Trump ended the rule blocking mentally ill people from getting guns.

The domestic manufacture of new machine guns that civilians could purchase was effectively banned by language in the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 (also known as "McClure-Volkmer"). The language was added in an amendment from William J. Hughes and referred to as the Hughes Amendment.[40] Machine guns legally registered prior to the date of enactment (i.e. May 1986) are still legal for possession by and transfer among civilians where permitted by state law.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act#The_market_for_NFA_items

 

As debate for FOPA was in its final stages in the House before moving on to the Senate, Rep. William J. Hughes (D-N.J.) proposed several amendments including House Amendment 777 to H.R. 4332, which modified the act to ban the civilian ownership of new machine guns, specifically to amend 18 U.S.C. § 922 to add subsection (o):

(o)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), it shall be unlawful for any person to transfer or possess a machinegun.

(2) This subsection does not apply with respect to— (A) a transfer to or by, or possession by or under the authority of, the United States or any department or agency thereof or a State, or a department, agency, or political subdivision thereof; or

(B) any lawful transfer or lawful possession of a machinegun that was lawfully possessed before the date this subsection takes effect.

The ATF, as a representative of the U.S. and with authority from the National Firearms Act, can authorize the transfer of a machine gun to an unlicensed civilian. An unlicensed individual may acquire machine guns, with ATF approval.[4]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_Owners_Protection_Act#Ban_on_new_automatic_firearms

 

Do some of those people own knives, clubs, gasoline, pointed sticks, cars, etc.? Anything can be used as a deadly weapon at any time by anyone.

 

How exactly are soldiers trained to operate firearms in warfare? To conserve ammunition rather than firing wildly in the desperate hope of hitting something?

Exactly what does the above statement on the part of yourself amount to in real-world terms that can be described and discussed in practical, physical terms?

The law in question was drafted at a time when there were almost no fully-automatic firearms in legal ownership, meaning it did not directly affect the majority of the public in an after the fact manner. The matter was addressed before it could get out of hand when there would be tens of millions of such firearms in circulation that would need to be addressed.

The same cannot be said for semi-automatic firearms. By now they are quite common, subject to widespread ownership, and countless hundreds of millions of such firearms are owned by the general public. The united states government would be incapable of even hoping to register more than a mere fraction of the numbers, for the purpose of subjecting them to taxation restrictions as was done with fully-automatic firearms.

There is simply no standard under which semi-automatic firearms can legally be regarded as anything other then in common use for legitimate purposes. Their development and ownership spans three centuries, making them no different than the double-action revolver design.

 

Hahah your the one that seems to think you can own something you can’t possess, have title to, transfer etc

 

I’m just making sure.

 

I am not your Siri or Alexa. You either make an argument refuting mine, or admit you got nothing.

You know what also is quiet common? Mass shootings. My argument stands that you can make such a law, since a law like this already exists.

 

most adult males in Switzerland own fully-auto rifles, yet they have zero mass shootings

 

In truth it is not a matter of private individuals being able to shoot like trained soldiers. Rather it is a matter of trained soldiers shooting like private citizens. Meaning they are taught to conserve ammunition rather than wasting it.

Except for the fact that they are not. Add up all of the deaths attributed to mass shootings in the united states for any given year, and the overall number would still amount to less than five percent of the total number of firearm-related homicides that are committed in the united states for the given year.

The united state supreme court has already ruled that the criminal misuse of firearms is not a legitimate reason for restricting the scope of the second amendment, or the legal availability of certain firearms.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html

We are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country, and we take seriously the concerns raised by the many amici who believe that prohibition of handgun ownership is a solution. The Constitution leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures regulating handguns, see supra, at 54–55, and n. 26. But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home. Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.

We affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.


It is so ordered.

The united state supreme court did not rule that only an absolute prohibition on handguns was the only firearm-related restriction that could not be implemented. Rather it stated such a prohibition was included as one such policy choice that is not an answer for firearm-related violence in the united states.

 

In Switzerland: you don't get to have a gun if you had an alcohol or drug addiction, have a violent attitude will lock you out, you must pass a test, and the government will ask a shrink when they feel like it to see if you're up to having one. And in the US,.. even a mentally ill person is allowed to have a gun thanks to Donald.

 

It's not since it's the civilians who are causing massacres.

So what. In about 13% of cases, the FBI does not have data on the weapon used. By removing these cases from the overall total of gun deaths in the US, the proportion of gun-related killings rises to 73% of homicides.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41488081

For all I know,... this is about a ban on all firearms... since this mentions handguns all over the place.

 

mentally ill persons were allowed to buy guns, before Trump was President

 

I’ve shown you that you can.

 

Trump did, damn do I need to put the quote up again.

Who said treat them as criminals?

How did he do that?

Why do you feel the need to make up ****?

I guess when you can't defend Trump that is all you have.

 

What are talking about?

 

No, you haven't. Again....I suggest you read up on property rights in the United States. I think the issue you are having is you don't really understand the concept of "transfer" want can't transfer something unless they own it, you can't own a machine gun with out the ATF approval

Let's try it like this, I can't transfer a 12 pack to a 10 year old, because the 10 year old can't legally own the 12 pack. Get it?

 

You are fully aware that I have.

 

1) you don't have to, you can go back to your quote if you want to...but he said "mental illness AND hatred"
2) Obama did.
3) Put them in the national criminal database
4) what am i making up? Have you not been reading this thread? Obama created a rule putting people who got SS payments towards mental health treatment on the natinoal criminal database. Trump ended that rule

 

read the OP.

 

You keep saying things that aren’t supported by reality

 

You know your statement is false.

 

Oh don't forget this.

What doctor diagnosed either one of these guys as mentally ill?

How.

Making it known that they are mentally I'll is not calling them a criminal.

Post where Pres Obama did that.

 

Again, let me dumb down reality for you again: Let's try it like this, I can't transfer a 12 pack to a 10 year old, because the 10 year old can't legally own the 12 pack. Not until they are 21. Likewise, someone can't legally transfer a machine gun you, when you don't have the ATF approval, because you can't legally own the machine gun without the approval.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/922

I am also not sure what State you are in....but you might want to also look at your state code...for example CA, NJ and a number of other states out right ban machine guns

 

I don't....it's hatred and mental health issues....do you not think so?

By putting them on the National Criminal Database.

Putting htem on a National Criminal Database does. Frankly, their medical informaton should remain private, this could be a violation of HIPPA.

https://www.ssa.gov/regulations/NPR...Improvement Amendments Act of 2007 (NIAA).PDFs

The NCIS is the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. Obama was sharing private medical histories of people, particualarly the poor and elderly that got SS benefits for mental health treatment on that list. They committed no crime other then being poor or old and seeking help.

 

Thank you Captain Obvious, but how does your answer address the OP about mental health.