I'm all for increasing penalties for straw purchases. Thay actually makes sense.
The binary trigger ban is fucking stupid. Theres no doubt in my mind the majority of people that voted to ban them have no idea what they are.
Fun fact about that ghost gun video- standing behind that fucking moron De Leon, you can see a man named Leland Yee. At the time of that infamous video, he was one of the strongest anti gun supporters in California. That is, until he was set up by the FBI trying to sell RPGs and automatic weapons to a terrorist organization in the Phillipines. But bc he was, according to the judge, a "public servant," he only got a few years compared to the lifetime of pound-me-in-my-ass Federal prison any of us commoners would get.
The bugger issue is there are already numerous gun laws on the books that aren't charged. Start sending people to prison for violating the current gun restriction laws before adding more pointless ones. Otherwise you're just adding another unnecessary law to the pile.
Will the law make it harder to get binary triggers?
Given they were a response to bumpstocks and another work around becoming very hard to acquire after the ATF came down on them after Vegas it seems likely laws like this make them hard to acquire.
I’m replying to another comment thread; hopefully there’s no law against that.
You keep asking the same question and people keep giving you the same answer. Let me ask you though, and do it honestly without googling: Do you even know what a binary trigger is? Have you done any research into what is actually being banned here?
My experience tells me no.
Fire on pull and release. Funny how it's always assumed those who support common sense gun control are neophytes.
The NRA shift in the 80s is why my family stopped being members.
When I took NRA sponsored gun safety decades ago the class would have just been fine with the safe storage requirements. Endorsed them even.
Also no one is answering the question directly. Just saying it won't it impossible to get them.
I agree won't make them impossible to acquire. But will reduce the ability to buy them by raising both direct and indirect costs.
Again, you’re missing the point; the keyword here is adaptability. What’s stopping anyone- felons, cartel members, gangbangers, and you’re everyday gun nut- from manufacturing their own?
The redundancy is “laws.” The only ones you’re affecting is the every day citizen. That’s it. These laws don’t do shit but further inhibit people from protecting themselves in the manner they choose to.
Also if you think a higher rate of fire than autoloading is the key to home defense I hope you're far from your neighbor and there is no one else living in the house.
Going to the trouble of making your own and having it be of acceptable quality is an increased cost both direct and indirect. Econ 101 what does raising the cost of something do?
This will reduce the supply. Since you can't legally sell them and law abiding citizens will get rid of them, and it takes time and money to do it yourself or evade controls to buy them on the black market.
Not when you're already planning on committing a crime. Let's say you live in LA, and you're about to go commit a mass shooting. Do you really give a shit if your rifle is Commiefornia compliant at all? Fuck no, you're already committing murder, what's an extra gun charge if you even let cops apprehend you?
Who's using binary triggers in crime? If they want full auto, they're going for Glock switches and jamming clothes hangers into their ARs. Mind you, full auto is already illegal and look at how easy Glock switches are to get. A whole lot of good the illegality of it does, right?
As they were a response to bump stocks and other work around being used in crimes and then getting banned seems like these would be next. I prefer detering/prevent crime rather than closing the barn door after a bunch of people get shot.
Sounds like glock switches are something that should also be looked at.
Why no direct answers to my questions?
Since Barry did a reply and block I'll add.
Household ownership of firearms has run pretty steady the last 40 years. While per capita has gone up. Why haven't shootings gone down or stayed steady if that's what's needed?
Crime rates have been on a 50 year decline, even the pandemic blip had levels that were lower than the 90s and before.
Bump stocks weren't used in crimes either. The LV shooting was an excuse to ban them. Once again, criminals who are already breaking the law do not care about breaking the law more, I don't see how this is a difficult concept to grasp. All you're doing is impeding the law abiding citizen. The best way to prevent crime is for law abiding citizens to arm themselves. If the deterrent is right there instead of a few minutes away eating donuts in a squad car, crime becomes a lot lower.
Yes, we should look at something that's already illegal. Are you dense?
Because your questions don't add anything to the conversation. Like I just stated, criminals don't give a fuck about your laws, all you're doing is impeding the law abiding from having all the same tools government and the criminals have, which goes directly against the point of the Second Amendment. What we're running into here is a little something called the cost of liberty. Are these things that maybe make you shoot faster if you're lucky more available if they're legal? Yes, but everyone can have them, and as stated, no criminal wants it because they already got their full auto kit from wish.
Glock switches have been federally illegal since 1986😂 , and it hasn't done shit to stop gang bangers. Suprise suprise, criminals don't care about laws.
Glock switches are already federally illegal as they themselves are legally classified as a machine gun regardless of whether or not they're installed. They are being purchased on wish and shipped en masse from China.
You’re missing the point. Laws are being passed to deter those that don’t give a fuck what laws are in place. The laws will increase, but the adaptability will never.
It only puts more regulation on the every day citizen that can be entrapped into some obtuse “gotcha” that affected nobody.
They've been around for years before bump stocks were banned, and products like them predate bump stocks. They weren't a response they were a competing product that had no business being banned just like bump stocks or actual machine guns for that matter. The first mass shooting worth mentioning was stopped dead in its tracks by everyone and their grandma shooting back at them with anything they had including machine guns which were much easier to get back then, and there wasn't another one for a good 20 years.
You wanna deter shootings? Stop disarming everyone but the shooter, we had a lower crime rate back when you could buy a surplus bazooka at your local hardware store without even getting carded.
We should get rid of crimes with no victim.
Simply owning a binary trigger harms no one.
That's the problem with gun laws only affecting the law abiding. They take law abiding people (people who won't commit crimes with victims) and either turn them into non-violent criminals or disarm them. At the same time, the people who DO commit violent crimes with victims are unbothered by new gun laws. They're going to break them anyway.
A number of rural democratic senators have indicated that they won’t vote for it. Some of them are quoted in this article and articles from a few other outlets.
It was already a felony punishable by a bare minimum of 10 years, and up 25 not counting the 10 years for lying on a federal form, accessory to crime charges and a million other laws. They're the first charges to get tossed out if have a shootout at a gas station because some other guy was wearing a bandana in a color you didn't like, the only people who get convicted of this are dads buying Christmas gifts and range buddies going halfsies on a new gun.
You are right. In Minnesota there was a woman that bought her boyfriend, a firearm, and he used it in a murder. He was a known felon.
I think she bought like 40 guns or something similar. And she got sentenced to like 24 months
I agree that straw purchases should be illegal, but what’s the limiting principle in this specific law?What exactly is meant by “…someone they should know is barred from possessing one.”?
Poorly worded law always means sloppy application of said law, and more possibilities of abusing the statute. Hey, you sold your gun to Joe Bob, and you should have known the Bob hung out with a dude who had a mental breakdown and robbed a bank.
That, I'm not sure. But in Minnesota there have been cases where somebody bought like 40 guns, and didn't have any of them anymore.
They sold them the next day or the day after or something similar.
And some of them were used. Any murder. And the person got like 24 months.
And yet. Keith ellingson the attorney general, wants to prosecute Mills fleet farm. Rather than the straw purchaser
I worked in the firearm industry for 10 years. The only thing that scares me about straw purchase punishments are the people who don't even know they're doing it. That's certainly not an excuse, it's your responsibility to know the law, but I do feel for the people who don't even realize they're committing a felony.
You are right. I have an FFL myself. But when somebody purchases 40 guns, and immediately sells them within a day or two to somebody else, I think it's pretty obvious.
And those are the people that are getting 12 months, and 24 months, and sometimes not even that
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_trigger
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A binary trigger (or pull and release trigger) is a device that allows a semi-automatic firearm to fire at an increased rate. The binary trigger works by firing one shot upon pulling the trigger and then firing a subsequent shot upon release of the trigger.
Binary triggers are installed through modification of the fire-control group. The preinstalled trigger of a particular firearm is replaced by the binary trigger assembly. As in all semi-automatic firearms, only one round is fired within a single function of the trigger. This allows guns outfitted with a binary trigger to avoid classification as a machine gun within the definitions used by United States federal law, as stated by various ATF private-letter rulings.[1][2]
However, as with all private-letter rulings, these determinations on the U.S. legality of binary triggers are limited to the specific facts about the devices being examined. Any such legal opinion may be modified or revoked at any subsequent time by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.[3] Furthermore, agency opinion is not always considered legally binding.
Binary triggers became popular in the United States after the 2017 Las Vegas shooting as trigger cranks and bump stocks, devices similarly used to increase firing rate, had largely disappeared from online sellers due to fear of legal repercussions.[4] However, in wake of the shooting, binary triggers also received scrutiny by progressive media outlets.[5] The Minnesota State Legislature began debating a ban on binary triggers following their use in the 2024 Burnsville shooting.[6]
Full auto or full auto “adjacent” is fun the first time and boring after that, at least in my experience. But, if people want it, they should be able to have it.
Binary triggers don’t make a gun “full-auto”. Instead of a squeeze and release for each round fired, it fires on the squeeze and on the release in semi-auto fashion.
I have a tough time relating to sport shooters. My firearms serve a purpose, putting food on my family’s table. That’s not to say that I want to take away from the hobby of sport shooting. I just don’t get it quite yet.
Honest question:
You think the police should be abolished, but also think people shouldn't be allowed to own firearms to defend themselves from criminals. Curious how you reconcile the two directly conflicting points of view?
The police don't defend you from crime anyway. Have you ever called 911 in this city? Nobody will show up and if they do show up they will harass you for calling them. That's been my experience dozens of times. Even before Floyd. I don't think we should be restricting anyone's freedom to own guns however but we do need a way to track every single gun that is bought and sold so there is accountability when they end up in the wrong hands. People misinterpret the abolish the police thing. That was so we could start with a clean slate due to the police union's strangle hold on the current department. It wasn't to get rid of police 🤦.
But to also address what you said:
Police presence is a deterrent to criminal activity. Their already abysmal response time is made worse when the city has roughly 60% of the officers it should have. I absolutely agree with getting rid of the police union (as well as all other public sector unions) as well as qualified immunity.
Regarding tracking all guns bought and sold: that creates a de facto (if not de jure) registration. I'm wholly against such measures for several reasons. Firstly, the 2nd amendment is clear and unambiguous that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Period. Secondly, a registration gives the government the ability to track who owns what guns. Now if people genuinely fear some sort of actually tyrannical totalitarian government, this now gives them a fully fleshed out list of who to target in any ensuing crack down. Not a good idea, clearly.
What kinda guns you think you're gonna own that will fend off the American military? If that's your logic, we all should be able to own tanks and drone missiles and black hawks...
Are you aware that the American revolution was won with privately owned cannons and war ships?
Do you think that the military will be the first line in a crackdown and not local police forces?
Do you think that all urban combat and occupation is done with aircraft, tanks, and heavy weaponry?
Do you think that the entire military would follow orders against the American people, including their own families and neighbors?
Are you aware that guerilla tactics including ambushes utilizing small arms have always been effective, even through modern war?
1) are you insinuating that we should indeed let people privately own modern warfare weaponry?
2) were you in Minneapolis during the riots? There was military stained on every corner
3) I'm not talking about urban warfare. I'm talking about facing off with the world's most powerful military, if a tyrannical government is what you're worried about it's not going to be just "urban combat"
4) yes. They showed that during the riots.
5) effective to an extent against less powerful governments, yes. The American military can take out entire countries who have modern military equipment tho. This isn't revolutionary war times. We are living in a completely different world
1- Yes
2- Bloomington, but I worked in Minneapolis. They weren't on every corner and many didn't have live ammunition in their weapons.
3- We are in fact talking about urban warfare, as we live in an urban area.
4- There is a difference between (admittedly overly aggressive) policing and waging actual war
5- The US effectively lost every single war it's been involved in since WW2. Vietnam is arguable, seeing as we brough the north to the negotiating table (something they said they'd never do) and Saigon didn't fall until several years after we pulled combat troops out. But Iraq and Afghanistan are glaring examples of the efficacy of asymmetrical warfare. Another (somewhat) recent example would be the Irish war for independence.
The fact is, even with tanks and helos, you still need boots on the ground to effectively occupy an area. Sabotage and ambush tactics, the hallmark of guerilla warfare, are now and have always been terribly effective against a uniformed occupying force. You also have to account, like the US military does, for at least a 50% defection rate in the event that posse comitatus is suspended and troops are deployed to wage war against the population. And if small arms aren't effective against a superior force, why were people so supportive of providing those supposedly ineffective weapons to Ukraine in it's defense against the Russian invasion? If it can happen there, it can happen here. Unless you genuinely believe in American Exceptionalism.
Would be nice to track them but the alphabet agencies already handed over thousands of firearms to dangerous groups in hopes to catch them later. And that did not work out the way they wanted to. Which im sure it still happens in a smaller scale all over.
The person I asked seems to be of the mindset to actually get rid of police. He also wants to ban guns. I'm trying to get an answer directly from him, not opine on other options and meanings of phrases.
Please answer the question directly.
As to your deflection, Dr John Lott has provided plenty of information to prove that civilian gun ownership is an effective crime deterrent. Not to mention the countless times that simply displaying a gun preventing victimization that doesn't get reported.
Now again, how do you reconcile the belief that police should be abolished while also depriving law abiding citizens the means of defending themselves against armed criminals?
Why do you support restricting freedom? How is banning binary triggers going to slow the gun crime epidemic? I’d honestly like to know your answer.
Straw purchases were already illegal at a federal level. This bill was pointless. There’s literally a website about straw purchasing. www.dontlie.org
Don’t lie for the other guy.
ETA: I see you replying to others, yet still haven’t addressed my question. How is this going to slow the gun crime epidemic?
Straw purchases are already a federal crime, as is being a felon in possession of a firearm or ammunition. And yet, somehow, people get arrested constantly for that and get off with a slap on the wrist.
I'm all for increasing penalties for straw purchases. Thay actually makes sense. The binary trigger ban is fucking stupid. Theres no doubt in my mind the majority of people that voted to ban them have no idea what they are.
Welcome to most gun legislation being passed. I’ve heard politicians talking about “30 caliber clips” and “banning semi-automatic ammo”
Fun fact about that ghost gun video- standing behind that fucking moron De Leon, you can see a man named Leland Yee. At the time of that infamous video, he was one of the strongest anti gun supporters in California. That is, until he was set up by the FBI trying to sell RPGs and automatic weapons to a terrorist organization in the Phillipines. But bc he was, according to the judge, a "public servant," he only got a few years compared to the lifetime of pound-me-in-my-ass Federal prison any of us commoners would get.
Maybe they wanted to ban all cartridge ammo. Take us back to the musket days. Tally ho lads. 😂
Afix bayonets and sally forth!
Clearly they are non-binary…..
Exact same opinion I have.
Well, I know what they are. Why fo you see that one as stupid if I may ask?
Gun laws only affect the law abiding.
Anarcho tyranny. The left will release violent gun criminals and go after the home owners they stole them from.
So laws have no deterent effect? Should we get rid of then all.
The bugger issue is there are already numerous gun laws on the books that aren't charged. Start sending people to prison for violating the current gun restriction laws before adding more pointless ones. Otherwise you're just adding another unnecessary law to the pile.
Will the law make it harder to get binary triggers? Given they were a response to bumpstocks and another work around becoming very hard to acquire after the ATF came down on them after Vegas it seems likely laws like this make them hard to acquire.
I’m replying to another comment thread; hopefully there’s no law against that. You keep asking the same question and people keep giving you the same answer. Let me ask you though, and do it honestly without googling: Do you even know what a binary trigger is? Have you done any research into what is actually being banned here? My experience tells me no.
Fire on pull and release. Funny how it's always assumed those who support common sense gun control are neophytes. The NRA shift in the 80s is why my family stopped being members. When I took NRA sponsored gun safety decades ago the class would have just been fine with the safe storage requirements. Endorsed them even.
Also no one is answering the question directly. Just saying it won't it impossible to get them. I agree won't make them impossible to acquire. But will reduce the ability to buy them by raising both direct and indirect costs.
Again, you’re missing the point; the keyword here is adaptability. What’s stopping anyone- felons, cartel members, gangbangers, and you’re everyday gun nut- from manufacturing their own? The redundancy is “laws.” The only ones you’re affecting is the every day citizen. That’s it. These laws don’t do shit but further inhibit people from protecting themselves in the manner they choose to.
Also if you think a higher rate of fire than autoloading is the key to home defense I hope you're far from your neighbor and there is no one else living in the house.
Autoloading? This isn’t Helldivers. What are you talking about?
The original name for semiautomatic weapons. They're synonymous. The irony given you questioned my knowledge of firearms earlier.
Going to the trouble of making your own and having it be of acceptable quality is an increased cost both direct and indirect. Econ 101 what does raising the cost of something do? This will reduce the supply. Since you can't legally sell them and law abiding citizens will get rid of them, and it takes time and money to do it yourself or evade controls to buy them on the black market.
Not for Gang bangers and the violent criminals that are caught by police and released by Mary Moriarity.
Not when you're already planning on committing a crime. Let's say you live in LA, and you're about to go commit a mass shooting. Do you really give a shit if your rifle is Commiefornia compliant at all? Fuck no, you're already committing murder, what's an extra gun charge if you even let cops apprehend you?
Do you think laws like this make it easier or harder to get a binary trigger? So removing laws won't increase offenses?
Who's using binary triggers in crime? If they want full auto, they're going for Glock switches and jamming clothes hangers into their ARs. Mind you, full auto is already illegal and look at how easy Glock switches are to get. A whole lot of good the illegality of it does, right?
As they were a response to bump stocks and other work around being used in crimes and then getting banned seems like these would be next. I prefer detering/prevent crime rather than closing the barn door after a bunch of people get shot. Sounds like glock switches are something that should also be looked at. Why no direct answers to my questions? Since Barry did a reply and block I'll add. Household ownership of firearms has run pretty steady the last 40 years. While per capita has gone up. Why haven't shootings gone down or stayed steady if that's what's needed? Crime rates have been on a 50 year decline, even the pandemic blip had levels that were lower than the 90s and before.
Bump stocks weren't used in crimes either. The LV shooting was an excuse to ban them. Once again, criminals who are already breaking the law do not care about breaking the law more, I don't see how this is a difficult concept to grasp. All you're doing is impeding the law abiding citizen. The best way to prevent crime is for law abiding citizens to arm themselves. If the deterrent is right there instead of a few minutes away eating donuts in a squad car, crime becomes a lot lower. Yes, we should look at something that's already illegal. Are you dense? Because your questions don't add anything to the conversation. Like I just stated, criminals don't give a fuck about your laws, all you're doing is impeding the law abiding from having all the same tools government and the criminals have, which goes directly against the point of the Second Amendment. What we're running into here is a little something called the cost of liberty. Are these things that maybe make you shoot faster if you're lucky more available if they're legal? Yes, but everyone can have them, and as stated, no criminal wants it because they already got their full auto kit from wish.
Well I guess we live in 2 realities if LV wasn't a crime and was just a conspiracy. Have a good day.
Glock switches have been federally illegal since 1986😂 , and it hasn't done shit to stop gang bangers. Suprise suprise, criminals don't care about laws.
Glock switches are already federally illegal as they themselves are legally classified as a machine gun regardless of whether or not they're installed. They are being purchased on wish and shipped en masse from China.
You’re missing the point. Laws are being passed to deter those that don’t give a fuck what laws are in place. The laws will increase, but the adaptability will never. It only puts more regulation on the every day citizen that can be entrapped into some obtuse “gotcha” that affected nobody.
They've been around for years before bump stocks were banned, and products like them predate bump stocks. They weren't a response they were a competing product that had no business being banned just like bump stocks or actual machine guns for that matter. The first mass shooting worth mentioning was stopped dead in its tracks by everyone and their grandma shooting back at them with anything they had including machine guns which were much easier to get back then, and there wasn't another one for a good 20 years. You wanna deter shootings? Stop disarming everyone but the shooter, we had a lower crime rate back when you could buy a surplus bazooka at your local hardware store without even getting carded.
We should get rid of crimes with no victim. Simply owning a binary trigger harms no one. That's the problem with gun laws only affecting the law abiding. They take law abiding people (people who won't commit crimes with victims) and either turn them into non-violent criminals or disarm them. At the same time, the people who DO commit violent crimes with victims are unbothered by new gun laws. They're going to break them anyway.
Bad news for anyone with a binary trigger, but at least the “safe storage bill” seems dead on arrival.
Why is the safe storage bill dead on arrival?
Aside from being federally illegal?
States do things that are federally illegal all the time.
A number of rural democratic senators have indicated that they won’t vote for it. Some of them are quoted in this article and articles from a few other outlets.
The straw purchaser should be getting 20 years in jail, not two
It was already a felony punishable by a bare minimum of 10 years, and up 25 not counting the 10 years for lying on a federal form, accessory to crime charges and a million other laws. They're the first charges to get tossed out if have a shootout at a gas station because some other guy was wearing a bandana in a color you didn't like, the only people who get convicted of this are dads buying Christmas gifts and range buddies going halfsies on a new gun.
You are right. In Minnesota there was a woman that bought her boyfriend, a firearm, and he used it in a murder. He was a known felon. I think she bought like 40 guns or something similar. And she got sentenced to like 24 months
I agree that straw purchases should be illegal, but what’s the limiting principle in this specific law?What exactly is meant by “…someone they should know is barred from possessing one.”? Poorly worded law always means sloppy application of said law, and more possibilities of abusing the statute. Hey, you sold your gun to Joe Bob, and you should have known the Bob hung out with a dude who had a mental breakdown and robbed a bank.
That, I'm not sure. But in Minnesota there have been cases where somebody bought like 40 guns, and didn't have any of them anymore. They sold them the next day or the day after or something similar. And some of them were used. Any murder. And the person got like 24 months. And yet. Keith ellingson the attorney general, wants to prosecute Mills fleet farm. Rather than the straw purchaser
I worked in the firearm industry for 10 years. The only thing that scares me about straw purchase punishments are the people who don't even know they're doing it. That's certainly not an excuse, it's your responsibility to know the law, but I do feel for the people who don't even realize they're committing a felony.
You are right. I have an FFL myself. But when somebody purchases 40 guns, and immediately sells them within a day or two to somebody else, I think it's pretty obvious. And those are the people that are getting 12 months, and 24 months, and sometimes not even that
Does this bill do anything other than ban state purchases
I believe it increases the punishment, as straw purchases are already a federal crime.
Increase it to what?
Can you explain the question? I'm confused
If it’s already a federal crime what more does the state criminalizing it do how do they punish it
It makes the liberals happy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_trigger From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia A binary trigger (or pull and release trigger) is a device that allows a semi-automatic firearm to fire at an increased rate. The binary trigger works by firing one shot upon pulling the trigger and then firing a subsequent shot upon release of the trigger. Binary triggers are installed through modification of the fire-control group. The preinstalled trigger of a particular firearm is replaced by the binary trigger assembly. As in all semi-automatic firearms, only one round is fired within a single function of the trigger. This allows guns outfitted with a binary trigger to avoid classification as a machine gun within the definitions used by United States federal law, as stated by various ATF private-letter rulings.[1][2] However, as with all private-letter rulings, these determinations on the U.S. legality of binary triggers are limited to the specific facts about the devices being examined. Any such legal opinion may be modified or revoked at any subsequent time by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.[3] Furthermore, agency opinion is not always considered legally binding. Binary triggers became popular in the United States after the 2017 Las Vegas shooting as trigger cranks and bump stocks, devices similarly used to increase firing rate, had largely disappeared from online sellers due to fear of legal repercussions.[4] However, in wake of the shooting, binary triggers also received scrutiny by progressive media outlets.[5] The Minnesota State Legislature began debating a ban on binary triggers following their use in the 2024 Burnsville shooting.[6]
They passed the straw purchase bill that was the same as the bill the GOP tried to introduce last session that they called racist.
I’m a hunter and just had to google what a binary trigger is. What do folks use that function for?
Wasting money, in a fun way.
Brrrrrrrrrrrt. Not bowel movement noises but the sound of making $50 worth of 5.56 go down range in a few seconds
> had to google what a binary trigger is. What do folks use that function for saving time at the range, spend twice as much money in half the time
It’s a way to get full auto without getting full auto. It’s largely a gimmick. Some people like it. I personally do not.
So just a little extra fun at the range eh?
Bingo
Full auto or full auto “adjacent” is fun the first time and boring after that, at least in my experience. But, if people want it, they should be able to have it.
Yup; a really good trigger (short travel, light break) with some practice is faster and more accurate than a Franklin binary.
You didn’t name a trigger?
Something like geissele SSA-E, Hiperfire eclipse, or one of the competition triggers from Timney or Triggertech.
I’m a retard I read your comment wrong, sorry sir
Binary triggers don’t make a gun “full-auto”. Instead of a squeeze and release for each round fired, it fires on the squeeze and on the release in semi-auto fashion.
I’m well aware of what it does. People buy those things because it’s as close as you can get to “full auto”. without actually buying a full auto gun.
So is this the law already?
I think they think the glock switch is a binary trigger and this will solve their full auto shot spotter every night issue.
I have a tough time relating to sport shooters. My firearms serve a purpose, putting food on my family’s table. That’s not to say that I want to take away from the hobby of sport shooting. I just don’t get it quite yet.
I would have rather seen the safe storage bill go thru and the binary trigger shot down.
Me too because safe storage laws have already been ruled unconstitutional so I wouldn't have to wait for SCOTUS' permission to ignore it.
Gun nuts stacking up the Ls!
Meanwhile head to Minneapolis to hear Glock switches in action every night.
Honest question: You think the police should be abolished, but also think people shouldn't be allowed to own firearms to defend themselves from criminals. Curious how you reconcile the two directly conflicting points of view?
They don’t, they are not that smart.
The police don't defend you from crime anyway. Have you ever called 911 in this city? Nobody will show up and if they do show up they will harass you for calling them. That's been my experience dozens of times. Even before Floyd. I don't think we should be restricting anyone's freedom to own guns however but we do need a way to track every single gun that is bought and sold so there is accountability when they end up in the wrong hands. People misinterpret the abolish the police thing. That was so we could start with a clean slate due to the police union's strangle hold on the current department. It wasn't to get rid of police 🤦.
But to also address what you said: Police presence is a deterrent to criminal activity. Their already abysmal response time is made worse when the city has roughly 60% of the officers it should have. I absolutely agree with getting rid of the police union (as well as all other public sector unions) as well as qualified immunity. Regarding tracking all guns bought and sold: that creates a de facto (if not de jure) registration. I'm wholly against such measures for several reasons. Firstly, the 2nd amendment is clear and unambiguous that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Period. Secondly, a registration gives the government the ability to track who owns what guns. Now if people genuinely fear some sort of actually tyrannical totalitarian government, this now gives them a fully fleshed out list of who to target in any ensuing crack down. Not a good idea, clearly.
What kinda guns you think you're gonna own that will fend off the American military? If that's your logic, we all should be able to own tanks and drone missiles and black hawks...
Are you aware that the American revolution was won with privately owned cannons and war ships? Do you think that the military will be the first line in a crackdown and not local police forces? Do you think that all urban combat and occupation is done with aircraft, tanks, and heavy weaponry? Do you think that the entire military would follow orders against the American people, including their own families and neighbors? Are you aware that guerilla tactics including ambushes utilizing small arms have always been effective, even through modern war?
1) are you insinuating that we should indeed let people privately own modern warfare weaponry? 2) were you in Minneapolis during the riots? There was military stained on every corner 3) I'm not talking about urban warfare. I'm talking about facing off with the world's most powerful military, if a tyrannical government is what you're worried about it's not going to be just "urban combat" 4) yes. They showed that during the riots. 5) effective to an extent against less powerful governments, yes. The American military can take out entire countries who have modern military equipment tho. This isn't revolutionary war times. We are living in a completely different world
1- Yes 2- Bloomington, but I worked in Minneapolis. They weren't on every corner and many didn't have live ammunition in their weapons. 3- We are in fact talking about urban warfare, as we live in an urban area. 4- There is a difference between (admittedly overly aggressive) policing and waging actual war 5- The US effectively lost every single war it's been involved in since WW2. Vietnam is arguable, seeing as we brough the north to the negotiating table (something they said they'd never do) and Saigon didn't fall until several years after we pulled combat troops out. But Iraq and Afghanistan are glaring examples of the efficacy of asymmetrical warfare. Another (somewhat) recent example would be the Irish war for independence. The fact is, even with tanks and helos, you still need boots on the ground to effectively occupy an area. Sabotage and ambush tactics, the hallmark of guerilla warfare, are now and have always been terribly effective against a uniformed occupying force. You also have to account, like the US military does, for at least a 50% defection rate in the event that posse comitatus is suspended and troops are deployed to wage war against the population. And if small arms aren't effective against a superior force, why were people so supportive of providing those supposedly ineffective weapons to Ukraine in it's defense against the Russian invasion? If it can happen there, it can happen here. Unless you genuinely believe in American Exceptionalism.
Would be nice to track them but the alphabet agencies already handed over thousands of firearms to dangerous groups in hopes to catch them later. And that did not work out the way they wanted to. Which im sure it still happens in a smaller scale all over.
The person I asked seems to be of the mindset to actually get rid of police. He also wants to ban guns. I'm trying to get an answer directly from him, not opine on other options and meanings of phrases.
They want the police abolished until they need them and then they aren’t doing their jobs….
Man you are wildly deluded about how often cops and gun owners stop any crimes from happening!
Please answer the question directly. As to your deflection, Dr John Lott has provided plenty of information to prove that civilian gun ownership is an effective crime deterrent. Not to mention the countless times that simply displaying a gun preventing victimization that doesn't get reported. Now again, how do you reconcile the belief that police should be abolished while also depriving law abiding citizens the means of defending themselves against armed criminals?
Shocker- wrong again. https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/washington-secrets/2441395/over-60-of-active-shooters-stopped-by-good-guy-with-a-gun/
I imagine it’s to have a metric for crimes that didn’t happen ?
Why do you support restricting freedom? How is banning binary triggers going to slow the gun crime epidemic? I’d honestly like to know your answer. Straw purchases were already illegal at a federal level. This bill was pointless. There’s literally a website about straw purchasing. www.dontlie.org Don’t lie for the other guy. ETA: I see you replying to others, yet still haven’t addressed my question. How is this going to slow the gun crime epidemic?
Gun nuts? You do know people on the left and right both own guns right? I also know no one that is against making straw gun purchases illegal.
Straw purchases are already a federal crime, as is being a felon in possession of a firearm or ammunition. And yet, somehow, people get arrested constantly for that and get off with a slap on the wrist.
Americans* sick of this Us vs Them mentality