Specifically, there are already heavy restrictions on automatic weapons, which are basically never used in criminal acts. Every automatically gun in the US has to be registered with the federal government for $200 and a lot of paperwork. In effect it means if you’re wealthy you can own automatic guns, which is a violation of the 2nd in a lot of people’s opinion.
What I think you meant when you said automatic is “assault “, which is what most of the gun debate is currently center on, so called “assault rifles”. The issue is that the term is not clearly defined, and under most proposed bans would include many rifles which were traditionally considered hunting tools. Even that is a bit of moot point, because the 2nd was not written with hunting in mind.
Another hot point recently is “ghost guns”, which like “assault rifle”, sounds scary enough on the evening news to grab eyeballs. “Ghost guns” are being used to justify government overreach by banning the sharing of gun plans for DIY construction. The issue is that again, almost no DIY guns are used in crimes. What are used are stolen handguns that have had the serial number scratched off. The stolen guns are grouped in with DIY guns as “ghost guns”.
I think you're thinking of "assault weapon" which gets thrown about a lot and for which there isn't a clear definition.
The term 'assault rifle' is used loosely by us, but in terms of law there are definitions: https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/1296...
"Assault rifle" has a very specific meaning: an intermediate-caliber, magazine-fed military rifle capable of both semi-automatic and automatic fire. That common meaning has been more or less fixed since WWII when it was adopted from the German word Sturmgewehr.
"Assault weapon" is a legal term that is defined by law (e.g., California's assault weapons ban or the failed federal Assault Weapons Ban of 2019 that you cited). "Assault weapon" includes not only semi-automatic rifles, but also shotguns and pistols that have certain characteristics. The definitions are long and complicated because they attempt to ban only weapons having the visual and ergonomic features of military weapons, while ignoring weapons of similar caliber that do not have those features.
As for the definition, if you read the definitions of the prohibited components, they are broad enough to ban essentially all rifles, which is likely the goal. For instance, “pistol grip” seems like a well defined thing at a glance, but it is later defined as “ 45) The term ‘pistol grip’ means a grip, a thumbhole stock or Thordsen-type grip or stock, or any other characteristic that can function as a grip.”
That last clause especially is extremely broad. Define functioning as a grip. Is that any piece that enables holding the rifle?
And you don't get to decide if $200 today plus a very intrusive application process infringes on our rights.
https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regulations/national-firearms-...
Also, the supreme court already weighted on some rights regarding weapon registration:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Freed
>> United States v. Freed, 401 U.S. 601 (1971), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held the National Firearms Act's registration requirements do not violate the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution.
$600 for an automatic rifle? I will literally pay you as much just to connect me to the seller.
SKS is semi-automatic.
So don't need the $200 ATF machine gun stamp.
Strange, isn't it, how polling organizations don't quite seem to capture what the people actually want and vote for.
Actually, your list of "banning automatic weapons, screening psychiatric patients and criminals" is already in place, although the first is limited to a few hundred thousand in civilian hands. Two last time I checked had been used in crimes, the first incident a murder by a policeman.
People with money and influence will always try to impact law. In EU it happens through actual bribes which is far worse. (Pretty much like India). In USA an immigrant like me can join hands with 10K immigrants and find enough support in congress openly by hiring lobbiest to advocate for the cause I care about. That is how democracy should work.
It is easy to see lobbying as bad by taking examples you don't like but in reality it is a great example of how people can convince their representatives to pass right kind of laws, legally and with enough regulation. In most countries this happens to secret middleman and nights in shady hotels.
> a majority of US people is in favor of more limitations to gun rights
It is not clear if that is the case. Of course majority of people is irrelevant because this is not a mob rule. That is why we don't allow crowd in SF determine what people in Montana want. It is all fair game.
Secondly, people like me who care about guns care about it lot more to actually form lobbies. On other hand folks who dislike guns only talk about it but will not lobby or donate for the anti-gun causes.
I recommend this excellent video about why NRA despite with a shoe string budget is so much more influenced than many other lobbying groups.
> Revenue (2018) $412,233,508[0]
I don't know what shoestrings you're buying, but I suggest shopping around.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Rifle_Association
> Revenue (2018) $412,233,508[0]
That could buy a lot of machineguns, according to the ATF.
https://www.everydaynodaysoff.com/2010/01/25/shoestring-mach...
What on earth are you talking about?
Can someone point me towards some statistics or reports of such occurrences?
I don’t know how can I prove that people think that. You just need to be in the gun community and talk to people who would never put it in writing. My own gun trainer told us the story of a man going to the doctor for getting his hand hurt while doing repairs at home, the doctor chatted with him and he mentioned that he lost his job recently that’s why he had all this free time to do his work, the doctor reported this and his guns were taken away. (Please note no more details were provided than the story).
The point is that mental health is a very tricky game, there is an immediate loss of trust due to the fundamental nature of what it is. I personally don’t think you should own guns if you’re taking antidepressants.
> I don’t know how can I prove that people think that. You just need to be in the gun community and talk to people who would never put it in writing.
I wasn't trying to challenge anything, just presenting my own anecdata that I personally have not run into gun ownership issues even with my own mental health trials. Nor has my brother, who like another commenter got put into a 72-hour involuntary hold and continues to own and purchase firearms without issue. Contrast this against your own, opposing anecdata from your trainer.
I'm well familiar with the belief and that people live with such fear, I've heard it plenty at ranges, gun stores, sporting goods stores, from colleagues and in bars. Recently, my girlfriend quit her job and her father was near frantic in his insistence that she not cite 'stress' in her resignation letter as that alone would supposedly start some rube goldberg slippery slope mechanism to her losing her right to own guns. Again, to me this feels like such an overblown fear of the evil eye of big government boogeyman and near incredible, which is why I was asking for stats or reports to try to put some numbers to the stories. I certainly won't discount that guns are, on occasion, taken away from their rightful owners without proper due process; but are there any DOJ, FBI reports, etc?
Ok, so your point is, that making laws which stigmatize mental health (which is what it is) have no impact on people seeking out mental health counseling?
If anything, my point is that maybe this pervasive (and possibly unfounded, which is why I'm wondering if there is any actual hard data) fear of having guns stolen is impacting people's mental health by disincentivizing them from seeking the help they need.
Ah, but that was not my claim. My claim is, association of mental health and guns will cause (and is causing) people to avoid seeking mental health.
I don't know how can I be any more clear, but you can read my past comments again.
Being committed by judicial order for having a mental illness/developmentally disabled, or being found not guilty by reason of insanity or incompetent to stand trial are the three disqualifiers for gun ownership in my state. It is likely different in each state, so YMMV.
You rightly mention lobbying and corruption together. But somehow you miss that they are on the same continuum. From my EU perspective lobbying in the US is corruption, as the lobbying comes with money and paid-for political promotion.
The situation around guns itself is a clear example: as I understand it, a majority of US people is in favor of more limitations to gun rights (banning automatic weapons, screening psychiatric patients and criminals) but politicians are only expanding gun rights (open carry etc).
If democracy would work as intended then "common sense" limitations would have been introduced long ago.
Note that I am not talking about corruption in the criminal sense: US politics and supreme court have fully legalized and embraced it, conflating it with lobbying.