makes the weapon illegal.

 

[beagle9]

Paddock or anyone else could have built a low noise and flashless weapon with greater killing power, lower rate of fire and no need to register. The information for several weapons with those characteristics can be found very easily on line or hard copy. My game research for pre-1860 weapons shocked me but selecting materials that would not be traced is not hard either.

Ghost Firearms | Rifles - Build Kits - Barrels - Uppers - Lowers |

untraceable

. The purpose of a ban is not the attempt to make these things go away, but just to make people think twice about bringing their collections of illegal weapons or modifiers out into the public square. People are gonna own, hide and keep every kind of weapon they can, and the government isn't going to be breaking down their doors to confiscate them, but if the weapons like a Tommy Gun or an Israeli uzi, these modifiers in order to make a weapon auto or to saw off a shotgun etc. is brought out into the public square, then such weapons should be confiscated, fines levid, and jail time.

 

[william the wie]

A repeater cross bow with a KEW bolt clip could have been and probably was attempted in China more than 2,000 years ago. It appears to be legal and it is the perfect weapon for elephant bow season.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Do we need to treat guns and gun modifiers as separate issues?

Ummm....only insofar as gun enhancements are not the or an issue, yes.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Paddock or anyone else could have built a low noise and flashless weapon with greater killing power, lower rate of fire and no need to register. The information for several weapons with those characteristics can be found very easily on line or hard copy. My game research for pre-1860 weapons shocked me but selecting materials that would not be traced is not hard either.

Ghost Firearms | Rifles - Build Kits - Barrels - Uppers - Lowers |

untraceable

. The purpose of a ban is not the attempt to make these things go away, but just to make people think twice about bringing their collections of illegal weapons or modifiers out into the public square. People are gonna own, hide and keep every kind of weapon they can, and the government isn't going to be breaking down their doors to confiscate them, but if the weapons like a Tommy Gun or an Israeli uzi, these modifiers in order to make a weapon auto or to saw off a shotgun etc. is brought out into the public square, then such weapons should be confiscated, fines levid, and jail time.

The purpose of a ban is not the attempt to make these things go away, but just to make people think twice about bringing their collections of illegal weapons or modifiers out into the public square.

And that is probably a good start if that be the outcome achieved.

 

[usmbguest5318]

I think an item which modifies a gun in a way which would make the gun illegal should be illegal.

Now sawzalls which can make a shotgun too short obvioisly can't be made illegal so some reason needs applied

make a shotgun too short

"Too short" is but a legal construct. The gun sawn shorter than the length at which it was sold is clearly not too short to function as a ranged weapon.

What stops producers from simply making them short to begin with? (Genuine question; I don't know.)

 

[william the wie]

I think an item which modifies a gun in a way which would make the gun illegal should be illegal.

Now sawzalls which can make a shotgun too short obvioisly can't be made illegal so some reason needs applied

make a shotgun too short

"Too short" is but a legal construct. The gun sawn shorter than the length at which it was sold is clearly not too short to function as a ranged weapon.

What stops producers from simply making them short to begin with? (Genuine question; I don't know.)

It's illegal to do so. without the choke, the narrowing at the muzzle, the pellets cover a wider area and are more likely to hit non-targets. Likewise you cannot buy rocksalt loads in any jurisdiction I am aware of. Death from shock or suicide is rare but not unheard of with the use of rock salt loads.

 

[beagle9]

I think an item which modifies a gun in a way which would make the gun illegal should be illegal.

Now sawzalls which can make a shotgun too short obvioisly can't be made illegal so some reason needs applied

make a shotgun too short

"Too short" is but a legal construct. The gun sawn shorter than the length at which it was sold is clearly not too short to function as a ranged weapon.

What stops producers from simply making them short to begin with? (Genuine question; I don't know.)

It's illegal to do so. without the choke, the narrowing at the muzzle, the pellets cover a wider area and are more likely to hit non-targets. Likewise you cannot buy rocksalt loads in any jurisdiction I am aware of. Death from shock or suicide is rare but not unheard of with the use of rock salt loads.

. Rock salt should only be used in 410 shotguns with the correct shot shell right ?? I mean you have to choose the right shell in which to not kill something if wanting to just run it off right ? Then you have to aim for a less possibility of it being a lethal shot otherwise making it just a warning shot that stings it's intended target instead of kills the intended target. I think farmers used to be big on using rock salt back in the days in order to run dog's and critters off. The salt would be a reminder not to go anywhere near farmer Brown's property again.

 

[william the wie]

I think an item which modifies a gun in a way which would make the gun illegal should be illegal.

Now sawzalls which can make a shotgun too short obvioisly can't be made illegal so some reason needs applied

make a shotgun too short

"Too short" is but a legal construct. The gun sawn shorter than the length at which it was sold is clearly not too short to function as a ranged weapon.

What stops producers from simply making them short to begin with? (Genuine question; I don't know.)

It's illegal to do so. without the choke, the narrowing at the muzzle, the pellets cover a wider area and are more likely to hit non-targets. Likewise you cannot buy rocksalt loads in any jurisdiction I am aware of. Death from shock or suicide is rare but not unheard of with the use of rock salt loads.

. Rock salt should only be used in 410 shotguns with the correct shot shell right ?? I mean you have to choose the right shell in which to not kill something if wanting to just run it off right ? Then you have to aim for a less possibility of it being a lethal shot otherwise making it just a warning shot that stings it's intended target instead of kills the intended target. I think farmers used to be big on using rock salt back in the days in order to run dog's and critters off. The salt would be a reminder not to go anywhere near farmer Brown's property again.

That was the original intent. However that was also before the gun geeks got going. For example, the Martini drink is named after the recoil of the 19th century British attempt at a black powder assault rifle. At 200 yds it could do serious damage to most fortifications. The PIAT Anti-tank gun of WWII was a riff on 4th century man portable catapults. What idiot did what with rock salt loads I have no idea, I would suggest you ask around at the next gun show you go to.

 

[Leo123]

I think an item which modifies a gun in a way which would make the gun illegal should be illegal.

Now sawzalls which can make a shotgun too short obvioisly can't be made illegal so some reason needs applied

. Not the sawsall, but the weapon after being modified is what is illegal. The bump stock not being attached to a weapon is of no threat, but once attached it makes the weapon illegal.

A semi-auto with a bump stock installed was not considered to be illegal because there is no change to the internal firing mechanism. It is legal to fire a semi-auto at any rate. A semi-auto can be 'bumped' with no bump stock at all as well. If bump-stocks were to be made illegal, there would most likely be other tack-ons invented to do the same or similar thing. As usual, the leftist thrust is to always blame the gun instead of the shooter. Heck, even if this human debris (Paddock) did NOT have bump stocks, he could have killed just as many.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"Should that be a totally separate category from guns and debated as such?"

No – these and other issues should be considered pursuant to Second Amendment jurisprudence.

Indeed, the lawfulness of measures restricting magazine capacity has already been subject to judicial review.

Laws restricting magazine capacity have passed Constitutional muster.

Suppressors are not banned on the Federal level but are subject NFA restrictions and regulatory policy as Class III ‘weapons.’

Six states ban suppressors.

Bans on ‘bump-stocks’ would likely be upheld as Constitutional.

 

[usmbguest5318]

I think an item which modifies a gun in a way which would make the gun illegal should be illegal.

Now sawzalls which can make a shotgun too short obvioisly can't be made illegal so some reason needs applied

make a shotgun too short

"Too short" is but a legal construct. The gun sawn shorter than the length at which it was sold is clearly not too short to function as a ranged weapon.

What stops producers from simply making them short to begin with? (Genuine question; I don't know.)

It's illegal to do so. without the choke, the narrowing at the muzzle, the pellets cover a wider area and are more likely to hit non-targets. Likewise you cannot buy rocksalt loads in any jurisdiction I am aware of. Death from shock or suicide is rare but not unheard of with the use of rock salt loads.

OT:
So, manufacturers could make them shorter provided they implement a choke?

If so, it seems that the length itself isn't really what's at issue.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Do we need to treat guns and gun modifiers as separate issues?

nope

that is exactly what the AWB did

--LOL

and that was a total flop

--LOL


feel good laws never work out for the better

 

[beagle9]

I think an item which modifies a gun in a way which would make the gun illegal should be illegal.

Now sawzalls which can make a shotgun too short obvioisly can't be made illegal so some reason needs applied

. Not the sawsall, but the weapon after being modified is what is illegal. The bump stock not being attached to a weapon is of no threat, but once attached it makes the weapon illegal.

A semi-auto with a bump stock installed was not considered to be illegal because there is no change to the internal firing mechanism. It is legal to fire a semi-auto at any rate. A semi-auto can be 'bumped' with no bump stock at all as well. If bump-stocks were to be made illegal, there would most likely be other tack-ons invented to do the same or similar thing. As usual, the leftist thrust is to always blame the gun instead of the shooter. Heck, even if this human debris (Paddock) did NOT have bump stocks, he could have killed just as many.

I don't think that people are wrong to want the bump stock banned after seeing the results of such a thing being operated in the hands of a bad guy who was able to obtain such a thing legally. Otherwise why should we be involved in such a thing ? If we made it (the bump stock illegal), then we are at least making an effort to separate ourselves from the carnage. Not doing anything is sending a message that we don't have enough sense to know that these things don't need to end up in the hands of bad guy's as if we just walked up and gave it to them on a silver platter.

 

[beagle9]

Do we need to treat guns and gun modifiers as separate issues?

nope

that is exactly what the AWB did

--LOL

and that was a total flop

--LOL


feel good laws never work out for the better

If enforced they would. Our problem is that we don't enforce the laws we already have on the books, so yes why create more is the thought by most of us ?

 

[2aguy]

Recently much of the focus in the gun debate is not on guns at all, but gun "modifiers" such as silencers, extended magazines and bump stocks. Should that be a totally separate category from guns and debated as such? I don't see how limiting these modifiers is impinging on Second Amendment rights since you are not limiting the ownership of small arms. I am not a gun expert so I'm putting it out there for those who are. Is there an issue with limiting gun modifiers only? If so please state clearly what that problem is.

Yes...you are......silencers protect hearing, magazines hold the bullets...bump stocks you can have.

As the judge in the ruling that stopped the new ban on magazines in California stated.....if you go after magazines you will eventually dictate that people can only own single shot pistols......