New Laws Firearm Owners May Face
As every firearm owner is trained. They are taught things like conflict avoidance, situational awareness, de-escalation techniques, and areas to avoid. They are also taught that it is their responsibility to know and understand the firearm laws in the area they are in. There is always some new law firearm owners may face. While it may be true that not every firearm owner takes this responsibility as seriously as others. It does not change the fact that for every bad act committed, legal firearm owners will pay the price.
As we have seen over and over, laws are passed that will have no effect on what lawmakers are trying to prevent. For example, after the Sandy Hook massacre in Connecticut. Lawmakers passed two laws, one was to outlaw assault weapons and the other was to decrease the amount of ammunition a magazine could hold.
At the time I was anti-gun and supported these changes. I even jumped on the bandwagon of somehow how they make total sense. Granted I only had the data that the media was passing on showing how this would make a difference. It wasn’t until years later that I started to fully understand why this was actually done and the real effect it had.
If you ask yourself what is an assault weapon? You might think of a machine gun or a rifle that fires 3 shot burst like the military’s M16. You probably wouldn’t think about a hunting rifle. You also probably wouldn’t think about a rifle that considered too week and inhuman to use deer hunting in some places. Yet that is what they included in there ban.
Modern deer hunting rifles are a lot more powerful than the ArmaLite Rifle (AR) 15 that was banned. It also fires the same as any other semi-automatic or even revolver. Meaning you squeeze the trigger and only one bullet comes out of the barrel. You must squeeze the trigger for each round you want to fire.
Considering those facts, we are left with only one conclusion. It was banned because it looked like the more powerful military version. So, it got banned for the way it looked essentially. That’s definitely a good firearm law for protecting society, right? Then of course you have the argument of what they call high capacity magazines. Understanding that the magazine was not a higher capacity for that type of rifle, instead, it was the standard capacity of 30 rounds.
There is also the question of more people dying when a specific firearm is used. Has no one stopped to think that more people died because there were more people in one location? No, I am not saying have people gather in smaller groups. If a mass shooter is shooting into a house there is a limited number of people that will die. If they shoot into a crowded public area, more people will die regardless of what firearm is used. That is their goal, their weapon of choice is just what they could get their hands on.
Firearm Laws against High Capacity Magazines
Knowing that it must mean they figure that forcing an attacker to reload more will lower the death count and give the police more chances to take out the shooter, right? I decided to look at the average time it took to reload a firearm. I found that the average person reloads in under 2 seconds, much faster if they have practiced. So, if a person only had a 10 round magazine and had to reload twice before they got to 30 that would then buy them 4 seconds. The Sandy Hook massacre lasted 5–9 minutes. During which time the shooter shot 154 rounds, which is a maximum of 31 rounds per minute. Now if the shooter shot a handgun that holds 10 rounds 100 times, it would take 150s or 2 1/2 minutes to fire and reload. With a 30-round magazine, it would take 115s or 1 3/4 minutes. I estimated 5 seconds a reload just to account for lots of errors and 1 second a shot (which is slow). Meaning that he could have fired well over 450 rounds in well under 9 minutes with a handgun and a 10-round magazine.
What the firearm law prevented
Instead, the attacker fired at the same rate as an 1860 Lever Action Henry Rifle. As with every mass shooting, I looked at, the amount of fire was the same as what you could fire a pre-1900 rifle(This data is looked at even closer by author Michael Martin). Meaning the firearm laws, they just passed, has done nothing to prevent a future massacre or made our children any safer.
What it did accomplish is it made over 1000 AR-15 owners in Connecticut criminals. They have refused to give up their firearms and now they are criminals in the eyes of the new law. These are all people who passed background checks, paid the $200 tax stamp to own the AR-15 and most likely took the training. They have spent their lives following laws and willingly learned many of the techniques above simply to own a rifle.
Now they have been told the rifle they own looks like another rifle, so it is banned. Because some criminals used it in a way that no-one in the world approved of. However, now you, the law-abiding citizen will be left to answer for his crime and to pay for it.
Universal Background Checks
Obviously, this must be some kind of mistake, we live in America. We don’t hold others responsible for the actions of someone else. The new firearm laws being proposed must be to fix this right? Let’s look at what is being proposed with these new laws. Let’s start with universal background checks. What this law does is prevent private sellers from selling to someone unless they get a background check.
That sounds pretty reasonable, right? What could possibly be wrong with that, everyone else gets background checks and passes them. This is only one problem with it but there are a couple of issues. For example, this is being sold as it is going to somehow lower crime and stop criminals from getting firearms illegally.
As of right now, many states don’t require private sellers to do a background check. The next problem is enforcing this law. Law enforcement in New Mexico found that it was too costly to set up sting operations to catch a single seller with a single firearm. That was selling it without the required background check.
Enforcing the Firearm Law
This meant that while it is the law, enforcing the law took more man-hours and resources than it was worth. They actually stopped the sting operations and have decided to hope that people just follow the law on their own. Now ask yourself how did that lower crime or make anything any safer? Most criminals are not going to tell the person selling the firearm they have a felony.
You also have to ignore the fact that everyone has access to the darknet. Where you can buy any firearm, and have it shipped anywhere you want. Of course, there is risk involved but it does not change the fact that it is easily done. Not to mention there was the proposal of having a gun owner database tied to universal background checks. The only thing I am going to say about this. Is firearm owners are not child molesters.
Michigan is one of the few states that has a permit to buy a system as part of their firearm laws. This system requires the buyer to obtain a permit from the local police station. They do this by filling out the paperwork and passing a background check. The permit is good for 30 days and only for one firearm. The seller is required to keep a copy for their record and the buyer is supposed to take a copy to the local police office to register the pistol in his or her name.
Red Flag Laws
Yet just 3 weeks ago a two-time felon was busted with two .45 caliber pistols that he had purchased illegally. Don’t get me wrong I am not opposed to the Universal background check, I am just saying it will have little effect on anything but private sellers who choose to follow the law. Next, you have the red-flag laws that we are seeing proposed by the Federal Government and some states.
This firearm law on its surface appears to be a very good law. It is being proposed as a way to keep the firearms out of the hands of the mentally ill. Once you look a little deeper though, it gets a little more like a way for the police and anti-gun people to take firearms away from legal gun owners. For example, under the current proposals, there is no due process.
Instead, the police, family members, employers, or a disgruntled ex-spouse can petition the court saying you are a danger to yourself and/or others and have your firearms removed. Then it is up to you, to get an expert to say you are not a danger, and to pay for an attorney to prove this. President Trump himself said to remove the guns and worry about due process later in 2018. In 2019 he called for every state to pass red-flag laws.
The other problem is, there are no repercussions for false claims. Let’s say for a minute that like me, you were once anti-gun or that you still are. Imagine the police coming to your house and towing your car because your crazy sister said you were going to drink and drive later. You could end up killing an untold amount of people or even just one family. I am not saying there isn’t a place for this law, I am saying it can’t just be based on someone’s petition to the court.
You need proof of possible wrongdoing. In the U.S. we don’t just run around removing rights from people simply because we think they might do something. Unless we have some crystal ball that I don’t know about, how this system is not going to be abused is beyond me. I am all for doctors reporting patients that have a mental condition that causes them to be violent towards others. I am also for those patients being forbidden to own all weapons.
Where you lose me is how do you stop the disgruntle person from filing false claims and costing someone thousands of dollars. Especially when there is no recourse against the person who filed the false claims. Next up is a few firearm laws that aren’t in congress yet, but they are being proposed by Joe Biden.
The new laws being suggested
Understanding that even if Joe Biden isn’t elected president, these ideas have been accepted by the base and will likely be pushed forward. The first is stopping the sale of firearms and ammunition online. This is something I find extremely hard to wrap my head around. I have tried to find the benefit to the people by stopping this.
First, I thought well maybe these firearms are getting shipped to people who claim to be one person but are actually another. I decided to test this out, I purchased a firearm online. Right away I was told I had to supply a Federal Firearms License (FFL). Of course, I don’t have an FFL and most people don’t. That meant I had to contact a local firearms dealer. They then send the paperwork to the seller, who then ships them the firearm.
They ship them the firearm, not me. When I go to pick it up, I then have to fill out all the paperwork and do the background check as if I had bought the firearm from them. Plus, I have to pay them a $50.00 fee for doing this on top of what I already paid for shipping and the cost of the firearm. Yes, I could have someone else go in and do all this for me but what good would it do. The person would be risking prison to get me a firearm because it now shows they bought it. If you know someone this stupid, you wouldn’t need to buy it online. You just send them to the store in the first place.
Just like what good does an unregistered firearm do you. If you do ever use it in self-defense, you will then be arrested on an illegal firearms charge. I don’t know about you but sitting in prison after defending myself doesn’t sound like a good plan. What about firearm laws against the ammunition sales though, that would benefit everyone if you had to buy it locally right?
Buying Ammunition Online
I put this to the test as well. I went to my local gun store to get a box of ammo, actually, I wanted to buy about 500 rounds. I quickly found 1 box of 50 rounds cost double in the store as it did online. I of course told the store no thank you. I also realized something else that day, which I will discuss in a minute. I normally shoot between 150–250 rounds once a week at the range. I stop myself there because that’s all I can afford.
I practice for self-defense to keep my family alive and to prevent my wife from being raped in the event of a home invasion or an attacker on the street. This was the other thing I realized; I would cut back on my practice based on price. We are seeing a huge ammo shortage right now, and even training classes are requiring less ammunition based on the added cost.
We have 5 million new gun owners this year in the United States. Ask yourself, how many of them are going without training and practice because of the increased cost in ammo? This means we have a large number of firearm owners who are right now, more dangerous to themselves and their families than they are to a rapist or murder. Another great firearm law being proposed, that does nothing to prevent violence.
Stopping the Sale of Ammo Online
So, what harm does forcing people to pay more by buying it locally do? Ask yourself, would you rather have someone taught when not to use a firearm in self-defense and how to avoid those situations or for them to just shoot when they thought they could? Not only do you lose firearm abilities if you don’t practice. You also miss out on learning the legal dangers, de-escalation techniques, situations awareness training, how to find the local laws, and how they apply.
Instead of responsible firearm owners, you end up with a bunch of people who are left to go by what a friend or family member told them. That can’t possibly be dangerous, we all know everyone’s an expert in those areas. Kidding of course, but this is no laughing matter, the dangers this law could create is endless. This nation is much safer by allowing ammo purchases online, simply for the competition factor. Firearm laws against it will do nothing to promote safety, and likely make matters worse.
Yes, a felon would be able to purchase ammunition. Guess what, they can do that anyway. Unless you live in Illinois, where you need a FOID card. Even then, they simply buy it from a friend or cross state lines. No law is going to prevent felons from buying ammunition. There is a large misconception in the United States, that laws will prevent crimes. Laws are guidelines we follow as law-abiding citizens, they are not something criminals follow.
Holding Gun Companies Responsible
Then of course you have the holding gun companies responsible for how a gun is used. This is unprecedented in the United States. First off, no background check can tell you how a person will use a firearm. It is simply meant to stop convicted felons from buying a firearm legally. If a background check doesn’t know how a firearm is going to be used, how would a company know?
Think about the 1500 people murdered with knives in 2017 or the countless people that have turned their cars into deadly weapons. Could you imagine holding Ginsu or Ford responsible for how something is used? We are not talking about someone using a firearm legally, we are talking about them illegally using a firearm for personal gain.
I refuse to name mass shooters because they don’t deserve publicity but look at the laws that were broken in the shady hook massacre. First, he killed his own mother(murder), then he stole her firearms (home invasion/burglary). Then he went to the school (illegally taking a firearm on school property), he shot up the school in the process (illegally firing a firearm- shooting in or near a school). Then of course killing all those innocent children and the people that cared enough to protect them (Mass Murder).
First what new law do you think would have changed his course of action that day? Second, how can you hold a company responsible for using your product it a way that it was never intended to be used? Firearms are not manufactured for illegal purposes, how someone uses it should be on them, not the maker. Meaning firearms are made for hunting, competition shooting, home defense, and self-defense.
It takes violent people to decide that they are going to twist that purpose and use them to rape, rob, and murder. You show me a law that will end rape, robbery, and murder and I will support it. Even banning all firearms would not stop any of those things. Yes, it might slow it down for a year or even two.
Until someone showed the rest of the U.S how to use bomb recipes they found online. How to run down more people at one time with a car. How to use fire to trap people inside a burning building. Even how to use knives to slice arteries while walking through crowds. All of that assumes that there is nothing worse than some psycho will think of next. These are all things that have already been done, all we are talking about is moving one problem area over to another. Once again firearm laws are not addressing the real problem. You can read more about the violence problem by clicking here.
A Controversial Firearm Law that Would Have More Effect
Last I checked in America we do what is right. We work hard to find solutions that can fix the violence problems we are facing. These laws are the equivalent Alabama law that states it’s illegal to have ice-cream in your back pocket. Granted I would love to know the story behind that law, but it doesn’t change the fact people did not stop recking their clothes or booths in restaurants from melted ice-cream.
It is up to American’s to stand up and say we want real change. We want the real experts to have a say in what would work. If you wanted to pass a controversial law that would get a lot of people angry but that would make a difference. Make firearms training mandatory prior to purchasing your first firearm.
Look at what the hunter safety program has done. The amount of hunting accidents has dropped tremendously. While I would not like a firearm law that requires education before being able to exercise your right, at least it would have a chance at improving things. Right now, what people see is a gun violence problem because it is easy for them to blame one thing the firearm. It also allows them to overlook the real problem, and that is as a nation we have a violence problem.
The violence in America is not the worst in the world but it is still a problem. Especially for the rest of us that follow the laws. If there was a limited violence problem. Then people would simply own firearms for hunting, competitions, and the off chance the Government ever needed its citizens to help defend this great country. We are grasping and praying these firearm laws will work. We are ignoring the real experts in favor of listening to those opposed to gun rights.
By the real experts, I mean the ones that have been studying these laws and the violence for the past 100 years, the trainers. Self-defense didn’t start because people needed a new reason to buy a firearm. Instead, it was because the violence was growing out of control. We know since concealed carry has become more popular the violence has gone down. Now I am not suggesting we arm every American citizen. Not every American is responsible and willing to help our nation.
I am suggesting we get the experts involved and allow them to protect current gun owner rights. As well as to use the data they have collected and help to bring the violence down. It will take every American willing to report these criminals. As well as for those in power to listen and to be able to act on those reports. Violence is like a virus, only the people can spread it, and only the people can end it.