Gun Control: US and Global II

[Jarnhamar]

I think I am missing something becuase it sounds to me like mag load restrictions vice all out platform bans.

The NZ PM said the gun the shooter used will be banned.

I don't know if that means a Smith and Wesson MP15 AR 15 or all AR15s, easy to presume the latter.

As for the mag restrictions I didn't spend too much time looking at it but I get the feeling it's written to basically ban any gun that accepts magazines larger than a standard 5 round style magazine you would see in a Browning semi-auto. Basically anything that can be suggested to "look armyish".

 

[Cloud Cover]

Take a look at the attached list. Any firearm that is semi automatic and has a detachable magazine greater than 5 rounds is now illegal to own in NZ. Any firearm that  falls within the definition below is also immediately banned from private possession and must be turned in:

New Zealand Arms Act 1983: Public Act 1983 No 44: (as 01 October 2018)

military style semi-automatic firearm means a firearm (other than a pistol) that is—
(a) a semi-automatic firearm having 1 or more of the following features:
      (i) a folding or telescopic butt:
      (ii) a magazine designed to hold 0.22-inch rimfire cartridges that—
            (A) is capable of holding more than 15 cartridges; or
            (B)is detachable, and by its appearance indicates that it is capable of holding more than 15 cartridges:
      (iii)a magazine (other than one designed to hold 0.22-inch rimfire cartridges) that—
            (A) is capable of holding more than 7 cartridges; or
            (B) is detachable, and by its appearance indicates that it is capable of holding more than 10 cartridges:
      (iv) bayonet lugs:
      (v) a flash suppressor:
      (vi) a component of a kind defined or described by an order under section 74A as a pistol grip for the purposes of this definition; or
(b)a semi-automatic firearm of a make and model declared by an order under section 74A to be a military style semi-automatic firearm for the purposes of this Act; or
(c)a semi-automatic firearm of a description declared by an order under section 74A to be a military style semi-automatic firearm for the purposes of this Act; or
(d)a semi-automatic firearm that has a feature of a kind defined or described in an order under section 74A as a feature of military style semi-automatic firearms for the purposes of this Act

 

[Halifax Tar]

Take a look at the attached list. Any firearm that is semi automatic and has a detachable magazine greater than 5 rounds is now illegal to own in NZ. Any firearm that  falls within the definition below is also immediately banned from private possession and must be turned in:

New Zealand Arms Act 1983: Public Act 1983 No 44: (as 01 October 2018)

military style semi-automatic firearm means a firearm (other than a pistol) that is—
(a) a semi-automatic firearm having 1 or more of the following features:
      (i) a folding or telescopic butt:
      (ii) a magazine designed to hold 0.22-inch rimfire cartridges that—
            (A) is capable of holding more than 15 cartridges; or
            (B)is detachable, and by its appearance indicates that it is capable of holding more than 15 cartridges:
      (iii)a magazine (other than one designed to hold 0.22-inch rimfire cartridges) that—
            (A) is capable of holding more than 7 cartridges; or
            (B) is detachable, and by its appearance indicates that it is capable of holding more than 10 cartridges:
      (iv) bayonet lugs:
      (v) a flash suppressor:
      (vi) a component of a kind defined or described by an order under section 74A as a pistol grip for the purposes of this definition; or
(b)a semi-automatic firearm of a make and model declared by an order under section 74A to be a military style semi-automatic firearm for the purposes of this Act; or
(c)a semi-automatic firearm of a description declared by an order under section 74A to be a military style semi-automatic firearm for the purposes of this Act; or
(d)a semi-automatic firearm that has a feature of a kind defined or described in an order under section 74A as a feature of military style semi-automatic firearms for the purposes of this Act

Interesting. I wonder if they differentiate between a flash suppressor and a muzzle break.

I find the mag restriction portions confusing.  So why cant they just buy 5 or 4 round mags ? 

That would knock out my M305, SKS and DA Grizzly (MF) ... and it comes damn close to taking out my No.5 JC too... phew for bolt actions!

 

[Kat Stevens]

There go the SKSs I suppose.

 

[FJAG]

Take a look at the attached list. Any firearm that is semi automatic and has a detachable magazine greater than 5 rounds is now illegal to own in NZ. Any firearm that  falls within the definition below is also immediately banned from private possession and must be turned in:

New Zealand Arms Act 1983: Public Act 1983 No 44: (as 01 October 2018)

military style semi-automatic firearm means a firearm (other than a pistol) that is—
(a) a semi-automatic firearm having 1 or more of the following features:
      (i) a folding or telescopic butt:
      (ii) a magazine designed to hold 0.22-inch rimfire cartridges that—
            (A) is capable of holding more than 15 cartridges; or
            (B)is detachable, and by its appearance indicates that it is capable of holding more than 15 cartridges:
      (iii)a magazine (other than one designed to hold 0.22-inch rimfire cartridges) that—
            (A) is capable of holding more than 7 cartridges; or
            (B) is detachable, and by its appearance indicates that it is capable of holding more than 10 cartridges:
      (iv) bayonet lugs:
      (v) a flash suppressor:
      (vi) a component of a kind defined or described by an order under section 74A as a pistol grip for the purposes of this definition; or
(b)a semi-automatic firearm of a make and model declared by an order under section 74A to be a military style semi-automatic firearm for the purposes of this Act; or
(c)a semi-automatic firearm of a description declared by an order under section 74A to be a military style semi-automatic firearm for the purposes of this Act; or
(d)a semi-automatic firearm that has a feature of a kind defined or described in an order under section 74A as a feature of military style semi-automatic firearms for the purposes of this Act

Just a technical comment. The above provisions appear vague and uncertain insofar as when you are dealing with a detachable magazine, does the detachable magazine in excess of the limits have to be present with the rifle for the rifle to be illegal or does the mere existence somewhere in the world of such a magazine make the weapon illegal?

In Canada the magazine itself is regulated. Firearms are regulated specifically on the inherent characteristics of the firearm and not the characteristics of a magazine that might be attached to it. It's little things like this that keep lawyers employed. My guess is this law will be amended when there is time for reflection.

:cheers:

 

[Navy_Pete]

Just a technical comment. The above provisions appear vague and uncertain insofar as when you are dealing with a detachable magazine, does the detachable magazine in excess of the limits have to be present with the rifle for the rifle to be illegal or does the mere existence somewhere in the world of such a magazine make the weapon illegal?

In Canada the magazine itself is regulated. Firearms are regulated specifically on the inherent characteristics of the firearm and not the characteristics of a magazine that might be attached to it. It's little things like this that keep lawyers employed. My guess is this law will be amended when there is time for reflection.

:cheers:

Hi FJAG, read about that, apparently they didn't previously regulate the magazines. You could have the rifle with a small magazine, but as soon as you bought the larger magazine, the rifle was reclassified as an MSSA. Kind of dumb, and I think that's a loophole they are looking to close. Apparently they expected the person that had the previous A class license to reapply and get the E class license to have an MSSA if they wanted to buy an accessory that would change the category of the weapon system.  Kind of unmanageable, but guess it will become a moot point.

 

[The Bread Guy]

It's not based on logic, it's being seen to be "doing something"

:nod:

 

[FJAG]

Then again

:cheers:

 

[Jarnhamar]

Here's a question.

Ar15s have been around since the 60s. Magazine fed high capacity guns have been around from the 30s (Thompson).

It seems like in most mass shootings there's AR15s and pistols and such present but the amount of fatalities seem low (with upmost respect to the dead) considering the shooters are using these high capacity, high power, military grade, *buzz word* guns.

But now and then you get a shooting with the same kind of firearms with a considerably larger body count like in this shooting.

What, if anything, is the reason for that?  If it was the guns and magazines wouldn't we logically see more shootings with higher body counts? Is it a matter of most shooters giving up for lack of a better description more quickly? Someones pissed off at everyone at work and they want to go in and hurt them and once they hurt a few people the shock of the situation kicks in and it's over?

Does police reaction time place a crucial role?

The fact people are crammed in to close quarters where they can't escape?

Apparently this guy thought about the shooting and planned it for 2 years. I'm not sure what if any training he had (or picked up). Is the body count so high here because he was absolutely committed to what he was doing and (I'm guessing) remained relatively calm throughout?

 

[SeaKingTacco]

I read something about this a few months back, but cannot remember the source.

The jist of it, IIRC, was that the 5.56mm round is not all that lethal (all things being equal). The article went on to explain that most mass shooters are not super methodical (thankfully)  and move on once a victim is down.

This guy in NZ seems to have been more than exceptionally motivated to cause as much death as possible.

 

[FJAG]

I read something about this a few months back, but cannot remember the source.

The jist of it, IIRC, was that the 5.56mm round is not all that lethal (all things being equal). The article went on to explain that most mass shooters are not super methodical (thankfully)  and move on once a victim is down.

This guy in NZ seems to have been more than exceptionally motivated to cause as much death as possible.

There has been much debate on this subject for some time. Here's one paper that discusses the issue of the effectiveness/lethality of the 5.56 round during CQB and why there may be conflicting reports on the round.

https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a519801.pdf

Don't forget that the mil spec 5.56mm round is not identical to the .233 Remington round. See here for one article on the subject:

https://www.luckygunner.com/labs/5-56-vs-223/

Note especially that while milspec 5.56 ammo is all solid core which depends on velocity and yaw to make its wound effects, civilian .233 ammo may also be softpoint which expands/fragments on contact.

In summary, without knowing all of the factors and conditions and the type of ammo used in any particular case it becomes difficult to explain one situation's differentiation from another.

This is getting to be a morbid subject.

:not-again:

 

[The Bread Guy]

Just splitting off the gun law debate because of its specificity and details to leave the "Analysis" thread for the broader political discussion.

Milnet.ca Staff

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Much of the bulk commercial ball is built using the cheapest components they can get and still perform well. So it may not be optimized for terminal damage to the target, just to get there. 

 

[Jarnhamar]

Essentially if you own a rifle or shotgun capable of holding more than 5 rounds turn it into the police.

It sounds like people are registering some pretty powerful weapons on the online forums including pocket nukes and plasma rifles lol

 

[blacktriangle]

No guns? No problem.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JmxK_pBaG4E

Time to go back to basics, folks! Just do the basics really well.

 

[FJAG]

By now we're all aware of US Cities who are refusing to cooperate with US Federal Immigration authorities when it comes to enforcing immigration laws creating so-called "Sanctuary Cities".

Currently there is a growing move amongst County Sheriffs to form "Second Amendment Sanctuary Counties" wherein they are going to refuse to give effect to their State Legislatures' gun control legislation. See here:

Hundreds Of Counties Vowed To Be ‘Second Amendment Sanctuaries’ Since Parkland
“As a law enforcement officer, I have discretion to use the laws that I want to. That’s my decision. I’m not going to enforce that particular law.”
04/05/2019 By Matt Vasilogambros

There are “sanctuary cities” that refuse to assist federal immigration enforcement. Now, there are “sanctuary counties” that refuse to enforce new gun control laws.

Rural, conservative communities are pushing back against state legislatures that have been approving new firearm restrictions at a rapid rate since the February 2018 massacre at a high school in Parkland, Florida. More than 200 counties across nine states have vowed not to enforce new state measures that restrict gun access, and 132 have declared themselves to be Second Amendment “sanctuaries,” borrowing a term at the center of the immigration debate, according to a Stateline analysis.

For gun rights supporters, it’s a defiant rebuff to state leaders they believe are attacking their communities’ gun heritage and way of life. So far, county leaders have not translated their rhetoric into action by, for example, defying a “red-flag” court order to confiscate guns from a person deemed to be dangerous to himself or others. ...

See rest of article here: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/counties-second-amendment-sanctuaries-parkland_b_5ca35e88e4b035e30b062801

There is a difference in the two concepts in that there is a constitutional division between States powers and Federal powers in the US and States do not have to opt into assisting the Federal authorities in their lawful duties while counties are the creatures of State governments and as such it's agents.

Interestingly enough, Chapter VI Article 3 of the US Constitution provides that:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

All states amend this to include their several constitutions and other provisions as well.

Some states are dealing with the broad issue, such as Florida re "Sanctuary Cities".

Florida may send a big message to sanctuary cities
Elina Shirazi By Elina Shirazi | Fox News

MIAMI — Florida has one of the largest illegal immigrant populations in the country and its new governor wants to make sure they don't have protection from local authorities.

Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis is pushing for a ban on sanctuary cities that refuse to cooperate with federal immigration authorities. Several bills making their way through the state legislature would effectively make it against the law for police departments to refuse to cooperate with federal immigration officials. If a law enforcement official refuses, they could be fined or fired. ...

See rest here:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/florida-may-send-a-big-message-to-sanctuary-cities

The police have historically had discretion in how to deal with perceived offences. Not every minor infraction needs to be dealt with a charge. Such discretion had, however, been roped in when circumstances indicated that enforcement was too lax or mores changed; such as in domestic dispute situations.

The question is, at what point does the willful disobedience of a county official against his/her elected representatives' laws (even if in line with the desires of the local community) does it move from mere civil disobedience to open revolt? At what point does it impair the overall respect for the rule of law?

:worms:

 

[Fishbone Jones]

I'll leave sancturary citites alone. There is not a single good thing about them I find right or acceptable.

In the same token, I wont really address gun sanctuary.

I will give an opinion though on gun control.

If it ever becomes a full court press, to remove all guns or force gun owners into laws like ours, there will be a civil war.

Canadians might roll over to political pressure and disarm, but Americans won't.

You can take that to the bank.

America was born in blood and they have very long memories. The vast majority believe that when the government says you don't need guns, that's exactly the time you'll need them.

The Afghans, for centuries, have turned back well equipped invaders, with guns that they hammered out of scrap metal, while sitting cross legged in the dirt. A perfectly functioning AK47 can be made from a square shovel. Black powder and gun cotton can be made in your garage with common chemicals. Lead can be had from old batteries. If Afghans can do it with rudimentary tools. An industrialized nation's citizens can turn them out by the thousands in basements and garages, if they wish.

As with everywhere, you can outlaw them, but you'll never get rid of them, nor will you ever stop their manufacture. Not by private citizens.

With the idea that government is breaking the law, by going against the 2nd Amendment, those people will ignore government and it's laws as illegitimate.

Just as both types of sanctuary cities are doing right now.

Just my  :2c:

 

[quadrapiper]

If it ever becomes a full court press, to remove all guns or force gun owners into laws like ours, there will be a civil war.

The delta between "civilian" and "military" armament has spread somewhat since their last nasty internal debate, and the facilities and expertise for producing purely military armament have grown more complex, and, I think, fewer. The only reason the militia movement, Bundy, and similar belligerent, well-armed (for civvies) individuals are still alive is that the US federal government has treated them as a kid-gloves law-enforcement problem, rather than as e.g. an armed insurgency.

I'm not sure "civil war" is a reasonable description for what would happen if the gloves ever properly came off.

 

[quadrapiper]

With the idea that government is breaking the law, by going against the 2nd Amendment, those people will ignore government and it's laws as illegitimate.

Noting that the founders were on occasion cryptic, there's that "well regulated militia" aspect: while that might very well even require the existence of some volunteer force of armed citizens, the current arrangement of massively armed individuals doesn't seem in accordance with the text.

A federal government could do any number of things within that interpretation and not consider itself in violation; perhaps even see it as upholding the full concept of that amendment.

 

[FJAG]

The current state of the law re the Second Amendment comes from the USSC case of District of Columbia v Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008). It includes a provision at pp 54-56 which is summarized in the headnote as follows:

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

See: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

:cheers: