Biden's New ATF Nominee and New Gun Control Efforts

[Belsnickel]

So, in case anyone missed this yesterday, but this shit show was an interesting one.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2022/04/11/press-briefing-by-press-secretary-jen-psaki-april-11-2022/

I'm going to go through some points in this speech and talk about them a little bit.

Quote:Buyers aren’t required to pass background checks.  Because guns have no serial numbers — these guns — when they show up at a crime scene, they can’t be traced.  Harder to find and prove who used them.  Meaning you can’t connect the gun to the shooter and hold them accountable.

Biden talks a few times about these kits. These are sometimes called "P80s" or "Polymer 80s". These kits re 80% complete lowers/receivers/frames which means they aren't a firearm in and of themselves. They require the buyer to complete and assemble the firearm. So what's the big deal? Well, this changes already defined and approved items for sale. These definitions are also made by law, so an executive agency changing this is not exactly something that should be done.

I am also genuinely curious about the number of 80% lowers being found at crime scenes, too. I'm not really buying this. Criminals aren't the types to put the work into these projects and then leave it at a crime scene. They may have stolen them or bought one off of someone which would already be illegal and wouldn't be solved with these regulations. 

Quote:I was getting criticized when I first passed this law when I was a senator.  And guess what?  I was down in southern Delaware — they do a lot of hunting and fishing down there — and I was walking up one of the creek beds.  And a guy standing said, “You want to take my gun?”  I said, “I don’t want to take your gun.”  He said, “Well, you’re telling me I can’t have more than X number of bullets in a — in a — in my gun.”  And I said, “What — do you think the deer you’re hunting wear Kevlar vests?  What the hell you need 20 bullets for?  You must be a hell of a terrible shot.”  (Laughter.)

This has always been a stupid line. Now, I say this as an avid hunter that uses a single-shot rifle or a bolt action with three rounds. The whole Kevlar vest thing, though? More bullets doesn't help that. AP rounds do.

Quote:Outright banning the sale and possession of un-serialized guns.

From the very beginnings of this country, through all of the gun control laws passed, the one thing that has stood is that Americans could make their own firearms. You can't sell them, but you can make them. That's the law, and there is no regulation done through executive action that could change that legally. 

Quote:Eliminate gun manufacturers’ immunity from liability.  They’re the only outfit — (applause) — they’re the only outfit in the country that is immune.

Quote:Look, this is incredibly rare because gun manufacturers have more immunity from liability than any other American industry, so they have never had to take responsibility for the death and destruction their products cause.  But as part of this settlement, Remington agreed to release thousands of pages of internal documents.

Not true. What they are attempting to do is place additional liability that is beyond what is normally done on the firearms industry. No other industry is held liable for what their end consumers do with their legally produced products. Period. If I go stab someone with my pocket knife, Benchmade isn't getting sued. If I run someone over with my car, Subaru isn't getting sued. If I kick someone in the face, Danner isn't getting sued. Why should Glock get sued if I shoot someone?

Quote:And, by the way — it’s going to sound bizarre — I support the Second Amendment.  You have a right.  But from the very beginning, the Second Amendment didn’t say you can own any gun you want, big as you want.  You couldn’t buy a cannon when, in fact, the Second Amendment passed.  And certain people from the very beginning weren’t allowed to purchase guns.  It’s nothing new.  It’s just rational.

Actually, you've always been able to buy a cannon. Still can. From the very beginning until today we have allowed our people to own cannons. We've even contracted people with cannons to use them for us ever since the early days of our country. We hired privateers which were private citizens that owned a ton of cannons and set them loose on our enemies.

Quote:Today, to lead and support the dedicated men and women of the AFT [ATF], I am proud to nominate Steve Del- — Dettelbach — excuse me, I mispronounced your name — I just — as Director of Bureau of Al- — Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

Steve is immensely qualified.  He served the Department of Justice for two decades.  He worked side by side to support the work of federal, state, and local law enforcement, including AFT [ATF] agents.  And one of those was he — a case he was — personally tried as a U.S. Attorney, where the serial arsonist firebombed the courthouses and police headquarters in Mansfield, Ohio.

Again!? Seriously? And not just once, but at least three times he calls it the AFT. After the fiasco last time you would think they would have been more keen on reining that it. 

[Sled21]

The number of these guns found at crime scenes is less than 1%. Criminals do not buy kits and assemble guns, they steal them or buy them from other crooks. These lowers without serial numbers are bought by people who do not want the Government to know they have an AR style gun. Not because they have nefarious intentions, they just don't want to deal with the often promised banning and confiscation of these weapons. It's the same reason a lot of people buy guns from private sellers who don't have to track the sales. If the Democrats would   quit threatening to take these guns, currently the most popular rifles on the market for good reason, then no one would care about these things. And if anyone believes Joe Biden's hunting story, I can't help you. It's the same as his train story, his baseball story, etc. They are all hallucinations or flat out lies.The Second Amendment was not and is not about hunting, it is about being able to defend oneself. And for self-defense, the AR is a perfect choice.

As far as the "Ghost Guns" go, ooooo scary title. 

[BigPapaKain]

Ugh. Gun control is a net loss for Democrats and they're too stupid to realize that many on the left are avid 2nd Amendment advocates. All this does is alienate that voting base (the more liberal ones sure as shit won't vote R in their current state).

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

I appreciate you making this thread, Bel. I was going to, but I'm known by some as the extreme 2A guy and anything I'd post would be discounted because I posted it. Also, it's been a very trying couple of weeks at work as we deal with more "progressive" bullshit. As you correctly point out Biden is both outright lying but also fabricating a problem that does not exist. I have literally never found a 80% lower subsequent build at a crime scene or found one to be used in a crime. Let me repeat, not once in twenty plus years. it's a made up problem that Biden can roll out a bullshit solution to to satisfy the idiot like David Hogg and Shannon Watts. But the gun control groups have exposed themselves as frauds long ago. One need look no further than the recent gang shooting in Sacramento. Not one word about the main shooter being a violent criminal that was released obscenely early against the objections of the prosecution. Nope, the problem is guns! Now Biden is nominating stealth Chipman for the ATF job. It's bullshit on top of bullshit.


A few things need to happen. One, the ATF needs to lose any and all responsibility for categorizing firearms. They change them on a whim and their categories are as arbitrary as they are stupid, as exemplified by the following;



Congress needs to pass a law defining what makes a firearm, and what type, and that needs to be the end of it. Of course, this will have to be done with a GOP controlled Congress, otherwise it will be just as stupid and nonsensical as what we currently have. Secondly, if you're actually concerned about gun violence, then you should be lobbying for harsh punishments for those who use a firearm during a crime or are carrying illegally. If you're not doing this then you're not really serious about addressing gun violence. Lastly, repeal the NFA.

[GMDino]

(04-13-2022, 01:46 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: So, in case anyone missed this yesterday, but this shit show was an interesting one.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2022/04/11/press-briefing-by-press-secretary-jen-psaki-april-11-2022/

I'm going to go through some points in this speech and talk about them a little bit.


Biden talks a few times about these kits. These are sometimes called "P80s" or "Polymer 80s". These kits re 80% complete lowers/receivers/frames which means they aren't a firearm in and of themselves. They require the buyer to complete and assemble the firearm. So what's the big deal? Well, this changes already defined and approved items for sale. These definitions are also made by law, so an executive agency changing this is not exactly something that should be done.

I am also genuinely curious about the number of 80% lowers being found at crime scenes, too. I'm not really buying this. Criminals aren't the types to put the work into these projects and then leave it at a crime scene. They may have stolen them or bought one off of someone which would already be illegal and wouldn't be solved with these regulations. 



This has always been a stupid line. Now, I say this as an avid hunter that uses a single-shot rifle or a bolt action with three rounds. The whole Kevlar vest thing, though? More bullets doesn't help that. AP rounds do.





From the very beginnings of this country, through all of the gun control laws passed, the one thing that has stood is that Americans could make their own firearms. You can't sell them, but you can make them. That's the law, and there is no regulation done through executive action that could change that legally. 




Not true. What they are attempting to do is place additional liability that is beyond what is normally done on the firearms industry. No other industry is held liable for what their end consumers do with their legally produced products. Period. If I go stab someone with my pocket knife, Benchmade isn't getting sued. If I run someone over with my car, Subaru isn't getting sued. If I kick someone in the face, Danner isn't getting sued. Why should Glock get sued if I shoot someone?





Actually, you've always been able to buy a cannon. Still can. From the very beginning until today we have allowed our people to own cannons. We've even contracted people with cannons to use them for us ever since the early days of our country. We hired privateers which were private citizens that owned a ton of cannons and set them loose on our enemies. 





Again!? Seriously? And not just once, but at least three times he calls it the AFT. After the fiasco last time you would think they would have been more keen on reining that it. 

I don't know if we need another regulation on this, I saw a few articles that individual states have banned them already, but here's an article from January of this year about the rise in the number of them found with criminals and at crime scenes.  

https://www.pleasantonweekly.com/news/2022/01/30/astronomical-rise-in-ghost-guns-has-law-enforcement-worried

(Long article so I won't copy and paste.)

So I also don't know if the number 1% or 80% but it seems to a problem that law enforcement is facing.  Particularly in the western US.

[Belsnickel]

(04-13-2022, 09:46 PM)GMDino Wrote: I don't know if we need another regulation on this, I saw a few articles that individual states have banned them already, but here's an article from January of this year about the rise in the number of them found with criminals and at crime scenes.  

https://www.pleasantonweekly.com/news/2022/01/30/astronomical-rise-in-ghost-guns-has-law-enforcement-worried

(Long article so I won't copy and paste.)

So I also don't know if the number 1% or 80% but it seems to a problem that law enforcement is facing.  Particularly in the western US.

Here's my issues with it. First and foremost, this isn't the role of a regulatory agency. Changing a definition laid out in law requires a law to happen. Regulatory authority is not allowed to override/supersede legislative action.

Now we can get into the reasons this is redundant and unnecessary. If someone sells a homemade firearm, 3D printed, from a kit, whatever, and it isn't serialized and all that then it is illegal. If someone steals a firearm, with or without a serial number on it, that is illegal. If they are in possession of a firearm, whether serialized or not, and they are ineligible to own a firearm due to a loss of their rights then that is illegal. If they use a firearm in the commission of a crime, that is illegal. If they possess a firearm and use illegal drugs, that is illegal.

All of these things are already illegal. Requiring serial numbers, which won't be put on the illegally created/transferred firearms with or without a law, isn't going to change that or improve anything. So why pass this law? It's about control. Law abiding citizens have found a way to own firearms that the government doesn't get to know about and that's scary to the government. That's it. These laws will do nothing to move the needle on this issue, but they will make criminals out of law abiding citizens.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-13-2022, 09:46 PM)GMDino Wrote: I don't know if we need another regulation on this, I saw a few articles that individual states have banned them already, but here's an article from January of this year about the rise in the number of them found with criminals and at crime scenes.  

https://www.pleasantonweekly.com/news/2022/01/30/astronomical-rise-in-ghost-guns-has-law-enforcement-worried

(Long article so I won't copy and paste.)

So I also don't know if the number 1% or 80% but it seems to a problem that law enforcement is facing.  Particularly in the western US.

I'm not really going to get into the nuts and bolts of the article, mainly because I don't have the patience to do so and I doubt it would be received by some anyways.  But I will comment on this choice bit;

"While serialized guns "tell a story" of where they came from, trying to trace a ghost gun back to its source, or to related crimes, is a significant challenge."

The underlined bit is 100% bullshit.  A home manufactured firearm still uses a rifled barrel.  Consequently it will leave the same rifling marks on a fired round that any other gun will leave, hence this statement is blatantly false.  Fired rounds can be linked to these firearms just as easily as any other.  

[GMDino]

(04-13-2022, 10:06 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Here's my issues with it. First and foremost, this isn't the role of a regulatory agency. Changing a definition laid out in law requires a law to happen. Regulatory authority is not allowed to override/supersede legislative action.

Now we can get into the reasons this is redundant and unnecessary. If someone sells a homemade firearm, 3D printed, from a kit, whatever, and it isn't serialized and all that then it is illegal. If someone steals a firearm, with or without a serial number on it, that is illegal. If they are in possession of a firearm, whether serialized or not, and they are ineligible to own a firearm due to a loss of their rights then that is illegal. If they use a firearm in the commission of a crime, that is illegal. If they possess a firearm and use illegal drugs, that is illegal.

All of these things are already illegal. Requiring serial numbers, which won't be put on the illegally created/transferred firearms with or without a law, isn't going to change that or improve anything. So why pass this law? It's about control. Law abiding citizens have found a way to own firearms that the government doesn't get to know about and that's scary to the government. That's it. These laws will do nothing to move the needle on this issue, but they will make criminals out of law abiding citizens.

Like I said I didn't know if *another* law makes anything any better.  I was more commenting on that these guns are a problem of these guns being used is larger than nil-1%.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-13-2022, 10:06 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Here's my issues with it. First and foremost, this isn't the role of a regulatory agency. Changing a definition laid out in law requires a law to happen. Regulatory authority is not allowed to override/supersede legislative action.

Now we can get into the reasons this is redundant and unnecessary. If someone sells a homemade firearm, 3D printed, from a kit, whatever, and it isn't serialized and all that then it is illegal. If someone steals a firearm, with or without a serial number on it, that is illegal. If they are in possession of a firearm, whether serialized or not, and they are ineligible to own a firearm due to a loss of their rights then that is illegal. If they use a firearm in the commission of a crime, that is illegal. If they possess a firearm and use illegal drugs, that is illegal.

All of these things are already illegal. Requiring serial numbers, which won't be put on the illegally created/transferred firearms with or without a law, isn't going to change that or improve anything. So why pass this law? It's about control. Law abiding citizens have found a way to own firearms that the government doesn't get to know about and that's scary to the government. That's it. These laws will do nothing to move the needle on this issue, but they will make criminals out of law abiding citizens.

Every single proposed gun control law within the last twenty years falls under this category.  You can't legislate away criminality.  Firearms are, and always will be, easier to obtain here than anywhere else.  Bad people will do bad things with them.  No new law will prevent or even mitigate that.  Law abiding citizens will not commit crimes with them, regardless of how many new laws you pass.  Politicians do this only because doing things that would actually lower gun related crime are often difficult to enact and have no immediate impact (social programs for example) or are politically toxic for Dems, like actually putting criminals in prison for a very long time.

I'll return to the recent Sacramento mass murder, which would not have happened if CA hadn't let a violent criminal out of prison four years into a ten year sentence.  Now new law required here, just remove criminals from society.  It worked that last thirty or so years until the Dems blew it the eff up.

[Sled21]

(04-13-2022, 10:18 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I'm not really going to get into the nuts and bolts of the article, mainly because I don't have the patience to do so and I doubt it would be received by some anyways.  But I will comment on this choice bit;

"While serialized guns "tell a story" of where they came from, trying to trace a ghost gun back to its source, or to related crimes, is a significant challenge."

The underlined bit is 100% bullshit.  A home manufactured firearm still uses a rifled barrel.  Consequently it will leave the same rifling marks on a fired round that any other gun will leave, hence this statement is blatantly false.  Fired rounds can be linked to these firearms just as easily as any other.  

Right, when you use a home printed lower (which normally would come from the manufacturer with a serial number), you still have to buy the upper, which is the barrel, bolt, firing pin, etc. These still leave the same tool marks on the round going down the barrel and on the ejected casing. If home printed lowers are such a problem, then the quick fix is make the manufacturer stamp the upper with the serial number instead of the lower. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-14-2022, 09:05 AM)Sled21 Wrote: Right, when you use a home printed lower (which normally would come from the manufacturer with a serial number), you still have to buy the upper, which is the barrel, bolt, firing pin, etc. These still leave the same tool marks on the round going down the barrel and on the ejected casing. If home printed lowers are such a problem, then the quick fix is make the manufacturer stamp the upper with the serial number instead of the lower. 

Which I would have zero issue with, as long as they don't classify the upper as a firearm as well as the lower.

[Sled21]

(04-14-2022, 10:49 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Which I would have zero issue with, as long as they don't classify the upper as a firearm as well as the lower.

There classification system is stupid. My Sig P-320C that I carry everyday has the serial number on the trigger assembly (Fire control system). I can change barrels, slides, grips and transform it from a carry pistol to a full size pistol, have umpteen barrels and the serial number goes with the fire control module. So under the new proposal, I can buy all the frame assemblies, grips, magazines etc I want and none of them are marked,  but I can't make a lower assembly for an AR which in and of itself is nothing but a piece of plastic.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-14-2022, 11:42 AM)Sled21 Wrote: There classification system is stupid. My Sig P-320C that I carry everyday has the serial number on the trigger assembly (Fire control system). I can change barrels, slides, grips and transform it from a carry pistol to a full size pistol, have umpteen barrels and the serial number goes with the fire control module. So under the new proposal, I can buy all the frame assemblies, grips, magazines etc I want and none of them are marked,  but I can't make a lower assembly for an AR which in and of itself is nothing but a piece of plastic.

That's definitely the way blue states are heading.  CA wants to make any part of a firearm a "firearm" for purchasing purposes.  I bought a Sig P229EE in .40 (a caliber my friend who owns the shop absolutely loathes) specifically because you could then purchase a barrel in .357 SIG, swap it in for the original barrel and use the exact same magazines.  I like to have a wide variety of options, especially here, as you never know what's going to be available ammo wise.

In any event, the Dems keep stepping in it on this issue and I really hope that SCOTUS puts a finer point on Heller this summer so we can start knocking these unconstitutional restrictions off the books.

[Belsnickel]

(04-14-2022, 11:42 AM)Sled21 Wrote: There classification system is stupid. My Sig P-320C that I carry everyday has the serial number on the trigger assembly (Fire control system). I can change barrels, slides, grips and transform it from a carry pistol to a full size pistol, have umpteen barrels and the serial number goes with the fire control module. So under the new proposal, I can buy all the frame assemblies, grips, magazines etc I want and none of them are marked,  but I can't make a lower assembly for an AR which in and of itself is nothing but a piece of plastic.

As a Glock fanboy, believe me I understand. The amount of aftermarket tinkering I do with my pistols is ridiculous. Granted, the slide, barrel, and frame are all serialized. However, it is only the frame that matters. I can get aftermarket slides, barrels, and everything else with no serial numbers or mismatched one (the OEM Gen 5 barrels are actually pretty damn good and Glock serializes them).

[HarleyDog]

(04-13-2022, 06:40 PM)Sled21 Wrote:  if anyone believes Joe Biden's hunting story, I can't help you. It's the same as his train story, his baseball story, etc. They are all hallucinations or flat out lies.

Corn Pop was a bad dude!

[*bengalfan74*]

(04-13-2022, 10:33 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Every single proposed gun control law within the last twenty years falls under this category.  You can't legislate away criminality.  Firearms are, and always will be, easier to obtain here than anywhere else.  Bad people will do bad things with them.  No new law will prevent or even mitigate that.  Law abiding citizens will not commit crimes with them, regardless of how many new laws you pass.  Politicians do this only because doing things that would actually lower gun related crime are often difficult to enact and have no immediate impact (social programs for example) or are politically toxic for Dems, like actually putting criminals in prison for a very long time.

I'll return to the recent Sacramento mass murder, which would not have happened if CA hadn't let a violent criminal out of prison four years into a ten year sentence.  Now new law required here, just remove criminals from society.  It worked that last thirty or so years until the Dems blew it the eff up.

It sure seems many people just don't get this.  I remember a few days after the battle of L.A. or whatever back in the 90's. (The bank robbery where the two criminals have full auto AK's and wore body armor). Anyways some senator was proposing a law banning body armor. Going to save the world ??

I'm sure all the criminals got together that night at a big group meeting. Bad news fellas, we can't wear body armor while committing a crime anymore. 

[Sled21]

(04-14-2022, 09:42 PM)bengalfan74 Wrote: It sure seems many people just don't get this.  I remember a few days after the battle of L.A. or whatever back in the 90's. (The bank robbery where the two criminals have full auto AK's and wore body armor). Anyways some senator was proposing a law banning body armor. Going to save the world ??

I'm sure all the criminals got together that night at a big group meeting. Bad news fellas, we can't wear body armor while committing a crime anymore. 

Every time I hear a Politician say "we need to ban (insert inanimate object here) to cut down on crime" I wonder to myself, are they really that stupid, or do they just think their constituents are that stupid. 

[masonbengals fan]

Further proof you get the government that you vote for.

[*Nately120*]

(04-20-2022, 08:58 AM)masonbengals fan Wrote: Further proof you get the government that you vote for.

https://www.lp.org/


If I may elaborate a bit, in my usual way of blaming the D vs R system, I'll say the 2A is probably in danger from both sides.  Democrats want gun control, you have sneaky neo-republicans like Reagan and Trump signing gun control laws and getting little to no flack over it, and you have the GOP legitimizing insane people like Bobert and MTG who won't shut the hell up about using guns to overthrow a president that over 81 million people voted for.

There are just so many people in who make guns and gun owners look completely insane by flashing their pieces as if they were rappers and then imploring people to use their 2A rights to overthrow a government because it is their duty to do so because "trust us, it was totally rigged."  Also, look how awesome I look shooting a gun in my political ad.  Guns guns guns, nuts nuts nuts, tyrant tyrant tyrant, overthrow, target, fight, take back your country etc.  I can see how having people like these as representatives of gun owners could really send people towards the "yay gun control" side.

Ah well.  Rant mode off.

[GreenDragon]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-TWbnLvjRB8