1y ago

Virginia House approves assault weapons ban

www.nbcwashington.com

The Virginia House of Delegates approved an assault weapons ban on a party line vote Friday.

Fairfax County Democratic Del. Dan Helmer’s bill would end the sale and transfer of assault firearms manufactured after July 1, 2024. It also prohibits the sale of certain large capacity magazines.

“This bill would stop the sale of weapons similar to those I and many of the other veterans carried in Iraq and Afghanistan,” Helmer said.

92 comments

This will only embolden the feral hogs.
- Usually we just call them 'Republicans' or '2a nuts'.
- Uh-oh, I know what the next Cody Showdy is going to be about...
I wonder what database is in place that would allow them to determine what weapons were made after that date. It seems there would be a lot room for getting around that aside from just buying used.
- When a firearm is manufactured by a licensed individual or company, it is logged into a book or database. When a firearms retailer receives a firearm, they log it into a book or database. When that firearm is sold, it is logged into a book or database. That is federal law.
  Some manufacturers include the date of manufacture with paperwork, but that may only be month and year.
  To my knowledge, there is no way for an FFL(licensed firearm retailer) to know a precise date of manufacture without inquiring with the manufacturer if it is not provided with the documents that are supplied.
  The law is poorly written, so the real-world effect would be no new sales of specified firearms after the effective date. How restricting the sale of new firearms and not all firearms of the type that they want to restrict does anything is outside of my understanding.
  
  Maybe it's not so poorly written. The ambiguity could be a feature.
  If the manufacturer date can't be proven, you shouldn't be able to sell the gun. So maybe more guns get prohibited in practice that would otherwise be allowed.
  And it forces folks to keep more detailed records going forward.
  
  It is effective. Machine guns had a similar law placed on them in 1968, now buying one is at least 10k, making it virtually unheard of to be used in crimes, as well as limiting the total number in existence, as some machine guns break beyond repair over time.
  
  Registeries have been ruled unconstitutional. So thats their shitty workaround.
  
  How restricting the sale of new firearms and not all firearms of the type that they want to restrict does anything is outside of my understanding.
  Love this phrase. I may start using it regularly. Like, in response to other things as well... It's so... Good. Thank you.
What are the odds a court deems this unconstitutional?
- that question depends on when glenn youngkin is up for re-election
- I'd argue that you could ban anything that you don't have to manually pack gunpowder into.
  That's what was available when the constitution was penned.
  You don't even need to ban the guns. Just ban bullets.
  
  That's a bad precedent to set. There are certainly reasons why this can be upheld, but saying that anything new is by default banned unless explicitly allowed is the opposite of what it states in the constitution.
  That would allow for decisions like the freedom of speech doesn't exist on the internet because the internet didn't exist when the constitution was penned.
  
  A potential loophole: many rifle owners save money by pressing their own cartridges. The tools required are a bit pricey but not out of reach for the average person. You'd have to use some careful wording to ban home made bullets but not muzzleloaders.
- That's a word they'd use but the actual reasons would not be mentioned as mentioning them would be damaging to the collective American psyche.
- Only if the court is part of a well regulated militia
Hand guns are where the actual violence is. This is theater.
- The problem that I have is, "what is an assault style weapon?" because a ruger 10/22 looks like
  , but if you put a scope on it and get the black version, it looks like
  . If you put a pistol grip on it and a larger magazine, it looks like
  , but it's all the same gun. It does the same things. The shape of the magazine does not affect the gun in any way aside from more ammo. But you don't have to get a banana clip to do that.
  
  To me, if the magazine is bigger than 5, and you can just hold the trigger, it should be illegal. Five rounds with five finger presses is all somone should ever need for hunting.
  I don't know shit about guns nor do I care for them, but that is just my general feeling. It's the mag size and the speed it can be discharged at that matters.
- It's both.
- No problem, we can ban those too.
- Pro-gun isn't just a conservative/republican thing.
I was kind of hoping the rampant gun nuttery of Reddit would be one of the things that didn’t migrate over here. But, no such luck. So long, Lemmy. It’s been real.
weapons similar to those I and many of the other veterans carried in Iraq and Afghanistan
And so what? Americans have always had equivalent, or better, rifles than the military. (I know nothing about the presenter, been told he's rightwing, but there are no political opinions presented.)
So why is weapon choice suddenly a problem? We had AR-15s when I was a child in the 70s. If you would like a weapon that passes this ban, let me introduce the Ruger Mini-14.
FFS, we have a social problem, not a gun problem.
Liberals: "We want gun bans! Lotsa bans!"
Uh, that backfired over alcohol, drugs and abortion...
Liberals: "STFU! BANS!"
Our society is sick, and dems are fighting a losing battle and losing votes. FFS, these idiots could win every election if they would drop these ineffectual bans and get on board with helping us.
- Liberals: Ok, let's fund mental healthcare or a social safety net to solve that social problem.
  The same people complaining about this law: REE!! Communism, socialism, trans pedophiles in bathrooms...
  
  Don't give me that shit.
  I lived in Chicago for over a decade. Chicago has been a Democratic supermajority city, in a Democratic supermajority state for something like 100 years. Under Democratic mayors and aldermen, community mental health and resources were slashed. (I know this because my therapist had been community mental health working with people that were chronically homeless until his position was eliminated by budget cuts.) To social safety nets have been consistently cut, while cops get more and more funding. Public housing? Good fucking luck, there was a 15 year wait when I was living there. The city is still deeply racially divided from the 1960s or so, when redlining was legally eliminated (but lemme tell you, legally ended or not, it's still very, very real).
  If Dems really wanted these things in fact, and not in theory, they could have them in Illinois, in New York, in Massachusetts, in New Jersey, in California, in Hawai'i. But they don't. Instead they want gun ban band-aids that fix none of the problems that cause the violence in the first place.
- Most Americans, myself included, don't like giving up personal rights for "security."
  To draw a parallel that I figure you'll agree with - far-right rhetoric is on the rise and I think we should do something about it. As much as I disagree with Nazi rhetoric, I absolutely don't think the "solution" to this problem is banning pro-Nazi speech by law. We could easily point to Germany and say "well they had a massive issue with pro-Nazi speech. They banned it, no more Nazi rhetoric! It's that easy!"
  The root cause of far-right ideologies (or far-left for that matter) isn't that free speech exists, it's unhappy people radicalized by their living conditions and culture. Germans lived through a terrible economic depression after WWI, where a lot of people experienced homelessness and malnutrition. Fascism gave everyone a job and fewer people starved, plus they stood up militarily to countries that levied the economic sanctions which ruined their economy in the first place. From their point of view, fascism saved them. Fascism didn't happen because the government allowed pro-fascism speech to occur, fascism happened because the horrible economic and world-status of Germany pushed people too far.
  Have you thought about what the root cause is behind school shootings and other senseless killings? A cursory understanding of American gun rights and laws, and how they've changed overtime, proves that the existence of certain weapons platforms is absolutely not the root cause. My grandparents could have literally mail ordered full-auto machine guns to their front door, yet school shootings literally never happened. If public access to guns = school shootings, they would've been 100 times more frequent when your grandparents were kids.
  Even if we poofed guns out of thin air, the people who would shoot children would still be around. This "solution" does nothing to treat them. It also does nothing to prevent others from becoming as jaded and sick in the head. The end result is still a bunch of radicalized, fucked up people who will lash out at society in other ways besides school shootings. Maybe when the start blowing up schools, stabbing kids, and running them over with huge F-150s, the DNC will start saying "Public access to fertilizer, pointy metal, and cars is the issue! No more fertilizer = no more school bombings! It's that simple!"
  You: American exceptionalism; " nah, if it worked ; we woulda already done it!"
  Me: I'd rather fix the root cause issue that pushes people to murder children, instead slapping a bandaid over what is 100% a social issue. Maybe we should take real effort to stop climate change. Maybe we should better fund our schools and make college free. Maybe we should increase minimum wage so anyone who holds a job, regardless of what it is, can support themselves and their family. Maybe we should make medical care free. Maybe we should restructure our prisons so they focus on rehabilitation instead of cruel punishment and slave labor. Maybe then, our society wouldn't breed people that murder children because they're so upset and jaded after growing up with zero prospects of having a happy and fulfilling future.
  But our politicians would lose power and money if they fixed these issues, so they'll instead say that AR15s are what's murdering babies and if you don't support banning them, then you're pro baby murder. And people like you will gobble it up.
- Gun violence: a co-location of guns and violence.
  We can get rid of the violence without getting rid of the guns. (Guns have different effects on violence depending on how you ask the question, by the way.)
  Anyway, policies I support that would reduce gun violence that have nothing to do with guns:
  *Medicare for all
  *Walkable towns of all sizes
  *Ban right to work
  *Increase in convenient public hang out spaces
  *After school group therapy
  *$20 minimum wage
  *Ban single family housing zoning
  *Ban single use residential zoning
  *Night sky safe lighting
  *Sugar tax
  *End corn subsidies
  *Mixed agriculture subsidies
  *The world's fastest bullet train network
  *Ban gas and oil (with change-over subsidies)
  *Require biodegradable packaging
  *Prosecute wage theft
  *Narrow police responsibilities and hand off functions to other groups (E.G. social workers and traffic-specific ticketters)
  *Ban bail
  *Ban shit tons of stuff surrounding probation/parole
  *Ban charging inmates or their families for anything
  *Ban civil asset forfeiture
  *Rehabilitative prison
  *Provide school lunch
  *Free college
  *House the homeless
  *Fund public defenders at the same rate as prosecutors
  *Tighter noise pollution laws
  *Probably other stuff
- The Mini-14 is not a good rifle. Accuracy and reliability are both very poor compared to a bone-stock AR-15; typically you're looking at about 4-5MOA on a Mini-15. Many of the parts are MIM, are are more likely to fail or be out of tolerance than forged and milled parts.
  As far as saying that American citizens have access to better arms than the US military... No. Yes, a civilians AR-15 can be better than what the military buys, and civilians usually take better care of their firearms, and don't beat them to shit. But TBH, the AR-15 is one of the best all-purpose mid-sized cartridge rifles out there. Other rifles may be better in some ways, but an AR-15 has very, very good balance between cost, reliability, durability, accuracy, power, range, and weight. Sure, my AR-10 in 6.5 Creedmoor has more power, much better range, and is sub-MOA, buuuuuut ammunition weighs 2x as much and costs 4x as much, my rifle is 1.5x heavier, is 12" longer than a standard M4, and barrel life is about 1500-2000 rounds before it's worn out. (Also, typical infantry firefight ranges are <300y, and often much close than that in urban environments; a long range rifle isn't helpful there.) As far as hunting goes, 5.56x45mm in heavier weight bullets is quite adequate for varmint and mid-sized game at typical hunting ranges.
  As far as armaments beyond rifles, American civilians don't have legal access to most of the things that win conventional wars. I can't buy modern artillery shells, or guided missiles. Small arms alone aren't going to win a conventional full-scale battle. OTOH, small arms and IEDs can make occupation impossibly expensive for an invader.
  That said - yeah, Lucas Botkin is a far-right christian nationalist homo/transphobic shitbag. T-Rex Arms make great holsters, which sucks, since I'm not ever going to send any money to them for any reason. You have to take a lot of his shooting advice with a handful of salt, because he's not personally that good of a shooter. If you want good advice about how to shoot well, look specifically at people that compete; if a person is telling you how to shoot, but isn't willing to test their own skills on the clock and against other people, odds are that they're full of shit.
  And yea - all of the violence is a social issue, and we should be trying to fix those, not banning shit. And by social issue, I don't mean some kind of personal responsibility nonsense, or this garbage idea that we need more harsh deterrents and prisons, more cops, etc.; I mean that we need to stop treating people like they're trash.
- FFS, we have a social problem, not a gun problem.
  Then when you're all done fixing those social problems, you can have your guns back.
  If you don't like idea, jump in your time machine and fuck off back to the 70s.
  
  Cool, now lets do speech, religion, unreasonable search and seizure, right to remain silent, drinking, and voting. Until every single person out of 350M people in the US can use those rights in a way that is deemed socially acceptable, they should be completely eliminated.
  
  with that attitude, let's do the same for automotives. Back to horse and buggy everyone, too many drunk and crazy aggressive drivers, too many needless deaths. Guess we should just ban em all!
- And so what? Americans have always had equivalent, or better, rifles than the military.
  hahahaha
  
  This is a fact. The military just gets better toys than rifles alone.
- It's theater. They want to seem as if they're doing something about the problem, so they pass laws that sure do seem like they're relevant if you pay zero attention, in the hope the public is appeased. How appeased the public actually is, I have no idea.
  
  Yeah they're plenty appeased. They see the constant mass shootings in America and say "thank fuck we don't live there". When their laws do fail, they're scrutinized by the public and the press. They demand to know how it happened and what is being done to stop it happening again. They demand accountability for anyone who dropped the ball.
  It's measurably more effective than starting a gun worshiping cult and threatening children who survived school shootings.
  If we're talking theatre though, remind us again now many tyrants America has overthrown? How is the crime rate going? How are rights going for women and minorities under the most pro-gun candidates?
- Can you describe correct thinking, and also which foreigners you're referring to?
- Thinking that there is correct thinking is incorrect

92 comments