GUNS DON'T KILL PEOPLE, OR DO THEY?

[HairOfTheDog]

I don't know of any firearm that is actually federally banned HotD. There are those that are heavily regulated like fully automatic firearms, silencers, SBR, SBS, etc. In reality its all just a money game for the feds. They really don't care what you own as long as you pay the tax stamp to own it. Now some states have banned some types of firearms and accessories, but that is at the state level.

Thanks F.U.

I understand now. Despite suggestions by some gun enthusiasts way upthread and elsewhere, there's no federal ban on the sell of combat weapons or assault weapons, etc...

Even fully automatic weapons aren't banned nationally, despite suggestions by some gun enthusiasts way upthread and elsewhere. The military moved away from automatic machine-gun type weapons for efficiency's sake (wasted ammo, accuracy issues...) and thus they aren't as widely manufactured or available as they once were. But, they aren't banned and can be legally sold to someone for a $200 federal transfer tax if the purchaser passes a federal background check and undergoes 10-print fingerprints.

However, I think the "word game" on both sides should stop. Lots of guns are semi-automatic and don't look like military rifles; a person may own them with no intention of assaulting anyone or looking bad-ass.

So, in my opinion, while it's not wholly inaccurate to label semi-automatics "assault rifles", it would be better to call them "semi-automatics" and reserve the label "assault weapons" for automatic firing guns.

As far as the Concealed Carry permit/license holders go, I don't understand why they should have to do the NICS check. When a person files for those permits they background check is actually completed by the CLEO at that time. So why should they be subjected to twice the amount of paperwork just because they have went through the right channels and done things the right way?

You want to carry a gun in public legally, you do so according to laws in that state - many of which require you to obtain a concealed carry permit. There's no gold star for civilians carrying concealed weapons and doing it "the right way". Anything less would just be breaking the law.

You and Six give me the impression that you think people who hold CCLs are an elite group that should be afforded special privileges beyond the privilege already afforded (carrying a gun in public legally). It's not rational to me. People with CCLs can break laws after getting that license to carry, just like everyone else. And, they can travel or move to another state to buy guns, just like everyone else.

Their ability to pass a national background check again can change depending on their actions since the last time they passed one, just like everyone else.

In my opinion, creating special exceptions for CCL holders when it comes to national regulations is unwarranted and less safe. It makes more sense to simply treat all individual would-be gun purchasers equally when it comes to easy national transaction-specific regulations.

But, I can see some politicians agreeing to leave CCL holder exemptions (in regards to new national regulations) up to the states for strategic reasons. And, it wouldn't surprise me if CCL holders break the law less often than other gun owners.