- cross-posted to:
- liberalgunowners@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- liberalgunowners@lemmy.world
You must log in or # to comment.
This is not a great analogy, blue states do sometimes pass legislation that rhymes with these types of identity-based threats to gun rights. It is sometimes prohibitively difficult to get a CHL in certain states when your chosen name doesn’t match your legal name. A few years ago Oregon almost passed an act by citizen referendum that would have had police precincts be responsible for verifying that identities matched licenses, with desk cops screening people’s psych histories ("Uh, their license says Samuel, male but the document says Samantha, female? Oh and what’s this, they’re on several medications including a mood stabilizer? Denied.'). I’m glad that OP’s poster isn’t pitching their hypothetical analogy as a positive, but I want to be clear for the people playing team sports with their politics that identity-based rights abuses are all bad.
But yes, that Oregon referendum did get modified to remove the potentially abusive parts. And yes, it was because Republicans and libertarian types semi-successfully challenged it in court.
Those are not currently requisites for owning a gun or rifle in the US ?
Nope. Because of loopholes like private sales, someone can privately purchase a firearm from another person with basically nothing more than a look in the eye, a firm handshake and an exchange of money.
To purchase from a gun store there are rules and regulations that apply, and a very simple background check but really it doesn’t take much, and with enough money most processes can be “sped up”
There are so many conditions on private sale that this answer is essentially incorrect. The vast majority of Americans live in a state that either requires that private sales go through an FFL (The federal firearm dealer license) or has other background check requirements with failure penalties on the seller severe enough that you’d want to protect yourself by going through an FFL anyway. And private sale across state lines is federally illegal, eg someone in Missouri can’t do a private sale to someone from Oregon. And you cannot “speed up” a federal background check with money, the check is not run by the FFL themselves, they’re just a trustworthy party that submits your paperwork to the feds. The wait time is entirely dependent on federal backlog and one’s law enforcement records.
Law firm site with a list of private sale laws per state: https://www.findlaw.com/consumer/consumer-transactions/private-gun-sale-laws-by-state.html
I have an anecdote, albeit a little old. Circa 2010 I was living in the US (WI). Traded an old bar fridge I didn’t need to a friend for a 30-06 rifle. It was the first firearm I owned while living there. I then went to my local police and asked if there was any kind of registration process I should go through and they said nope, we don’t care. Not saying you’re wrong, just one experience I had.
When I bought a shotgun from a store after that I did have to wait 3 days, I presumed at the time because I wasn’t a citizen.
Your anecdote checks out, Wisconsinites are among the minority of Americans with no additional private sale requirements.
Your 3 day background check wait probably wasn’t all because you’re a non-citizen, that’s a fairly typical wait time. Mine have all been less than 48 hours though, presumably cause on paper I’m a god damned boy scout.
Also, not even a part of that act, but just buy virtue of an executive order, all states must register all gun owners and share that registry to a central federal body who will use knowingly outdated and massively incorrect data (and probably politically motivated bullshit as well) to automatically remove people from the registration without notification and make exercising gun ownership a felony if you’re not on that registry. And any state that doesn’t submit to this will have all of their citizen’s ability to use federal services curtailed, and likely more punishments later like restricting federal dollars they are owed.
Ok but like, this is basically how it is already. Then look at Illinois, there’s an entire extra license you need to get to even buy or own a gun or ammo
I have a problem with the last two conditions specifically. I should not lose my rights because someone else fucked up.
As a disclaimer - I’m a liberal (well, actually registered independent, because I feel the dems are too conservative on many things) and don’t currently own a gun currently, but I believe 2nd amendment rights are for all Americans. It’s a core tenet of our constitution.
What about the G.U.N. act instead?
Oddly enough it works like this for silencers to my understanding. And concealed carry to an extent.
But yeah people would riot without their guns
And people think sound suppressors are only for assassins. What if I just want to do some target shooting without blowing out my ear drums? It’s a valid reasoning.
Removed by mod
They really should call them dampeners, because you still need hearing protection while using a silencer
No you do not, that’s the point. Especially if shooting subsonic ammo through a suppressor.
Maybe .22 but anything else is still gonna be loud enough you’ll want foam plugs at least.
That’s squarely incorrect and ill-informed.
I use suppressors.
Well your patiently incorrect then, as anything over 85db will cause hearing damage from prolonged exposure.
Depends on the caliber and shooting environment. Some suppressed rifles can still be 140dB or more, which is the burst threshold where hearing loss can occur
Wtf does that matter?
They perform as suppressors, in some cases they act as a silencer by making them extremely quiet. In most cases they suppress the sound, so what’s the point of your semantics based reply?
In almost all cases the firearm becomes “hearing safe” where one does not need earpro.
I actually own and employ suppressors. Folks who call them silencers are hollywood informed and not particularly experienced.
Either way the original claim is plain incorrect, no matter how many lems downvote.
edit: y’all downvoters are some dum ass ill-informed lembs (see what I did there, lol!)
You replied to a blanket statement with a blanket statement. “You still need hearing protection with a silencer,” and “No you don’t.”
Now you’ve narrowed the scope.
In almost all cases the firearm becomes “hearing safe” where one does not need earpro.
That’s good. But don’t pretend you weren’t wrong to begin with.
A suppressed .308 report is 147-151 dB. .308 Winchester is by no means an exotic cartridge.
My “semantic” argument is that if you take a hunting rifle out on the range and run it with a suppressor and no ear protection, you are exceeding the threshold where hearing loss can occur.
The answer to “You still need hearing protection with a silencer,” is not “No,” it is “It depends.”
yo scops, this is so fucking pedantic and truly pointless
Original ill-informed commenter made a blanket statement and I replied with experience and accuracy. please read it again as I clearly state “especially with subsonic ammo”
I shoot both my AR and .308 without earpro. While the bullet still go supersonic and there’s a crack, it’s entirely safe and I do not need earpro.
When I shoot 22lr and .38s it’s Hollywood quiet, when I shoot subsonic 9mm it’s quiet but not anything special.
Grow up scops. This one of the most pointless exchanges I’ve had on Lemmy.
Ear protection.
Not nearly as cool, unfortunately
Seems like its like this in most States. I know waiting periods are pretty common (pay today, but don’t get possession or the firearm for 1-4 weeks).
It also seems like mail order of complete guns directly to a residential address is pretty locked down (I know 80% guns and such have loop holes). Its my understanding that you’ve got to have it delivered to a licensed gun dealer, then you can collect it there where they’re can do any requisite ID / document checks. Bet this varies state by state though, as well as the bar for constituting a “licensed gun dealer”.
Because an 80% is not a gun.
The only entity allowed to mail a gun directly to your home is the federal government, through the CMP. No one else can legally do it as far as I know.
Maybe C&R stuff is allowed, but I’ve never dealt with it.
The only real difference is presenting original documents. NICS is already a bureaucratic process that can’t easily be fixed if you’re flagged.
Conservatives and the right don’t care if they’re being hypocritical or ignoring how this applies to something they do like. They want the SAVE act because it will benefit them or their side, specifically, not because it’s “a good law for everyone” and they don’t want a gun version of it because it will restrict them, specifically. they’d probably be fine with a gun version that only restricts Democrats, “the left”, trans people, people of color, and any other “outsider”.
I would not support this. While I support gun control, the SAVE act is designed to discriminate against women. I don’t want to grab women by the pistol.
Forgive my ignorance but I’m not well versed on this and don’t quite get it. How exactly does it discriminate against women?
Because women’s names change with marriage, and will no longer match their original documents. As written, the act would discriminate against anyone who has had a name change, but the vast majority of those are married women.
Now that’s some serious fucking bullshit holy shit
In addition to what erin said, I also want to point out that changing your name does not automatically change your name in the vital records. You have to do that yourself and it’s not that intuitive, plus it costs additional money on top of the other name change costs.
Being trans, I have experienced that myself and due to wording on the court order and from what the judge told to me, I incorrectly believed my birth record would automatically get updated. According to the vital record support person I talked to, that’s actually a really common mistake and happens all the time.
I’m sure there are many people with outdated records simply because they too incorrectly believed that it would be an automatic thing. For some it’s probably even intentional if they feel their married name doesn’t belong on their birth record.
This sounds outlandish to me tbh. Part of it is that in my culture women don’t take the husband’s name (unless they specifically want to) but also wdym it’s not automatic in all records that seems like some gross incompetence (or a scam to get more emoney out of folks)
wdym it’s not automatic
Dawg I said that too when I found out.
(Also I like your culture, we should get to keep our names (unless we don’t want to))
Most wouldn’t and that’s kinda the point?
Americans are a funny breed of chimps. They wax poetic about the 2nd amendment and how they need it to protect themselves from a tyrannical government when a guy with mental health issues goes in and shoots up a school murdering innocent children and teachers.
But when they actually need to put that line item into action, they’re swinging deep into the forests away from any type of conflict.
Trump has proven that the American constitution isn’t worth the paper it’s written on and has the resale value of a roll of toilet paper.
Enjoy fascism American. You’ve voted for this shit, twice.
You’ve voted for this shit, twice.
The bigger problem is that too many people didn’t vote at all in 16/24, leading to this. So many citizens will aggressively refuse to take any responsibility for the orange turd despite not doing the bare minimum to try to stop it.
I’ve gotten to the point where nonvoters opinions are worthless to me. If you can’t express your opinion when it counts, I don’t care about it for the other 3.999 years. Clearly it doesn’t matter to you, why should it matter to me?
That will surely get them to vote.
Unless you don’t want them to vote.
“You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make them drink”
I advocate that people vote in the general. If you choose not to, you’ve already said your opinion isn’t worth anything. Why should I give a fuck about the opinion you chose not to express when it mattered?
There are many reasons people choose not to vote and it’s not the one you gave. I’m very glad I don’t live in a place like Australia where I’m forced to vote for someone that doesn’t represent my values. By voting for a candidate I am saying that I endorse them and what they will do. I’m partly responsible for what happens if they’re elected. Usually no candidate on the ballot comes even close to meeting those criteria. And you might argue that’s not what voting for a candidate means. But that’s definitely how it’s received. Think about it: if you knew someone voted for Trump twice you’d immediately assume they’re hardcore MAGA. To you there’s only one acceptable answer, one acceptable opinion. Someday maybe you’ll realize the world is extremely complex, that you’ve been living in a bubble, that you meant well but were lied to. The lesser of two evils is still evil and does evil things. Voting becomes a lot harder when you own the consequences.
By voting for a candidate I am saying that I endorse them and what they will do. I’m partly responsible for what happens if they’re elected.
And by not voting, you’re tacitly approving everything the winner does because you didn’t care enough to make your opinion heard and you’re partially responsible for their actions. Past that, the reasoning is immaterial and the opinion won’t be considered very highly.
In the US example, where only 60 some percent of the population chose to vote, millions of people didn’t care enough to prevent trump, so they tacitly approve of it because they chose not to show up. Because of the way US voting works, it defacto helps the right, and is why the right is the only ones this century who won while losing the popular vote.
Usually no candidate on the ballot comes even close to meeting those criteria. And you might argue that’s not what voting for a candidate means. But that’s definitely how it’s received
Not taking action when you have the ability is an action in itself, and non-voters don’t get to shirk responsibility for the outcome when they also made a choice to let the masses decide. No candidate is perfect, and if you let perfect be the enemy of progress, your opinion isn’t worth jack.
Someday maybe you’ll realize the world is extremely complex, that you’ve been living in a bubble, that you meant well but were lied to
Nah, when one party is literally snatching people off the street, and we knew this would be the result, there is no nuance to be found.
The lesser of two evils is still evil and does evil things.
So let the greater evil win, right? Fuck everyone who will suffer and die because the alternative doesn’t have clean hands, correct?
Voting is literally the trolley problem, and so many people show they’d gladly let thousands die so they don’t have to have a hand on the lever.
Voting becomes a lot harder when you own the consequences.
Lol, peak fucking copium. But nonvoters love to find anyway to justify letting the worst of us take control again. Weak people love not doing anything and taking the high road to do so. It’s really sad and pathetic, but exactly the mentality I expect to see
Maybe read your comment in a few years when you’ve had a chance to grow up and realize that this is an evil world when you refuse to try to make it better, even if making it better means preventing it from being worse.
Complete nonsense
I’m very glad I don’t live in a place like Australia where I’m forced to vote for someone that doesn’t represent my values.
I’m glad I live in Australia where our democracy is much more representative of the will of the people rather than just those who bother to show up. Firstly, while it is compulsory to show up and get your name marked off, you are totally free to leave your ballot paper blank or draw a massive veiny dick on it (and if you number the boxes correctly it’ll even be counted). Secondly, because we have preferential (ranked choice) voting you can vote for the candidate you want to vote for without throwing your vote away. Your vote is an expression of preference, not a declaration of absolute loyalty and support.
Well if their opinion doesn’t matter then why bother voting? They’re probably idiots anyway
Well if their opinion doesn’t matter then why bother voting?
That’s their decision, they’re more than welcome to decide their opinion doesn’t matter. The rest of us don’t have to pretend it does when they change their mind.
They’re probably idiots anyway
You’re right, that’s why they decided their vote didn’t matter.
So it’s better if fewer people vote.
Only those so dense that they refuse to understand an obvious point being made, and choose to continually try to out words in someone’s mouth.
Everyone else should vote.
This will probably sound rude, but I don’t mean it to be: what is the point of this comment?
I agree with you that America as a whole deserves whatever it is getting right now, but I also believe collective punishment is immoral. Everyone who voted against this doesn’t deserve it, that doesn’t mean anyone else has an obligation to save them from it, but they definitely don’t deserve it.
So why laugh at Americans, or rub this in their faces? Especially here on this platform where almost everyone is directly opposed to the current administration, and didn’t vote for it. If you were saying this to Trump supporters I guess I could understand it, but it still wouldn’t help anything.
So I’m genuinely curious, do you think this kind of comment helps anything? If so, what?
Probably schadenfreude, annoyance and frustration combined, I would guess. The US politics are blastered constantly on your face on the web, news, everywhere, and dominate the discussions on Fediverse as well. Being here, you basically cannot escape, reading people from the US fighting each other about things, that sound asinine, in the context of many other cultures. I have observed this annoys many people (myself included, though I try to just avoid engaging), and with how the Trump idiocies fuck with the rest of the world as well right now, these combined seem to cause all sort of unhelpful lashing outs.
Still not sure why someone doesnt just propose this. Exact bill, change the topic.
Because Americans need to be able to buy guns from Wal Mart next to the toy section so they can protect their families from the fascistic dictators like Afghanistan and Venezuela who will clearly invade America any minute now so they need that 9mm to protect them from the tanks and bombers from all those poor countries who don’t have freedom.
Or so I’ve been told.
Fuck trump and all, but this already is pretty much the rules for buying a gun.
No the fuck it isn’t lmao.
A drivers license and your social security number is all you need. And you only need the latter if you want to expedite the NICS check because you could have a common name that might flag multiple records. I’ve bought plenty with just an ID. And not even a Real ID.
It’s laughably easy to buy a gun. And I say that as someone that owns several. Hell the biggest pain in the ass where I am is the 3 day waiting period.
Very state-dependent. Some require training certifications, some require state *BI as well as FBI background checks. Several require it takes place at an FFL, some have waiting periods. Some require fingerprints.
Agree though, still not anywhere as difficult as the SAVE act is trying to be for a basic Constitutional right.
Yes and no. Those states are few and far between for most firearms. Some are just handguns. Virtually none have those restrictions for rifles.
I’m in Colorado which is on the upper end of being strict and it’s still laughably easy. You do have to do a transfer with an FFL for private transfers but an FFL is stupid easy to get. The only real requirement is you do x number of sales or transfers per year to keep it. The FFL I go to for transfers only has his so he can build full auto, and does transfers and AR lowers for cheap so he can keep the FFL to build his own rifles lol.
Here we also have a 3 day waiting period, but that refers to the time you have to think if you really want an abortion.
In some states you can go to a gun show and buy with no paperwork, no id, no background check.
Whats stopping criminals from just flying into the US and buy guns there?
I think they could, but it’s a lot of money and effort. Also buying more than one or two might get you stopped at customs on the return flight.
It varies a lot by state. Most states it’s easier than this, some it’s harder.
If the government makes a clerical mistake and removes your eligibility, it’s up to YOU to prove you’re entitled to exercise your constitutional rights again.
I can’t see any situation that the government could “accidentally” make mistakes with certain groups of peoples… The US government has never ever shown discrimination towards certain groups of people… Never once, nu uh
Oregon requires background checks for all sales of complete firearms and lower receivers with most of these stipulations
Goes to the local vote show and proceeds to buy votes without any oversight.
