tuxubuntu

I hope this doesn't come across as being offensive, but has anyone ever assumed that you have cancer and the lack of hair is from chemo?

I'll try to answer this because it's unlikely that he will be answering sub-questions to the tier-1 comments. The difference here deals with understanding the semantics of the amendment vs. the spirit of the amendment, which has been scrutinized many times, especially over the last 100 years or so.

The first thing that you should understand is that there is a fundamental misunderstanding in your question - automatic guns are banned already. Not outright, but the requirements to get one are so prohibitive that it is out of reach for the vast majority of people. That's due to the NFA (National Firearms Act) of 1934, and various revisions (Gun Control Act of 1968, and Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986). So first let's talk about what those actually did, and then discuss WHY they were allowed to do so, which ends up being the same argument as to why we can ban nukes, etc, but not extend that argument to ban the things that some people want to ban now.

The NFA of 1934 first placed restrictions on categorized firearms. It imposed a $200 tax stamp to purchase automatic firearms, silencers, short barrelled rifles, short barrelled shotguns, and destructive devices (explosives). Together these are known as "NFA items". Back in the day, that was a lot of money, equivalent to around $3500 today. So owning one of those was very expensive.

Next, the GCA of 1968 mandated the creation of Federal Firearm Licensees (FFLs) in order to stop person-to-person interstate firearm trading. You might be familiar with the idea of a mail-order catalog offering guns for sale, especially the old Sears ones. The GCA essentially stopped that from happening. In order to purchase firearms through the mail, internet, etc, you must transfer the firearm through an FFL. This act isn't directly relevant to the question at hand, but it's important to understand because of how the FOPA of 1986 happened and how it relates to the GCA.

Finally, FOPA. FOPA did two major things: firstly, it outright banned the new manufacture of transferable automatic firearms. That means since 1986, zero new machine guns have been made for the public market. The second thing it did was create a new class of FFLs which pay a special occupational tax (SOT). FFLs that have an SOT are allowed to make machine guns for demonstration purposes, but they CANNOT make new machine guns to transfer them to individuals, even if the individual pays the $200 tax stamp mandated by the NFA. That means that FFLs with SOTs can TRANSFER automatic firearms, but not sell ones they have created. So automatic firearms became prohibitively expensive. Supply dwindles, demand remains the same. It's at the point now where if you want to purchase a legal automatic firearm, you will pay a minimum of around $7,000 for a shitty machine pistol. If you want an actual assault rifle, you'll pay around $25,000. And, as before, you still pay the $200 tax stamp. Additionally, you submit to an FBI background check and fingerprinting which takes around 6 months.

Alright, now let's get to the why of all this. The biggest reason that automatic firearms and destructive devices can be regulated as such, and the reason that nukes are banned, is because of target discrimination. Automatics and DDs and nukes have a blanket area of effect which cause significant collateral damage. It was determined that these devices do not fall in spirit with the second amendment, as when used correctly, there is a high likelihood of causing grave harm to innocent bystanders.

That's why you can't use the same arguments for banning or limiting the ownership of firearms common today. Semiautomatic firearms do not have this problem, regardless of whether or not they have wood or metal furniture, or a pistol grip, or a barrel shroud, or any number of other features that at their core do not change the function of the firearm.

Hello Mrs. Bazelon. I don't really have any questions, I just wanted to say I've thoroughly enjoyed most of your pieces. However, I do have some criticism for you.

This piece was poorly written.

A few examples:

rapid-fire ammunition

Does not exist.

[Israel]'s a place where it’s possible to imagine an armed defender stopping an assailant like Adam Lanza or James Holmes.

You seem to imply that this does not happen in the United States. In fact, it happens fairly often, indeed it happened in Clackamas, Oregon the same week as the Newtown tragedy.

Lower courts strike down bans on carrying concealed weapons

To get a CCW in most states you must pass a course. Concealed carriers also have a far lower crime rate than the national average. So striking down these bans is not a bad thing.

Australia also started a mandatory buy-back program for the weapons it banned. A drop in the firearm homicide rate and the firearm suicide rate followed, according to some research.

This says nothing if the overall homicide rate did not decrease as well. This shows that it has been decreasing since the 90s. For reference, the rate in the US has also gone down steadily since the 80s, and has continued to decrease even through the sunset of the Assault Weapons Ban.

Bring back the ban on assault weapons, which Congress allowed to expire in 2004.

Assault weapons as defined by Congress in the '94 ban were shown to have little statistical impact on the overall crime rate.

Quit letting people buy weapons at gun shows without background checks.

This isn't a problem specifically with gun shows. Background checks are not required for face-to-face private transfers. Transfers from an FFL to a purchaser at a gun show still requires a background check. Requiring background checks for private transfers would require a constitutional amendment allowing the federal government to regulate intrastate commerce.

no social disapproval comes with owning a semi-automatic handgun you’d never hunt with.

Why should there be? My family owns several, for sport purposes and, god forbid we should ever need, home and self-defense.

the kind of country we actually are—one in which semi-automatic weapons are used far more often for harm than for self-defense

Untrue. See Here for the text of the study President Obama ordered after the Newtown tragedy. Specifically, page 15 for the relevant information.

In the interest of full disclosure, I am very socially liberal - meaning I wish for people to have as many rights as can be afforded to them, including the right to bear arms. I may not agree with many ideas that gun control proponents have, but often I can at least see why they have those ideas. However, writing about "rapid-fire ammunition" does nothing to get your point across to anybody who knows basic firearm terminology.

As I said at the beginning, I've very much enjoyed your articles regarding current events. However, if you choose to write about the state of gun law and the role of guns in society again, I would very much like to see you use more relevant facts and correct terminology to support your case.

If you've gotten this far into my comment, I thank you for sticking with it. Have a good one!

Even though the other responses to this question are accurate - it would certainly be constitutional for the government to ban you from owning a nuke, as it does not qualify as armament as protected under the second amendment (according to the supreme court). It qualifies as ordnance.

Same reason people don't take into account that when the 1st Amendment was written the internet didn't exist. New mediums don't contradict the spirit of the law.