President Biden Would Ban all Semi-Automatic firearms

Lucas: Check out gunspot.com if you are trying to thin out the guns you own.

https://www.gunspot.com/

If the average Joe can justify why they need an AR and/or rapid-fire rifle, I'd love to hear their reasoning if it makes any sense. I understand why law enforcement and the military need those weapons, but why the fuck would I need to own and have access to one when I live in a 1st world country?

Hell, where I live, I don't even know why I still have any guns and I just have a few rifles and a 9MM. I don't even hunt animals. Why do I even own them? They just collect dust because I never touch them because I don't need to do so. I should sell them and just buy a baseball bat. Originally Posted by Lucas McCain

i'd keep the 9mm for self defense. even if you live in a gated community criminals can still get into the area. a baseball bat isn't much defense against some thug with a gun.

Not a law expert myself . . .yet I don't think that a requirement to justify a need for any firearm has ever been supported by any court decision at any level.

Heck, it is still legal for a private citizen to own a fully automatic firearm . . .yes, a machine gun is legal to own today in the USA. The same is true for suppressors ("silencers"). Originally Posted by ICU 812

it's only legal for people who have a FFL .. Federal Firearms License to own any fully automatic weapon. basically a firearms dealer. the average joe can't legally own a full auto rifle.


and the wording of "all semi auto" appears intentionally like "ban all guns" because all guns not full auto are by definition semi-auto, that's not just rifles, it applies to all handguns too. even revolvers that have been a design for over a hundred years now is semi-auto.

Lucas: Check out gunspot.com if you are trying to thin out the guns you own.

https://www.gunspot.com/ Originally Posted by ICU 812

Thanks, ICU. I'll check the site out.

The last time I sold a bunch of my rifles, I just put an ad on Craigslist if I remember correctly and was just bombarded with hagglers. I'll never do that again... it was good for the buyer though because he bought all of them and then the pandemic hit a short time later. I bet that motherfucker sold those rifles for 3X's what he paid me for them. LOL

Yeah, TWK. I'll probably keep the 9 because I at least keep it inside the house and not inside the garage collecting dust like the rifles.

and the wording of "all semi auto" appears intentionally like "ban all guns" because all guns not full auto are by definition semi-auto, that's not just rifles, it applies to all handguns too. even revolvers that have been a design for over a hundred years now is semi-auto. Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

Not true at all. There’s bolt action, lever action, breach and muzzle loaders, pump action, single action revolvers, yada yada. That’s just off the top of my head, surely I missed some.

it's only legal for people who have a FFL .. Federal Firearms License to own any fully automatic weapon. basically a firearms dealer. the average joe can't legally own a full auto rifle.


and the wording of "all semi auto" appears intentionally like "ban all guns" because all guns not full auto are by definition semi-auto, that's not just rifles, it applies to all handguns too. even revolvers that have been a design for over a hundred years now is semi-auto. Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

Well, you could be right on those points. I am not fully informed on the very latest.

I was my understanding that plenty of non-FFL holders had filled out the paperwork with the BATFE, paid the transfer tax and waited out the extensive background check . . .and been allowed to purchase and own a machine gun. I understood that it was a bit easier to get a suppressor. But these things can change on short notice.

And regarding the re-classification of revolvers and any other non-self-loading firearm as "semi-automatic" . . .I have never heard of that ruling from BATFE . . .yet. Though I'd believe it .

Any supporting source for this info is wealcomed.

Throw this into the fire . . .

If you diagram the single sentence that is the 2d Amendment it becomes, simply “A well regulated militia shall not be infringed”!



Bring on the distractions!

Well, you could be right on those points. I am not fully informed on the very latest.

I was my understanding that plenty of non-FFL holders had filled out the paperwork with the BATFE, paid the transfer tax and waited out the extensive background check . . .and been allowed to purchase and own a machine gun. I understood that it was a bit easier to get a suppressor. But these things can change on short notice.

And regarding the re-classification of revolvers and any other non-self-loading firearm as "semi-automatic" . . .I have never heard of that ruling from BATFE . . .yet. Though I'd believe it .

Any supporting source for this info is wealcomed. Originally Posted by ICU 812

the short answer .. yes but it's complicated, expensive and depends on what state you live in.


i was partly right, having an FFL is the "easy" way but also right in that after the 1986 update to the original 1934 law no new full auto weapon can be sold or owned. all there is for joe citizen is 1986 or older weapons for joe citizen.


https://nationalinterest.org/blog/re...catches-163921


July 2, 2020 Topic: Guns Blog Brand: The Reboot Tags: GunsGunTechnologyMachine GunFirearm
Yes, Machine Guns Are 'Legal' (But Here Comes All the Catches)

Machine guns are legal at the federal level but highly regulated.


by Peter Suciu


Here's What You Need To Remember: Since 1934 no legally owned machine gun has been used in a crime.


One of the common things heard after nearly every tragic mass shooting is that semi-automatic firearms –the AR-15 is often called out specifically – should be "banned" like machine guns. There is just one problem with that argument, machine guns aren't actually illegal. While this article isn't meant as legal advice, and one should always consult with local authorities, here are the quick facts on the legality of machine gun ownership.


In 37 states it is possible to buy a machine gun today. However, it isn't as easy as going to a local gun shop or even a gun show. Machine guns are legal at the federal level but highly regulated.


This goes back to the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA), which was enacted as part of the Internal Revenue Code, and was the first federal regulation of the manufacture and transfer of firearms. The NFA restricted the sales, ownership, use, and transport of short-barreled rifles and shotguns, machine guns, silencers and suppressors and an all-encompassing "destructive device." The latter included such things as modern artillery, rocket launchers, and military explosives.

However, the law "restricts" but it does not "prohibit" and that is something that has been misunderstood and misreported for years.


Items on the NFA list can still be owned. However, the items must be registered at the federal level, and this is a bit harder than it sounds. There is a common misconception that an individual must have a "Class III" license to own a machine gun. This is not true – but it also isn't completely wrong, a point this author will get to.


As noted previously, currently there are 37 states where it is legal to buy/own a machine gun. In those other 13 states – which not surprisingly include California, New York, New Jersey, and Massachusetts – state law has banned such ownership and for gun collectors, there is no magic loophole or really any way around it. Moving to another state that allows ownership is the only option, and the same applies if one should move from a state where a machine gun is legal to a state where it is not, the weapon would need to be sold/transferred. It isn't possible to be a resident of Ohio, buy a machine gun, and move to Illinois where it is illegal and think it is OK.


When moving from one state to another, owners of NFA items must report this to the NFA branch of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF or BATFE).


Buying a machine gun requires an extensive background check, and while certain firearms – those that fall into the category of Curios & Relics (C&R) guns – can be transferred directly from one owner to another, in most cases this sort of sale requires an actual Class III dealer. It involves filling out some very detailed paperwork, getting fingerprinted by local law enforcement or other approved service, providing a pair of passport photos, and submitting a $200 fee, which is the tax for said transfer.


Once this is done you wait. And then you wait some more. Unlike the National Instant Criminal Background Check that is used to buy a firearm at a gun shop, nothing is "instant," "quick" or "speedy" in this procedure. This is a slow process and due to the coronavirus will likely only be slower, once the NFA branch, which is located in Martinsburg, West Virginia, is reopened.


When buying any NFA item, patience isn't a virtue, it is required. There is no way to rush the process and generally takes around nine months. After that, the seller, or in most cases the dealer who handled the process, is provided the paperwork and stamp, and the buyer can pick up his/her machine gun.


There are a couple of other points that need to be mentioned. The laws on NFA items have been updated twice since 1934. The first was the Gun Control Act of 1968, which added language about "destructive devices" but also expanded the definition of a machine gun. For collectors, it came with mixed blessings. First, it offered an amnesty that allowed many older guns – including those that may have been brought back during World War II – to be registered, but it also banned the importation of foreign machine guns that could be sold to civilians.


The GCA also essentially regulated "dewats" or deactivated war trophies. In other words, if Grandpa had the barrel of his Thompson submachine gun welded shut after World War II, the government didn't really see that as a functional machine gun. That changed with the passage of the GCA. For a gun to be truly deactivated per ATF's guidelines the receiver needed to be cut or otherwise destroyed. But Grandpa could keep the Tommy Gun, so long as it was registered.


The next and final major change for machine gun ownership came with the Firearms Owners' Protection Act of 1986 (FOPA), which loosened some ownership restrictions. However, the bill codified some gun control measures, and prohibited civilian ownership or transfer of machine guns made after May 19, 1986. That meant only the machine guns that were produced – including those from old parts – prior to that date could be registered. The law also didn't come with the same type of amnesty that was offered in 1968. As a result, ANY machine guns not registered today cannot be registered. There is simply no way around it. The only options are to hand in such a weapon or cut/destroy the receiver.


FOPA has resulted in the cost of legal machine guns to skyrocket, simply because what is out there is all there can ever be. Today a Thompson submachine gun can cost more than a new car – but it is worth noting the transfer stamp still costs the same $200 that it cost in 1934. Back then a Thompson was around $200, or roughly the cost of a car – so in some ways, the value could be seen to keep up with inflation.


The final point worth noting is that some individuals can buy guns made after May 19, 1986. These are described as "post-samples," but are only available to dealers, manufacturers, military, and police. While it is possible to become a dealer of such weapons this isn't an easy process. Moreover, when said dealer retires from the business it is still impossible (or at least illegal) to retain any post-sample firearms.


Machine guns are complex items to buy, but as noted there is a small collector market. Buying such items isn't easy, but then again it shouldn't be. Since 1934 no legally owned machine gun has been used in a crime.


Peter Suciu is a Michigan-based writer who has contributed to more than four dozen magazines, newspapers, and websites. He is the author of several books on military headgear including A Gallery of Military Headdress, which is available on Amazon.com.


This article first appeared a few months ago and is being republished due to reader interest.

Well

And regarding the re-classification of revolvers and any other non-self-loading firearm as "semi-automatic" . . .I have never heard of that ruling from BATFE . . .yet. Though I'd believe it .

Any supporting source for this info is wealcomed. Originally Posted by ICU 812

A previous poster made the assertion that new regulations or proposed legislation would treat all manually operated reputing firearms as though they were semi-automatic.

Can anyone address this?

The words "Shall Not Be Infringed" makes the Second Amendment absolute. Originally Posted by Levianon17

Sorry, but your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment disagrees with the opinons made by SCOTUS and other courts.

the right to bear arms is not unlimited as made explicitly clear by the two most pro-gun cases decided by the Supreme Court. Those cases, District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. the City of Chicago, held that the Second Amendment is an individual as well as collective right and that its protections apply to state as well as federal laws.

Both of those opinions and the numerous lower court decisions based on those cases however have declared that the right to bear arms is not unlimited. Accordingly courts have approved many different types of reasonable laws that limit the possession, sale and use of weapons.

https://www.baltimoresun.com/opinion...rmq-story.html

https://spectrumnews1.com/ca/la-west...-not-absolute-

"The gun lobby has long peddled an extremist and dangerous view of the Second Amendment, one that doesn’t allow for any commonsense gun safety protections. Since the Supreme Court ruled that citizens may keep a handgun at home for self-defense in District of Columbia v. Heller, courts across the country have reaffirmed that gun safety laws are constitutional and not in conflict with Second Amendment rights."

https://giffords.org/lawcenter/gun-l...ond-amendment/

I could cite dozens of other sources stating the same thing but it would probably fall on deaf ears.

Sorry, but your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment disagrees with the opinons made by SCOTUS and other courts.

[B]the right to bear arms is not unlimited as made explicitly clear by the two most pro-gun cases decided by the Supreme Court. Those cases, District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. the City of Chicago, held that the Second Amendment is an individual as well as collective right and that its protections apply to state as well as federal laws.

Both of those opinions and the numerous lower court decisions based on those cases however have declared that the right to bear arms is not unlimited. Accordingly courts have approved many different types of reasonable laws that limit the possession, sale and use of weapons.[B]

https://www.baltimoresun.com/opinion...rmq-story.html

https://spectrumnews1.com/ca/la-west...-not-absolute-

"The gun lobby has long peddled an extremist and dangerous view of the Second Amendment, one that doesn’t allow for any commonsense gun safety protections. Since the Supreme Court ruled that citizens may keep a handgun at home for self-defense in District of Columbia v. Heller, courts across the country have reaffirmed that gun safety laws are constitutional and not in conflict with Second Amendment rights."

https://giffords.org/lawcenter/gun-l...ond-amendment/

I could cite dozens of other sources stating the same thing but it would probably fall on deaf ears. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

I don't give a fuck about how Liberal Douche bags interpret the Second Amendment. They have been trying for decades to ban every type of Firearm possible but they haven't been successful because of that pesky constitution. We don't need to ban guns in this country we need to ban criminals.

I don't give a fuck about how Liberal Douche bags interpret the Second Amendment. They have been trying for decades to ban every type of Firearm possible but they haven't been successful because of that pesky constitution. We don't need to ban guns in this country we need to ban criminals. Originally Posted by Levianon17

That does not change the FACT that you are WRONG when you say that the 2nd Amendment is absolute. And the statement about it not being absolute was made by a very conservative Supreme Court Justice Scalia who said "Like most rights, the right secured by 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.”

That does not change the FACT that you are WRONG when you say that the 2nd Amendment is absolute. And the statement about it not being absolute was made by a very conservative Supreme Court Justice Scalia who said "Like most rights, the right secured by 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.” Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Don't stretch it. "Absolute" is referring to the right to own a firearm for self preservation against an aggressor foreign or domestic and that right shall not be infringed, that's all it means.

There will be other SCOTUS decisions clarifying the Second Amendment in the next fgew years.

"Absolute" . . .. seems that everything is negotiable these days. Prior to t5he early 1930s, there was virtually no restriction opn who could own aqny kind of firearm, or silencer . . .even explosives were not retricty4ed. Farmers could buy dynamite down at the feed store untill sometime after 1950.

Don't stretch it. "Absolute" is referring to the right to own a firearm for self preservation against an aggressor foreign or domestic and that right shall not be infringed, that's all it means. Originally Posted by Levianon17

I disagree about what "absolute" means.

ab·so·lute
/ˈabsəˌlo͞ot,ˌabsəˈlo͞ot/

1.not qualified or diminished in any way; total.
"absolute secrecy"

As stated by Scalia, the 2nd Amendment is not limitless, or absolute. But if you want to interpret the word differently I am not going to argue with you. The fact is the 2nd Amendment does not give total freedom to people to carry arms. The right to bear arms can be, and is, restricted.

I love 2A discussions . . .this is all great stuff.

But back to the topic from the OP:
I have clicked around some on the semi-automatic issue. I do not find anywhere that the definition of what constitutes a semi-automatic firearm has been changed from referring to a self-Loding gun to a manually operated firearm.

With all the re-defined terminology in these last few years though such as "recession"," vaccine" and so on, I would not be surprised if the definition of semi-automatic is broadened to the point where it means about any gun.

The progressive left has already done this by substituting the phrase, "gun safety" for "gun control". All my adult life, "gun safety" has meant the rules that engender the safe handling of guns. Now it is being used to mean regulating the possession of firearms.