Slashdot Mirror
Gun Rights Hacktivists To Fab 3D-Printed Guns At State Capitol
giulioprisco writes On January 13th Come And Take Texas (CATI) will be manufacturing 3D-printed firearms on location at the State Capitol. In 2013 Defense Distributed made public the 3D printable files (STL files) for the world's first fully 3D printable gun. Their more recent Ghost Gunner is designed to automatically manufacture publicly created designs with nearly zero user interaction. According to CATI’s website, “In the last year and a half Texan Gun Rights Groups all around the Lone Star State have walked, assembled, and engaged in Humanitarian efforts all while Open Carrying their Long Guns and Black Powder Pistols. This has succeeded in Educating the Public as well as Law Enforcement, to show that the presence of Firearms in Public is not only Safe but Highly supported.”
is Still a Lost Art. Thank goodness for "Educating" the Public.
If there's anything that'll push forward legal restrictions on 3D printers/home CNC, it'll be assholes like this making a media push over how easy it is to make weapons and OMG THE CHILDREN. This is why we can't have nice things.
They think they're protesting against gun control, but they're actually making a powerful and probably effective protest for 3D printer control.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
It seems to me that there has been a lot of media and public backlash against open carry. I'm not personally affected by open carry at the moment, but I'd be hesitant to visit any state where open carry becomes too prolific. My opinion is simply that when everyone open carries, I will have a harder time discerning who is a threat and who isn't.
Because a right not exercised is a right lost .
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
It seems to me that there has been a lot of media and public backlash against open carry. I'm not personally affected by open carry at the moment, but I'd be hesitant to visit any state where open carry becomes too prolific. My opinion is simply that when everyone open carries, I will have a harder time discerning who is a threat and who isn't.
You do realize what OPEN carry means, right? It generally means on the hip, outside the clothes, ie. in plain view. As in, you know EXACTLY who is carrying and who isn't. Now, CONCEALED carry is where the firearm is tucked away in a pocket, or a shoulder holster under a jacket, or inside the waistband. Concealed carry is when you don't know who is armed and who isn't. For gun control advocates open carry should be preferable to concealed carry, because you can at least tell who is armed and who isn't.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
Bullets don't kill people Physics does...
Also if you hit a bullet with a hammer you will not achieve much explosive velocity in the projectile, you need to compressive space of the barrel to achieve an effective velocity.
the Police Commisioner is calling for a 3-D printed Batman
I'm sure Biology has something to do with the dying as well....
Right???
Go look up English style from about 240 years ago. You'll find that in modern English the 2nd Amendment would have a . instead of a period because it is two separate clauses. Best thing is the Supreme Court has started to agree that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right and force repressive States to follow the law of the land.
-- Slashdot, making the Left look conservative since 1997.
Replace black with poor, under educated and often from single parent families due to the drug war, and I'll agree with you.
He tried to kill me with a forklift!
Why? Because :
1) Our gun laws are already so loose that it's easy to buy an illegal gun. No need to print it out.
2) It takes too long to make. You go and buy one in ten minutes.
3) Most gun deaths are crimes of passion/accidents. In either case, you are not going to print a gun first to do it.
4) The real 'advantages' of said gun - it's a virgin gun unconnected to any thing else and being able to melt it down to destroy the evidence, are not that important. They don't apply in accidental deaths and most murders would rather use a proven weapon that isn't likely to blow up on you.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
Interesting country, where white folks earnestly protest that they should be able to openly carry weapons and not be viewed as a threat, while black folks have to protest that they should be able to walk around unarmed and not be viewed as a threat.
We have long gone past sensible gun restrictions. Background checks at gun shows and for business sales are sensible. I don't even have a problem with the tax stamp system for short barreled rifles/shotguns, machine guns, and Any Other Weapons. But the ban on adding new machine guns to the transferable pool is asinine. Arbitrary bans on how many rounds a magazine can hold are just plain ineffective, here in Colorado it is being proven once again how such a ban does nothing. As far as your hysteria of non-metal-detectable guns, that is a fairy tale just like the fear of blood in the streets over the last 20ish years as concealed carry laws became the norm. Barrels for a good long time are going to be metal. All these defenders of the 2nd Amendment are doing is printing receivers, which don't have to handle high pressures. In addition it has long been legal to make your own firearms, I can legally buy an 80% finished receiver and finish it myself. In this case I don't have to put a serial number on it, as long as I don't have a business I can even sell the occasional one. For an AK you just need a jig to bend and drill the sheet metal and some rivets, for an AR-15 it requires machining which can be done with typical home equipment.
-- Slashdot, making the Left look conservative since 1997.
Well, when we approach the heat death of the universe, physics will kill everyone.
Nobody accepts openly carried firearms. It's just stupid, insecure men trying to show off. I think almost everyone should have a gun but CONCEALED on them. Otherwise guess who the criminal is shooting first. There's no point in carrying a gun unless nobody knows it's there.
So, you are saying that Batman originated in England???
The goal and dream of the "starve the beast" group has been realized, the government has been shrunk small enough to be drowned in a bath tub. And the big banks and the financial industry has promptly drowned it in the bath tub. What these people see as government is nothing but reanimated corpse, the zombie totally under the control of these big players. The banks are still too big to fail, they have to be protected at all costs, and the costs are being paid by the ordinary American citizens. For example they took the money printed by the Feds during the "Quantitative Easing" and "invested" it all over the world. Now they are bellyaching, if the oil prices fall and the US dollar strengthens they will suffer losses. They want to be bailed out or dollar weakened to protect their "investments". With the cheap money they have bought commodities and are speculating on it, sucking all profits from all economic endeavors of all the sectors.
These guys banded together and make the BLM back off from collecting the million dollar grazing fee default by Cliven Bundy. Can they make the big banks back off from any fraudulently signed eviction notices or auctions? Can they save one small business from the banks?
The banks are the serious threat to our liberties, they have taken control of the government machinery with all the legislators from both parties in their pocket. And now printing a few plastic guns is going to restore our freedom and liberty? These guys are joking, these guys are probably put up by the banks to distract us from the real issues. They probably don't even realize they are being played by the banks.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
If you don't plan on using any of these much vaunted gun rights to defend the other rights in your Constitution, WTF is the point?
If you're going to say "well, the 1st amendment is shot, the 4th is being ignored, the 5th is being tramped on, but I have my gun" ... why the hell are you even bothering??
Why are none of you gun advocates killing off the NSA officials and the rest of the security people who are shitting all over the rest of your fucking rights? Or are you just a bunch of one trick ponies who only give a crap about your guns?
If so, you should seriously STFU and start worrying about the other rights they've been taking away from you. Otherwise you're just a bunch of children playing cowboy.
Or should we conclude gun advocates are totally OK with tyranny and the erosion of your other rights?
If you won't defend the rest of your Constitutional rights, you don't deserve this one either.
Pathetic.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
would someone please post the 2nd amendment, in its entirety, or at least the first part about a State run and organized militia. oh yeah, I forgot, the Constitution and the Bible are only suggestions, not for literal translation.
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
State in the true sense of the word- meaning a nation, not the popular US use, a slightly autonomous defined district whose laws are superceeded by those of a national body. Militia are groups of civilians, armed with their own weapons, who in a time of crisis fight alongside the standing army in the defense of their homes and their communities. Therefore it is intended that civilians should keep weapons so that they can be called up in times of national defense. At most the 2nd Amendment calls for training for gun owners, maybe require them once a month to attend a class (provided free by the government) where they shoot a few rounds to demonstrate basic proficiency in their firearm and review gun safety (exemptions from classes possibly for antique firearms/collectors, or those who would be unable to be called up in a militia by age or physical disability). There you have it: with this proposition every point in the 2nd Amendment is upheld, without any additional limitations than we have already.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
Oh Yeah, You forgot that the Supremes already weigh in on that issue...you lost.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
The ironic thing is, those d-bags that openly carry the assault rifles on their back to prove a point would be my 1st target if I were going to wreck havoc. Take them out, now I have my original weapon and an AR.
Disclaimer - I do not own any firearms and have no intention of ever wreaking havoc in a destructive way.
"Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
This may come as a surprise to you, but the amendment does not actually say anything about a "state run militia". The actual ratified text is "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
If you go on to read additional support documentation (yeah, there's more there than just the amendment itself), it talks about allowing the people to form their own militias. Some of the quotes in the debate about the amendment are quite enlightening, one I particularly agree with is "to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them. . . by totally disusing and neglecting the militia." along with "Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." both attributed to George Mason (known historically as the father of the bill of rights).
So, you are saying that Batman originated in England???
Yes, they did, although the practise was quite common in many other countries.
The NRA has a problem with those kooks in Texas.
These kooks even try to intimidate people who may disagree with them.
And their premise that it is safe is wrong.
And as someone who goes to the shooting range(s) once in a while, I can tell that most of those folks seem to think that they are living an action movie. Aside from the few hunters and target/skeet shooters (me), the rest of them think the "bad guys" are just itching to break into their home, rape their women, take their big screen TVs and their Arnold, Steven Segal, Chuck Norris DVD collections. Those are the guys with the military styled guns on the range - with their fetish for .223 and .40. They are the ones who talk about "stopping power" and "penetration" and other ballistic shit.
We normal guys try to stay away from them and cringed when we see those redneck morons in Texas acting like jackasses.
What does that have to do with Batman?
Well in the case of Michael Brown, he tried to violently disarm a police officer which is about one of the most threatening things you can possibly do to a police officer.
So what if the man was unarmed? You think unarmed men cannot be existential threats to people with guns? Tell that to anyone little woman with a small handgun who is facing a violent felon who outweighs her 50-100lb.
The whole idea is stupid - good quality guns in the US (where this is going on) are cheap and easily available. 3D printed guns are expensive and incredibly unsafe, because they're not only made of bonded plastic powder or filament, which can't stand up to the stress of gunpowder exploding, so the guns risk exploding and injuring the user, and in any case will be inaccurate and have a very short useful life. You could make a better "gun" with a block of wood and a drill, more quickly and at lower cost.
The only perspective from which this makes sense is that they're gun fanatics trying to attach themselves to 3D printing for PR purposes, to promote their theory that there need to be more guns in the US, and that they be completely uncontrolled, which is a position that is not only extremely unpopular (90% of the US supports background checks, so violent felons can't easily get guns, and only a few fanatics think that it's a good idea for guns to not be detected by metal detectors).
So really, why promote a few fanatics who, if successful, would lead to even more gun deaths in the US? With the internet we can't stop them completely, but by giving them front-page promotion, we're just encouraging them, which is (IMO) extremely bad judgement.
Enable 3D printed prosthetics!
I don't really get it. I thought it is easy to get a real gun in US. As for outside of US, it is useless - all that 'lower receiver' trick is very US specific, in Europe you will have major problems to get all the other parts as well, not to mention ammunition and even if you get them, you will got to jail anyway for having illegal weapon.
So, assuming it is US-only trick, why people are so excited about being able to produce your own, medicore receivers instead of buying good ones from the shop? Is it about full auto setting (if it works at all with printed receivers)? Being scared that government knows that you have a gun (while there is NO way they could trace you buying 3d printer, stl files and other parts in same day to same address?)?
Two things:
1) "assault rifles" are generally illegal. What you're trying to conflate with military weapons are "assault weapons" which were specified by law in a couple of bills, in such a way that that Mini-14 (.223, semi-auto, capable of using 35+ round magazines, pistol grip (if off-the-shelf stock is replaced)) was NOT an assault weapon, and could not be designated as such, while the AR-15 (same basic description) was defined as an "assault weapon" and sale was banned.
2) If your original weapon was a 12 gauge shotgun, you're better off leaving the AR-15 on the ground. A 12 ga. is a MUCH better weapon for killing lots of people than a .223, and it really doesn't take all that long to reload a shotgun, contrary to popular rumour.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
I am then arguing that the perosn you know for a fact is armed is less of a potential threat than someone who MIGHT be armed.
That is 100% circumstance dependent. A threat you know about can easily be more dangerous than a threat you do not know about. It does not follow in all circumstances that just because you know about a threat that you can avoid or mitigate it. Sometimes a visible threat is more serious than any reasonably likely potential but as yet unseen threat. If I'm trapped in an alley with someone I know is carrying a gun then they are almost certainly the greatest threat to me.
The greatest threat is always the threat you can't identify.
So if someone has a gun pointed directly at me I should be more worried about some threat I haven't yet identified? Curious logic you have there. Risk is circumstance dependent. Sometimes the visible threat is the one you should worry about most. Other times you should worry more about the one you haven't seen yet. A blanket statement that "the greatest threat is the one you can't identify" simply doesn't fit in all circumstances.
Recall that the Founders had just won a war where the people's arms played a key part in overthrowing the despotic government they had lived under--because they had arms they were able to stand up to the British Army. The Founders often expressed their concern that the new government they were founding could itself become despotic (despite the check-and-balances they were building in), and in particular were fundamentally against a standing army. A standing army could be used to oppress the people, but only if the people were not similarly armed. If the people were armed as the standing army, they would easily be able to outnumber any such regular army, and thus the presences of an armed populace--the militia--served as a deterrent to despotic government. So rather than equating the militia to the National Guard, the stated purpose of the militia is specifically to be able to fight the federal government (and its army) to preserve the free state, should it ever come to that.
I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few public officials.
George Mason
Madison: "The means of defence against foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people."
Noah Webster: "Before a standing army can rule the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States."
Alexander Hamilton: "[I]f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude[, ] that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens."
Theodore Sedgwick: "[it is] a chimerical idea to suppose that a country like this could ever be enslaved. . . Is it possible. . . that an army could be raised for the purpose of enslaving themselves or their brethren? or, if raised whether they could subdue a nation of freemen, who know how to prize liberty and who have arms in their hands?"
Actually, the Second Amendment says NOTHING about a "State run and organized militia".
Note however, in relevance to the "Militia" that the "Militia Act" is still in force.
The Militia Act REQUIRES members of the militia to own a military-grade firearm.
The Militia Act also defines "members of the militia" as pretty much every adult male in the USA. Arguably, non-citizens are exempted, though.
So, in keeping with the (idiotic) notion that the Bill of Rights lists a bunch of INDIVIDUAL Rights, except for the Second, which isn't an individual Right, we can assume that the Second PLUS the Militia Act REQUIRES every American male (presumably the ERA or similar legislation means it applies to women as well) to own a military grade firearm - full auto or selective fire, in 5.56mm NATO (the current round favoured by the Army).
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
But the 2nd Amendment is different as it is the only one that should be exercised responsibly, since it is the only one that can actually kill or injure.
Umm, bullshit. Words can kill and injure. Not just figuratively either. Words can cause all sorts of harm.
you must have missed the black tea party members open carrying....
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
If we read the 1st Amendment the way you are proposing we read the 2nd, your right to Free Speech would likewise come with the following restrictions:
Is that your proposal, or are you going to suggest, we apply self-inconsistent set of rules, when reading the Bill of Rights?
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
unrestricted gun rights the NRA continually lobbies for,
you mean, lobbying for the constitution. I know, its a horrible thing these days
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
You mean other than the part about "Being Batman"?
Oh Yeah, You forgot that the Supremes already weigh in on that issue...you lost.
Hope springs eternal...
Which is why I generally tell gun controllers that they are free to get the constitution changed because the 2nd amendment is pretty clear that this right "shall not be infringed" and until that is changed, gun ownership is generally going to be a fact in the USA.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
except for you have an understanding issue. "well regulated" at the time, meant in working order, not regulated by the government like we would understand it today.
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Now the mall has the 30.06 "no gun of any kind, including licensed concealed carry" posted at all the entries.
I always thought the Texas statute number was quite ironic.
Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
We have a nut job here who open-carried an AR-15 into a mall unannounced.
Yes, while it may have been legal to open carry a long gun into the mall, it was a stupid stunt. He should have just got his concealed permit and carried a weapon hidden so people would feel safer because they didn't know. I hope the mall management had him thrown out and told that if he returned they would have him arrested for trespassing. I hope they also posted the proper signage to make it clear that open carry would not be permitted on their private property while allowing licensed concealed carry.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
As ratified by the States:
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Original:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Initial proposal:
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.
Then there were a whole bunch of revisions that started
A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people,
They removed the definition of militia because it was deemed redundant and they removed the religious objection clause because it was covered under religious freedoms.
As a side note, reading the Journal of the Senate from 1789 is kind of interesting if you never have. Not only are they doing the Bill of Rights but also establishing a whole slew of the guidelines for how sessions of congress should be run.
I don't live in Texas for very good reasons. This Gun Mania is one of them.
Good catch. Me, too.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
Sure, when they print 3D guns on the state capitol lawn they are heroes, but when I tried to set up my meth lab on the state lawn I was hauled off like a common criminal. Still I won't be impressed until someone makes a 3D printed robot made out of guns that shoots guns.
That brings up an ironic, irritating, point.
The mall was is Texas, OK?
Some Texans are all mouthy about carrying guns in public to protect themselves and, Texas would be a LOT safer if ALL people open carried and bullshit.
Where were those pseudo super heroes when this asshole entered a mall with a fucking killing machine?
Another thing: IF someone with a concealed weapon had shot this goofy bastard, they would have gotten away with it.
This guy has a Facebook page and his crap is scary. He's a short Napoleonic anti-police freak. You KNOW the government has him flagged.
That will serve America well, after he goes ballistic.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
The difference between an "assault rifle" and an "assault weapon" is circular. A rifle is a weapon and a weapon can be a rifle.
The AR-15 is not a rabid gun, not to be confused with a rabbit gun.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
Actually, it's much better than that.
The guy had a gun store in the mall. The mall kicked him out and pasted the 30.06 weapon ban.
The police charged him with causing a disturbance (scaring people); confiscated his AR-15; ran ballistics on it and put that in a database; revoked his concealed weapon license; revoked his concealed weapon training certification and his small business tanked because people are afraid of the guy.
Open Carry Texas, a wingnut outfit in its own right, shunned him because, contrary to their mission statement, he actually made things worse.
The mall had a POLICY of no guns, but looked the other way. After this incident, the mall posted the 30.06 and the mall patrons who are licensed to carry said, "Thank a lot."
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
Hopefully they have made themselves aware of the most recent ATF ruling.
ATF Ruling 2015 1 Manufacturing and Gunsmithing - http://www.scribd.com/doc/2517...
Any person (including any corporation or other legal entity) engaged in the business of performing machining, molding, casting, forging, printing (additive manufacturing) or other manufacturing process to create a firearm frame or receiver, or to make a frame or receiver suitable for use as part of a “weapon which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive,” i.e., a “firearm,” must be licensed as a manufacturer under the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA); identify (mark) any such firearm; and maintain required manufacturer’s records. A business (including an association or society) may not avoid the manufacturing license, marking, and recordkeeping requirements of the GCA by allowing persons to perform manufacturing processes on firearms (including frames or receivers) using machinery or equipment under its dominion and control where that business controls access to, and use of, such machinery or equipment. ATF Ruling 2010-10 is hereby clarified.
You lost me at the "he had a gun store in the mall" part... How do you have a no gun policy and then allow a gun store? Seems to me that if you have a no-gun policy and then lease a space to a gun store and look the other way while the store is operating, your policy is really not a policy. But that doesn't excuse what he did. The rest of it he had coming.
Crying shame about the 30.06 notice though. That's why all this open carry blather where some yahoo decides to waltz though someplace with a long gun is generally going to have exactly the wrong effect like it did at Target, Starbucks and other places. Open carry in public? Ok with me, right up to the point you enter private property and disrupt some business with your stunt... Then, you need to be dealt with like the nut you are...
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Most gun control laws, as currently written, are unconstitutional. The reason they have stood for so long is either challenges were not brought, or the supremes refused to hear the case.
Heller and Peruta affirmed the individual right to bear arms for the purposes of individual self-defense as well as group defense . It is legal to manufacture firearms for personal use (and always has been). Licensing and serialization are only required if you choose to manufacture arms for sale to others.
The bottom line is that manufacturing your own weapons is legal - as per the ATF FAQ:
http://www.atf.gov/files/firea...
9. May I lawfully make a firearm for my own personal use, provided it is not being made for
resale?
Firearms may be lawfully made by persons who do not hold a manufacturer’s license under the GCA
provided they are not for sale or distribution and the maker is not prohibited from receiving or
possessing firearms. However, a person is prohibited from assembling a non-sporting semiautomatic
rifle or shotgun from 10 or more imported parts, as set forth in regulations in 27 C.F.R. 478.39. In
addition, the making of an NFA firearm requires a tax payment and advance approval by ATF. An
application to make a machinegun will not be approved unless documentation is submitted showing
that the firearm is being made for the official use of a Federal, State, or local government agency (18
U.S.C. 922(o),(r); 26 U.S.C. 5822; 27 C.F.R. 478.39, 479.62, and 479.105).
Currently there is a very pro-gun trend throughout the country. I do not see lawmakers stomaching any more gun-control any time soon. Personally, I would like to see many of our unconstitutional gun-control laws repealed or struck down by the courts.
Yeah, the mall came to regret the gun shop. However, while they had a no-open-carry policy, they did not object to weapons in carrying cases. They just looked the other way. They did allow store owners with concealed handgun licenses (CHL) to carry between the parking lot and straight to their places of business.
This guy had a CHL.
As you can appreciate, what with the news stories about gun-toting killers, the mall patrons shit their britches when this guy came in with an AR-15 strapped to his back.. I really am surprised a concealed weapon owner didn't shoot the goof ball.
Rabid gun rights people yell their heads off about the right to carry, but they don't bother to go to classes and stuff to get a CONCEALED handgun license.
Why the fucking obsession with open carry?
If a situation arose at that mall or some other business where a gunman went nuts, who's he gonna take out first?
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
Here is some clarification on the legal definition of "militia" in the US. United States Code TITLE 10 – ARMED FORCES SUBTITLE A – GENERAL MILITARY LAW PART I – ORGANIZATION AND GENERAL MILITARY POWERS CHAPTER 13 – THE MILITIA Section 311. Militia: composition and classes (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard. (b) The classes of the militia are - (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
You don't get to make up your own definitions.
Assault rifle has a clear definition. Select fire, long gun.
Assault weapon has no clear definition. Just the product of a stupid law.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
I do get to make up my own definitions if you don't know the difference between bullshit and wild honey.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
You're correct on the law, but you're off on the licensing bit.
Licensing and serialization are only required if you choose to manufacture arms for sale to others.
Automatic weapons are semi-banned, along with certain other types of weapons. All automatic weapons must be licensed by the ATF. They could change the law to include homemade weapons. Heller which you referenced makes note of common use for legal purposes restriction on firearms (I have a quote in an above post).
All you need is a length of steel pipe, a nail, a piece of wood, and a few other things that you can purchase at your local Home Depot for like 20 bucks. Just search for "pipe shotgun" on Youtube or Google. The "3D printing" makes for a good clickbait headline, but if you want a serviceable weapon, the $20 Home Depot Special is actually a better option, because it's more powerful and it won't blow up in your face.
"If a grandma had genitals of a man, she would be a grandpa". While I do think that carrying firearms onto the plane is a bad idea, in a critical situation like this, I'd rather a couple of folks on the plane had firearms or weapons of some sort. At the very least the pilots, and maybe some of the other staff.
It's already illegal for a felon to have a weapon, and it's already illegal for anyone to use a weapon in the commission of a crime (and last I checked, shooting people _not_ in self defense is still a crime in this country). So your lawmaking escapade seems to be a little misplaced.
I thought it was actually the federalist papers that suggested things like training, state sponsored classes, etc, not the 2nd amendment itself.
That was actually an editorialization on my part, because I feel it is just about the only additional, not currently existing regulation that actually complies with the wording and spirit of the 2nd Amendment.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
I guess I didn't see the link the first time.....
Oops...
The Militia Act REQUIRES members of the militia to own a military-grade firearm.
Could you quote the relevant part of the act? I'm familiar with "all males are militia" definition, but it's the first time I hear about the requirements.
I wouldn't call the AOW/SBS/SBR rules "sensible". As it is, an AR with 14-inch barrel is an SBR, and a 16-inch Tavor is not, even though the latter is significantly shorter than the former. If the point is to prevent overly concealable weapons, then only the overall length should matter.
And don't even get me started on the whole classification mess. Do you know, for example, that Mossberg JIC - the one with a pistol grip and no stock - is not a shotgun? Because shotgun is defined by law as a firearm designed to be fired when shouldered, so it needs a stock. It's not a pistol, either - a pistol is designed to be fired from one hand, and you need two hands for a pump. So it's an unclassified generic "firearm". Shorten the barrel, and it becomes an AOW (but not an SBS!). But if you take a regular Mossy with a rifle stock, replace that with a pistol grip, and then shorten it, then you get an SBS (because it started its life with a stock and therefore is a "shotgun"). It's a mess.
Has first hand experience with how having a gun is NOT effective in most self defense cases. He's also a comic genius.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fP3HJVp3n9c
Sure, the ATF could change anything they like, but are unlikely to do so without a mandate from elected officials.
An outright ban on homemade firearms would definitely trigger a SCOTUS eligible case. The ATF and anti-gunners do not want that until the SCOTUS deck can be stacked with more liberal judges.
Why do you assume the ATF is against gun ownership?
Not.
#JeSuisCharlie
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
When a massacre happens, such as yesterday in Paris or in at any school in the USA or just when a politician is shot in the face:
Gun activist say: "It wasn't gun owners!!!"
Religious Aplogists say: "It weren't Muslims!!!"
But as a journalist said this morning in the post:
" It's war, but only one side is shooting."
-- 29A the number of the Beast
Tell that to the mother of the two year old who played in mom's purse...oh, you cannot because the loaded and concealed weapon fired and killed the gun owner (mom). Guns in public are an incredibly safety hazard, especially with the legislation in some areas where murderers walk free claiming they "felt threatened". There is no limit on what the threats would be. If a loud car stereo is reason enough so might be an ugly christmas sweater or a baseball cap of the wrong team. Guns are designed to kill efficiently and with little effort. Why should it be fine to carry something that lethal around? And what does fall under "arms"? Smallpox virus? Enriched uranium? A canister of mustard gas? If anyone has these things in public they get instantly arrested and thrown in jail, but not for being a trigger happy concealed firearms fanatic? What the hell is wrong with this country???