Mass shooting of the week, high school in parkland, FL.

#2,551
#2,551
NorthDallas40 said:
GV on your proposed rules thread above (didn’t quote it to try and keep the clutter down) with regard to mental illness what you have is a great start but how about Adam Lanza? You have a person in the house with mental illness that acquired weapons from a non limited individual his mother right? Even if it didn’t apply to that specific case I think that it an instance to discuss.

If a firearm owner posses firearms and has an individual with whom they cohabitate then there need to be expectations that the firearm owner prohibits access to the firearms by that individual. I know federal law prevents transfer to an individual with known mental health issues but I’m not aware if this case of incidental access is specifically covered?

And yeah I know this is common sense to us. But does the current law specifically state this?

Thanks.
Click to expand...

If memory serves, Big Turd's mom had the weapons stored in a safe. He killed her and took them out.
 
#2,552
#2,552
Grand Vol said:
No, you aren't required to have an FFL to legally own a Class 3 weapon. You have to transfer it via a licensed FFL with a Class 3 SOT permit if your intent is to sell. The FFL class for that is a 1 and 2 per the ATF website.

Still not sure what specifically you are asking about the classes. But yes and no, Class 3 devices more or less are always Class 3 regardless of what you put on them. When combining items in the same class, the specific type might change. I.E. you put a Class 3 suppressor on a 20mm Lhati rifle (considered a Class 3 Destructive Device). Basically, the entire setup would be considered a Class 3 Destructive Device as outlined in US Code 26, SS 5845. Obviously, the suppressor would still need a stamp of its own though.

I think that's what you were asking.
Click to expand...
It’s really just terminology and I don’t use it enough to keep the specifics straight always.

Class 3 refers to your tax stamp right? The weapon or item is regulated by either Title II with further expanding designation (machine gun, short barreled rifle, suppressor, etc...) and requires a class 3 stamp or it defaults to Title I with no further relevant designation. The usage of this terminology as typed is correct? Thx.

Edit: found a web page that straightens me out on terminology. Thanks.

Information on Class III Weapons and NFA Weapons | Old Glory Guns & Ammo
 
Last edited:
#2,553
#2,553
Grand Vol said:
If memory serves, Big Turd's mom had the weapons stored in a safe. He killed her and took them out.
Click to expand...

Yeah I looked it up. So if she had lived did she already have specific accountability by the law or is that case not explicitly covered?

I realize she would have likely been wiped out in civil court on wrongful death suits.
 
#2,554
#2,554
NorthDallas40 said:
It’s really just terminology and I don’t use it enough to keep the specifics straight always.

Class 3 refers to your tax stamp right? The weapon or item is regulated by either Title II with further expanding designation (machine gun, short barreled rifle, suppressor, etc...) and requires a class 3 stamp or it defaults to Title I with no further relevant designation. The usage of this terminology as typed is correct? Thx.
Click to expand...

You have a lot of numbers there lol

Class 3 refers to the type of weapon, which can get a bit tricky on an AR since the lower is the regulated portion. Basically, if you have a Class 3 lower receiver you bought with the express intent of making into an SBR, the stamp is needed for that lower receiver. The item is classified as such, yes. However, if you toss a 16 inch upper onto it, it's not considered a "Class 3" weapon at the time since it doesn't fall under a specific category. Regardless though, if selling the lower receiver, it has to be done as a Class 3 item since it's registered with the BATFE as such.

Title 1 generally refers to the GCA68, but yes, Title 1 firearms are generally pistols, rifles and shotguns that do not fit the criteria of a Class 3 stamp. You can make a Title 1 weapon into a Title 2 device, but I don't think it works in reverse. Or I'm unsure of the process.
 
#2,555
#2,555
Grand Vol said:
You have a lot of numbers there lol

Class 3 refers to the type of weapon, which can get a bit tricky on an AR since the lower is the regulated portion. Basically, if you have a Class 3 lower receiver you bought with the express intent of making into an SBR, the stamp is needed for that lower receiver. The item is classified as such, yes. However, if you toss a 16 inch upper onto it, it's not considered a "Class 3" weapon at the time since it doesn't fall under a specific category. Regardless though, if selling the lower receiver, it has to be done as a Class 3 item since it's registered with the BATFE as such.

Title 1 generally refers to the GCA68, but yes, Title 1 firearms are generally pistols, rifles and shotguns that do not fit the criteria of a Class 3 stamp. You can make a Title 1 weapon into a Title 2 device, but I don't think it works in reverse. Or I'm unsure of the process.
Click to expand...

I guess I understand the full auto stamp, but everything beyond that is just a government money grab imo. Makes no sense otherwise.
 
#2,558
#2,558
Grand Vol said:
You have a lot of numbers there lol

Class 3 refers to the type of weapon, which can get a bit tricky on an AR since the lower is the regulated portion. Basically, if you have a Class 3 lower receiver you bought with the express intent of making into an SBR, the stamp is needed for that lower receiver. The item is classified as such, yes. However, if you toss a 16 inch upper onto it, it's not considered a "Class 3" weapon at the time since it doesn't fall under a specific category. Regardless though, if selling the lower receiver, it has to be done as a Class 3 item since it's registered with the BATFE as such.

Title 1 generally refers to the GCA68, but yes, Title 1 firearms are generally pistols, rifles and shotguns that do not fit the criteria of a Class 3 stamp. You can make a Title 1 weapon into a Title 2 device, but I don't think it works in reverse. Or I'm unsure of the process.
Click to expand...

Got it thx. And yeah on the SBR I never really considered that but if you want to do that you have get the approval and transfer the lower into your possession and THEN attach the short barrel.

If you don’t follow that order, say if you attach the barrel and apply for approval while possessing the firearm you’ve broken the law! Never really thought thru the process steps involved.
 
#2,559
#2,559
ACvol3 said:
I guess I understand the full auto stamp, but everything beyond that is just a government money grab imo. Makes no sense otherwise.
Click to expand...

It’s all a money grab. The vehicle for ownership is a TAX STAMP!! But yeah I’ll even go for Luther’s X=700 and Y=60 as a decent regulation point. 😬
 
#2,560
#2,560
NorthDallas40 said:
Got it thx. And yeah on the SBR I never really considered that but if you want to do that you have get the approval and transfer the lower into your possession and THEN attach the short barrel.

If you don’t follow that order, say if you attach the barrel and apply for approval while possessing the firearm you’ve broken the law! Never really thought thru the process steps involved.
Click to expand...

It’s all stupidity. Yet, the feds can have whatever they want. If you have a barrel that is 1” shorter than the federal regulation, you’re a felon. Ask Randy Weaver about that one...
 
#2,561
#2,561
When I was in highschool me and my friends had shotguns in our trunks for hunting after school, with our parents blessings. School didn't care, had no policy. Also, about all the boys had pocket knives. When I went to college, I had a 12 gauge in my dorm room for hunting. School policy was to let the resident manager know. Nobody ever shot up the school. What's changed? Have the guns turned on us?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#2,562
#2,562
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
It’s all stupidity. Yet, the feds can have whatever they want. If you have a barrel that is 1” shorter than the federal regulation, you’re a felon. Ask Randy Weaver about that one...
Click to expand...

Of course the feds and police can have whatever they want. It is in our best interest for the propagation of the military police state to be established.
 
#2,563
#2,563
Grand Vol said:
Exploding over a person's decision to waive that right for reportable information concerning a firearms purchase?

I'm not sure what case they would bring. They hate guns. They like civil liberties...well, except that one.
Click to expand...
I think it would be fun to go in and have them file the case on my behalf.
 
#2,564
#2,564
Grand Vol said:
My thoughts and if they HAD to go to universal background checks...

I'd overhaul the entire process to make it more about the individual rather than the firearm. You have the 4473, right? Why does it require having a firearm type and serial number on the second page? What's the point except, as I pointed out to Hog, to have a record of the transaction of a specific firearm?

And why hasn't the NRA blown up the ATF and FBI over knowing EXACTLY where the little turd bought that rifle if they don't have a database of firearms transfers? There's a good question to ask. Anyway...

I'd put nothing but personal data on the new 4473 and do the background check on the individual. Obviously, I'd have them run the serial number on the firearm to ensure it's not stolen or anything, but nothing on the record has any firearms data. Why? (Asking for luther and LG) Because it's not about the firearm. It's about the individual. Person to person sales are just that. Treat an FFL like an intermediary that does nothing more than run the check and little else. And after 15 days, that record gets destroyed in accordance with the new law that goes along with this. However, have a number for the FFL to cover their backside. "Check #54321 via NICS came back clean." NICS can keep a file with zero personal information save to say "yes, FFL John Smith ran a check with #54321 and the buyer was cleared." Make it a law that keeping personal data on the transaction will result in prison time. (that's for you Louder)

How would FFLs account for the firearms sold? Easy. "Serial # 1234567, Rifle, Bravo Company, private sale" and record the date of transfer as well as the background check number. Covers them, covers the government, covers everyone.

How to screen for mental illness? Easy. CWV came up with the option to waive the right to medical privacy when purchasing a firearm. Such information, metal illness for example, would be entered into the NICS system to flag an individual. Should keep firearms out of the hands of those that shouldn't have them. Are some going to slip through the cracks? Of course they will. But those flagged in advance can be stopped.

As to what conditions would get flagged, that's a different debate. However, as I stated this morning, the same doc that puts you on the list has to be the one that takes you off. Now if it's determined said doctor is abusing the system (let's say two other doctors give a conflicting report clearing the individual), said doctor must defend his report or risk losing his license if they cannot come up with a good reason the person is staying on the list. If it comes down to (and it would from time to time) an anti-gun stance, that person's professional career may end because of a political stance. So, put some teeth into revoking someone's right because your personal beliefs got in the way.

Now, DTH brought up the point about the no fly/no buy list they had going. I'll admit, he has a point. However, I don't buy this "that would tip them off if they knew that!" nonsense. If the FBI or other such agency reasonably believes a person to be a threat, they've got way more information than just a hunch. So, written into the same law would be the requirement to inform a person in writing of their status as well as the avenues to appeal the decision. At that point, it's on the government to provide the burden of proof as to your alleged terrorist/criminal activities. (not that I trust the courts very much either these days, but there it is)

To me, background checks should be focused on the individual rather than what they are buying. FFLs can keep a record of what they sell, even go so far as to send it to the BATFE if it floats their boat for stats on what is sold on a monthly and yearly basis. Just not to who.

Just some thoughts.
Click to expand...

Lot of info to process. But I wouldn't record anything more than what you are talking about. In fact, the BC would be run by the individual at the counter. The app would allow the individual to present either a sell or no sell to the FFL. The "random" number on the ticket would have the individuals number on the ticket that would have to match a picture ID. Just because you queried the system to get the sell/no sell clearance means nothing more than the system was queried. How the sale is recorded is something that I hadn't thought about.

Also, medical privacy is going out the window. I think that the minimum that will come from this tragedy will be giving up your medical freedom at least on the mental health level. Here in KY there is already a registry for the purchase of select drugs.....anti-psychotics and ADHD medicines would simply be put on the list and the ID's recorded if they aren't already there.

There are good ideas to be had, it'a question as to whether or not the gun grabbers will listen to reason and stop leading with bans.
 
#2,566
#2,566
InVOLuntary said:
When I was in highschool me and my friends had shotguns in our trunks for hunting after school, with our parents blessings. School didn't care, had no policy. Also, about all the boys had pocket knives. When I went to college, I had a 12 gauge in my dorm room for hunting. School policy was to let the resident manager know. Nobody ever shot up the school. What's changed? Have the guns turned on us?
Click to expand...

Hate has been normalized. It use to be hidden because it was not socially acceptable. Hate is now a "justifiable" response and emotion. We would disagree on the reasons why this is so, but I'm confident with my theory.
 
#2,567
#2,567
Another element of stopping these events, from a long term perspective, would be throttling the media. They actually have a special increased advertising rate when they go 24-7 on a subject as they did last week. The advertising rate and number of commercials is doubled during this period. That means both the advertisers and media outlets are increasing profits based on school shootings. The media should not be allowed to advertise or profit from their coverage of these events. Advertisers should be ashamed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#2,568
#2,568
IPleadInsanity said:
Another element of stopping these events, from a long term perspective, would be throttling the media. They actually have a special increased advertising rate when they go 24-7 on a subject as they did last week. The advertising rate and number of commercials is doubled during this period. That means both the advertisers and media outlets are increasing profits based on school shootings. The media should not be allowed to advertise or profit from their coverage of these events. Advertisers should be ashamed.
Click to expand...

That’s very dangerous.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#2,569
#2,569
IPleadInsanity said:
Another element of stopping these events, from a long term perspective, would be throttling the media. They actually have a special increased advertising rate when they go 24-7 on a subject as they did last week. The advertising rate and number of commercials is doubled during this period. That means both the advertisers and media outlets are increasing profits based on school shootings. The media should not be allowed to advertise or profit from their coverage of these events. Advertisers should be ashamed.
Click to expand...

I agree with the sentiment, but are you advocating for suppression of the press? I only ask because who the hell knows these days with Trump running his s***show.
 
#2,570
#2,570
IPleadInsanity said:
Another element of stopping these events, from a long term perspective, would be throttling the media. They actually have a special increased advertising rate when they go 24-7 on a subject as they did last week. The advertising rate and number of commercials is doubled during this period. That means both the advertisers and media outlets are increasing profits based on school shootings. The media should not be allowed to advertise or profit from their coverage of these events. Advertisers should be ashamed.
Click to expand...

While i DON'T disagree w/ that assessment,we the people are equally is as guilty,because we keep eating it up everytime!
 
#2,571
#2,571
IPleadInsanity said:
Another element of stopping these events, from a long term perspective, would be throttling the media. They actually have a special increased advertising rate when they go 24-7 on a subject as they did last week. The advertising rate and number of commercials is doubled during this period. That means both the advertisers and media outlets are increasing profits based on school shootings. The media should not be allowed to advertise or profit from their coverage of these events. Advertisers should be ashamed.
Click to expand...

Never thought of it that way. Unfortunately the world revolves around money
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#2,572
#2,572
IPleadInsanity said:
Another element of stopping these events, from a long term perspective, would be throttling the media. They actually have a special increased advertising rate when they go 24-7 on a subject as they did last week. The advertising rate and number of commercials is doubled during this period. That means both the advertisers and media outlets are increasing profits based on school shootings. The media should not be allowed to advertise or profit from their coverage of these events. Advertisers should be ashamed.
Click to expand...

Media has made the shooters famous (infamous). Mentally deranged individuals fantasize about doing max damage and their name and picture being broadcast by media all over the world.

I would like to see media agree to not to show pictures or broadcast the name of the shooter. Law inforcement could give the shooter a name of John or Jane Doe and the media could agree to use it, and require a hood or mask at appearances should they survive. Take away the dream of being famous. Not sure if it’s possible, but it would be nice.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#2,573
#2,573
oz615 said:
While i DON'T disagree w/ that assessment,we the people are equally is as guilty,because we keep eating it up everytime!
Click to expand...

Yep it reminds me of when people complain about professional athletes getting paid so much. If we the people didnt love watching, buying gear, tickets etc they wouldn’t be paid so much.
 
#2,574
#2,574
StillStanding said:
Media has made the shooters famous (infamous). Mentally deranged individuals fantasize about doing max damage and their name and picture being broadcast by media all over the world.

I would like to see media agree to not to show pictures or broadcast the name of the shooter. Law inforcement could give the shooter a name of John or Jane Doe and the media could agree to use it, and require a hood or mask at appearances should they survive. Take away the dream of being famous. Not sure if it’s possible, but it would be nice.
Click to expand...

People watch so they can see what the person looks like, etc. They’ll never change making them famous, you can take that to the bank
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top