Remix.run Logo
asdff 3 days ago

Why don't these bills go after ammo or gunpowder access? Seems as long as you have access to a cylinder, and ammunition, you can make a gun.

ggreer 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

California already restricts access to ammunition. Only California residents can purchase ammunition in the state, and only after going through a background check. It is also illegal for a California resident to buy ammunition out of state and import it without a background check. It is legal for a non-resident to take ammo into the state, but they cannot transfer it to a California resident, and California residents cannot transfer ammo to them. This creates lots of issues for hunters. The laws are so byzantine that hunting organizations have guides about what is and isn't allowed.[1]

Even though I'd bought multiple firearms in California, this background check always rejected me, probably because my name doesn't fit in their databases. Somewhere between 10% and 16% of legal firearm owners in California are denied ammunition due to this faulty system.

1. https://calwaterfowl.org/navigating-californias-new-ammuniti...

rolph 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

blackpowder is just barely chemistry, more like engineering.

carbon, sulphur, and potassium nitrate, in a particular ratio.

potassium nitrate is watched, and reported in large quantities, or particular form, but can be manufactured by most people that can follow a recipe.

regulating the propellant cant stop it from being made.

also someone really didnt think it through by regulating "receivers"

they regulated what is most often the easiest part to manufacture. the core parts [barrel, bolt, chamber] are difficult to build, require tech to build from stock, and are sold off the shelf, while receiver needs 4473 as if it was a fully functional firearm, and that is the part that can be built, from a 2x4 or a billet of material, depending how long you want it to last.

mothballed 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

Black powder guns, at least ones of antique design (but modern production), are federally ~unregulated already anyways. A 6 year old in North Dakota could order one mailed right now to his house, no background checks, right off the internet -- legally.

There is also the "felon carry" as its called late 19th century black powder percussion pistols, you can also order off the internet, regardless of criminal history and with no scrutiny of the chain of custody.

codedokode 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Making a bullet is definitely more difficult than printing a plastic gun handle (you need the bullet itself, and the cartridge fit it perfectly), and you have a non-zero chance to lose some parts of the body if you make a mistake.

noxer 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

Lead melting is not difficult. The brass case you can just collect used ones. The primer would be harder to make (you can buy them online ofc) but with access to fireworks it is possible with no knowledge of chemistry and no realistic risk of losing body parts.

The guy who killed Shinzo Abe didn't need any of these things and still shot him.

themafia 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

I invite you to examine the construction of a shotgun shell.

Good luck banning that in any meaningful form.

linksnapzz 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Sigh. None of the ammunition used in modern (i.e. made in the past 125 years) uses black powder propellant.

rolph 3 days ago | parent [-]

black powder is cheap and easy to make, its also dirty, slow expanding, very smokey. but when there is no powder available, blackpowder is the most expedient thing.

its also low gas pressure so if you are manufacturing from tentative material, you really should load with black powder, and use enough that it wont squib.

there are a few videos still around, where people load with smokeless powder in a musket, or muzzle loader, instead of blackpowder.

this will blow your barrel open.

ahs1 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

because gun control isn't about guns, it's about control

cucumber3732842 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Because the 2A and related jurisprudence exists and so that will be struck down in court in about 10wk whereas a "novel" convoluted regulation like micro managing printers will take 10yr.

WillPostForFood 3 days ago | parent [-]

Gun Control legislation is plenty slow to move through courts as well. The California magazine limits passed in 1999, it is sitting at the Supreme Court, waiting now 26 years later.

The Sullivan Act was passed in 1911, and it took 111 years to overturn (Bruen). So gun control cases move slowly like everything else.

dabluecaboose 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

That was tried in Lexington and Concord circa 1775, it didn't end well for the guys trying to seize the powder.

Happy Patriot's Day this weekend (April 19th)!

7e 2 days ago | parent [-]

The guns needed for the U.S. revolution came from the French. Most U.S. farmer guns were shit for actual warfare.

dabluecaboose 2 days ago | parent [-]

That's true, but the battles of Lexington, Concord, and Menotomy (And by extension, arguably the entire Revolution) were literally started by the Brits trying to confiscate their materiel. This was long before the French became involved.

convolvatron 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I don't know the situation with the actual charge, but if you can make a gun, you can certainly make ammunition.

subhobroto 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

> if you can make a gun, you can certainly make ammunition

theoretically true but having re-sleeved ammunition, the chances of injury is tremendously different. That said, a lot of people in California are having to resort to re-sleeving ammunition, not out of choice but because for all practical purposes, California has made buying ammunition impossible.

While you can crawl and bite your way through getting a horribly castrated gun in California, the real struggle begins buying affordable ammunition.

For regular people to own a gun that you can actually use in California, (not LEOs or certain other people), you either needed to have inherited them or bought them from the cartels. Otherwise you own something of limited use that insanely expensive to operate.

asdff 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

Can't you make a blunderbuss pretty easily with some rocks and scrap? I wonder how straight shooting a musket you could make? Probably pretty straight if you happened on something manufactured that already happens to fit pretty precise into your cylinder I'm guessing. You could probably get pretty far with airguns too. I mean a pellet gun is already enough to kill a bird or squirrel outright and pretty damn accurate. I probably wouldn't want to take one of those to the neck or soft part of the head.

rolph 3 days ago | parent [-]

pellet guns use the "diablo" profile to the pellets.

pellet guns have low spin per inch, and use drag to add extra stability. and keep velocity below that trans-sonic shock range.

if you went to a reloading shop, and purchased some .177, or .22 projectiles, trimmed them down, or core them to about half wieght, and it will perform like a small rifle.

asdff 2 days ago | parent [-]

>pellet guns have low spin per inch, and use drag to add extra stability. and keep velocity below that trans-sonic shock range.

They are strong enough to embed the pellets into wooden fence boards already though. I think that is plenty enough velocity to blow out your trachea, enter your brain through your eye socket, and probably also penetrate the soft part of the skull.

ahs1 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

> For regular people to own a gun that you can actually use in California, (not LEOs or certain other people), you either needed to have inherited them or bought them from the cartels.

or, you can just break these stupid, unenforceable laws and buy out of state or just "uncastrate" it yourself.

no idea why so many people get their panties in a twist everytime California passes an unenforceable law. they're unenforceable.

cjbgkagh 3 days ago | parent [-]

They’ll be selectively enforced

mothballed 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

People would probably use smuggled primers if arms were outlawed. The rest of the chemistry is easy enough to work with and the primers are small enough they'd likely flow along with fentanyl with the cartels anyway.

rolph 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

you need tight tolerances for modern ammo, a shotgun, or muzzle loader is more forgiveing. reloading materials are not federally regulated as firearms, you just dont want to have more than 2lbs at a time, or that could bring trouble.

you want to be able to KNOW and SEE the difference between a blackpowder, and a smokeless powder, and what not to put it in.

one thing that would add a lot of friction is if the primers are regulated.

thats the funny thing, felons cant possess firearms or ammo, however you can possess reloading materials, and be fine there until you start actually reloading, then you are in possession of ammo.

some_random 3 days ago | parent [-]

For maximally effective commercial ammo, yes. If your goal is just to propel a projectile it's super easy.

asdff 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I guess you are right, both are pretty easy to make.

redsocksfan45 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

[dead]

bdcravens 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

I've always felt that it you want to really impact gun violence, tax the hell out of ammo and gunpowder. Like $20/bullet. For those who believe in self-defense, a handful of bullets is all you need your entire life, and ideally they'll go unused.

Could probably create exceptions for bullets used at the gun range, so you can become proficient and safe.

Tricky part would be hunting, but restricting such a tax to ammo used for handguns is probably an 80% solution.

15155 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

I've always felt if you really want to impact election fraud, tax the hell out of votes. Like $1,000/vote. For those who believe in democracy, a handful of votes over a lifetime is all you need, and ideally the right candidate wins anyway.

Could probably create exceptions for local elections, so you can still participate in your community.

Tricky part would be general elections, but restricting such a tax to federal races is probably an 80% solution.

xienze 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

> I've always felt if you really want to impact election fraud, tax the hell out of votes. Like $1,000/vote.

You don’t even have to go that far. $10 and a trip to the DMV is apparently an insurmountable barrier.

bdcravens 3 days ago | parent [-]

States that already have a voter ID law haven't had any issues. The bigger objections are to those who say that the ID you can use to drive, board an airplane, buy ammo, etc, aren't good enough for voting.

mothballed 3 days ago | parent [-]

The states aren't very logically consistent on ID laws. Illinois requires an FOID to bear arms but not an ID to vote. Arizona requires an ID to vote but not one to bear arms. Vermont is probably the most consistent non-ID state, not requiring an ID to vote and also not requiring an ID even to conceal carry a gun.

I can sort of buy the ID argument from places like Vermont but the arguments in many/most states are just complete bullshit where they've worked backwards to rationalize it and that's why there is no consistency for ID gating of rights within even the same state.

bdcravens 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Difference being that if you need ammo, you're already paying for it.

Rebelgecko 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

If you care about self defense, you practice using a gun semi-regularly.

The trick is to just tax murder so people can't afford it anymore.

akersten 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

> Could probably create exceptions for bullets used at the gun range, so you can become proficient and safe.

Amusing to imagine the red diesel of sport shooting - better hope the tax authority doesn't find any combustion-proof dye on the self-defense shell casings!

bdcravens 3 days ago | parent [-]

To be honest I was thinking more along the lines of you either store ammo at the range, with a checkin/checkout process, or you can receive a tax receipt for number of spent casings.

ggreer 3 days ago | parent [-]

It's legal to go target shooting on most public lands, and on private property in rural areas (assuming you own it or have the owner's permission). People can easily burn through 1,000 rounds in a weekend in such places. Are they going to get a $20k loan and collect every casing for a refund? Of course people should pick up their brass on public lands, but if you have a private range, there's no need to keep it pristine constantly.

Also brass is often ejected forward of the firing line, meaning cease fire must be called frequently for individuals to collect their brass. And if multiple people are shooting at once, how do they determine who shot which casing? Considering the financial incentives, I could see frequent disagreements over brass ownership.

Then there's the issue of implementation. A proposed law and its implementation are often quite different. For example, California requires a background check when purchasing ammunition. Only California residents can buy ammunition in the state (which creates a problem for out-of-state hunters). This system is plagued with false positives. When I lived in California, I purchased multiple firearms but was unable to buy ammunition due to being incorrectly denied. This happens to 10-16% of legal firearm owners in the state. My assumption is that any sort of ammo tax/refund scheme would be similarly fraught with issues.

Honestly, I think such restrictions are a fool's errand. Both smokeless powder and automatic actions have existed for over a century. Given current US culture, effectively restricting such simple technology would require draconian laws & enforcement of those laws. This is actually a more difficult problem than previous failed attempts to restrict alcohol and other drugs, as the government needs a constant supply of firearms and ammunition.