8 ms·

This article is conflating a few different things. 1. Cop buys the kinds firearms regular people can buy using law enforcement discounts and then makes an othe

by wl 2y ago

This article is conflating a few different things. 1. Cop buys the kinds firearms regular people can buy using law enforcement discounts and then makes an otherwise legal private sale to profit from this. This violates the terms of these law enforcement discount programs. Also, federal law requires people who buy and sell firearms for profit have a federal firearms license. These firearms sometimes are used in crime. 2. In some jurisdictions like California and Massachusetts, law enforcement can buy certain handguns new that normal people cannot. This isn't about safety as these handguns are not capable of anything that the approved handguns are not. It's solely a measure to harm the market for handguns by restricting the kinds of handguns available and increasing their prices. Cops can legally sell these unapproved handguns to normal people. The problem here, again, is doing it for profit. These firearms sometimes are used in crime. 3. Cops buying "assault weapons" and then making illegal private sales to normal people who can't lawfully buy these weapons. This is nowhere near as common as the first two scenarios. 4. Cops playing games with post-1986 machinegun regulations so that federal firearms licensees who pay a special tax can acquire machineguns to rent to the public at ranges or just for their own personal fun. These firearms, which often are significantly more dangerous than the kinds of firearms normal people can lawfully acquire, have never been used in a crime. Scenarios 1 and 2 have no public safety impact beyond private sales generally. Scenario 3 is only problematic from a public safety standpoint if you believe "assault weapons" are uniquely dangerous, which they aren't. Scenario 4 has not resulted in any violent crime.

dmoy 2y ago
Glock switches are fairly commonly used in crime here. But yea it's afaict not cops selling machine guns to people illegally, it's just getting them online or wherever.
- wl 2y ago
  I'm saying that NFA-registered post samples acquired through dodgy (or not) law letters have never been used in a crime. Yeah, those $30 switches from Temu et al are another issue entirely.
  - ganoushoreilly 2y ago
    It's also an issue that with 3d printing and home manufacturing tools available isn't likely to go away.
  - dmoy 2y ago
    > I'm saying that NFA-registered post samples acquired through dodgy (or not) law letters have never been used in a crime. Yea like maybe twice ever in the last 80 years, it's effectively never
    - wl 2y ago
      You're thinking of the 1988 Waller case and the 1992 Ho case, both involving transferrable pre-1986 MAC-11 machineguns. The NFA items this article deals with are post-1986 samples, which require law enforcement agencies to write a law letter for class 3 SOTs to acquire. No post-1986 samples have ever been used in a violent crime.
pyuser583 2y ago
“These firearms … have never been used in a crime.” Never been used in a violent crime. They have been vehicles of financial crime, which is what’s being alleged here.
tptacek 2y ago
I think the unauthorized sale concern is overblown, but do believe "assault weapons" are uniquely dangerous; this is a debate I've had on HN a number of times, and tends to start with a courtly dance of someone saying "that's because you don't know how firearms work" and the history of semi-automatic long guns, and end with ballistics reports and the machining simplicity of automatic sears. I don't necessarily want to have that whole debate again, which I guess I could do by pressing the point, so much as to make space in this subthread for "maybe that one part of your strong comment is not as settled as you're making it out to be".
- gweinberg 2y ago
  It absolutely is though. Guns are classified as "assault weapons" because of cosmetic features like barrel shrouds and bayonet lugs, and the fact that most people don't know this doesn't make it less true. The term "assault weapon" was deliberately chosen to confuse people into thinking it means the same as or something similar to "assault rifle", and that fact isn't really in dispute either.
  - tptacek 2y ago
    And then I come back with 3 paragraphs about the legislative history of the assault weapons ban, which began by singling out a bunch of weapons by name but with a catchall of semi-automatic weapons with detachable clips, and got lobbied down to its cosmetic definition by the NRA. You might believe I'm completely wrong about all of this, and that's OK. That's how message boards work. But do you think "you haven't read the assault weapons ban and don't know how silly it is" is going to work as a rhetorical strategy here? Or we can just accept that reasonable, informed people might disagree on these points, and there's no winning this.
    - gruez 2y ago
      >And then I come back with 3 paragraphs about the legislative history of the assault weapons ban, which began by singling out a bunch of weapons by name but with a catchall of semi-automatic weapons with detachable clips, and got lobbied down to its cosmetic definition by the NRA. Where is this?
standardUser 2y ago
The term "assault weapon" usually indicates larger magazines and higher rate of fire than firearms that are typically used for self defense or sport. I don't know about "uniquely dangerous", but if a firearm can shoot more bullets faster it clearly has the potential to be more dangerous and cause more injury and loss of life than other firearms. Even the people who want to die on the hill of being pedantic about the term "assault weapon" have to admit that.
- RiceRichardJ 2y ago
  Will not have to admit. The term has nothing to do with rate of fire. Normally purchased weapons, assault or not, are semi automatic. Rate of fire only applies to automatic weapons.
  - highcountess 2y ago
    [dead]
  - ganoushoreilly 2y ago
    Right, even then the rate of fire is only relevant as to say it was a single pull for multiple projectiles vs a pull for each round. If you have the money to pay the $200 tax stamp, undergo the background check, and can find a pre 1986 minigun, you can shoot upwards of 6k rpm. Some states may have prohibitions on it, but again, those are being contested in courts and I suspect post BRUEN they're not going to hold up to muster.
  - standardUser 2y ago
    A semi-automatic firearm has a significantly higher rate of fire compared to a single-shot firearm.
- highcountess 2y ago
  [dead]
- jack_h 2y ago
  > The term "assault weapon" usually indicates larger magazines and higher rate of fire than firearms that are typically used for self defense or sport. This is incorrect. An "assault weapon" is semi-automatic and it has no intrinsic rate of fire. The National Firearms Act of 1934 already regulates automatic firearms at the federal level. The definition of an assault weapon varies by state, but usually comes down to cosmetic and minor features such as a pistol grip, a shrouded barrel, a folding stock, a threaded barrel, etc...
rbranson 2y ago
The issue is that law enforcement is flagrantly committing serious crimes, for their own profit. It’s offensive and disgusting.
- 15155 2y ago
  Would they be able to profit if these items weren't scarce?
jopsen 2y ago
I get that law enforcement might want to sell surplus equipment. But buying things with the idea of selling seems like an organization that's operating way outside it's mandate. Which isn't something a law enforcement organisation should ever do.
- gruez 2y ago
  >But buying things with the idea of selling seems like an organization that's operating way outside it's mandate. >Which isn't something a law enforcement organisation should ever do. It's unclear whether it's the "law enforcement organizations" doing the transactions, or its employees.
- wl 2y ago
  Where law enforcement organizations have gotten involved here is writing a "law letter" saying, "Dear ATF: We're interested in firearm X. Please let machinegun dealer Y acquire a sample to demonstrate it for us." Then dealer Y can buy firearm X and keep it as long as they maintain their license, only being able to sell it to the government or another licensed machinegun dealer.
15155 2y ago
> significantly more dangerous Is something really "significantly more dangerous" if you can carve a part out a piece of thin sheet metal to obtain the property in question?
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
johnea 2y ago
Of course the children getting their brains blown out market should not be subject to big government overreach!
rsync 2y ago
"These firearms, which often are significantly more dangerous than the kinds of firearms normal people can lawfully acquire, have never been used in a crime." This is incorrect. NFA weapons have been used, albeit very rarely in crimes: "Since 1934, there appear to have been at least two homicides committed with legally owned automatic weapons. One was a murder committed by a law enforcement officer (as opposed to a civilian). On September 15th, 1988, a 13-year veteran of the Dayton, Ohio police department, Patrolman Roger Waller, then 32, used his fully automatic MAC-11 .380 caliber submachine gun to kill a police informant, 52-year-old Lawrence Hileman." [1] Ironically, it was a LEO who committed this crime. And now, of course, it is possible that the UHC CEO was killed with a suppressed handgun which would add to the extremely small list of crimes committed with NFA weaponry. [1] https://guncite.com/gun_control_gcfullau.html https://guncite.com/gun_control_gcfullau.html EDIT: I see your reply to my sibling post - you were referring very specifically to post-sample MGs and I suspect you are correct.

by wl 2y ago

dmoy 2y ago

Glock switches are fairly commonly used in crime here. But yea it's afaict not cops selling machine guns to people illegally, it's just getting them online or wherever.

wl 2y ago
I'm saying that NFA-registered post samples acquired through dodgy (or not) law letters have never been used in a crime. Yeah, those $30 switches from Temu et al are another issue entirely.
- ganoushoreilly 2y ago
  It's also an issue that with 3d printing and home manufacturing tools available isn't likely to go away.
- dmoy 2y ago
  > I'm saying that NFA-registered post samples acquired through dodgy (or not) law letters have never been used in a crime. Yea like maybe twice ever in the last 80 years, it's effectively never
  - wl 2y ago
    You're thinking of the 1988 Waller case and the 1992 Ho case, both involving transferrable pre-1986 MAC-11 machineguns. The NFA items this article deals with are post-1986 samples, which require law enforcement agencies to write a law letter for class 3 SOTs to acquire. No post-1986 samples have ever been used in a violent crime.

pyuser583 2y ago

“These firearms … have never been used in a crime.” Never been used in a violent crime. They have been vehicles of financial crime, which is what’s being alleged here.

tptacek 2y ago

I think the unauthorized sale concern is overblown, but do believe "assault weapons" are uniquely dangerous; this is a debate I've had on HN a number of times, and tends to start with a courtly dance of someone saying "that's because you don't know how firearms work" and the history of semi-automatic long guns, and end with ballistics reports and the machining simplicity of automatic sears. I don't necessarily want to have that whole debate again, which I guess I could do by pressing the point, so much as to make space in this subthread for "maybe that one part of your strong comment is not as settled as you're making it out to be".

gweinberg 2y ago
It absolutely is though. Guns are classified as "assault weapons" because of cosmetic features like barrel shrouds and bayonet lugs, and the fact that most people don't know this doesn't make it less true. The term "assault weapon" was deliberately chosen to confuse people into thinking it means the same as or something similar to "assault rifle", and that fact isn't really in dispute either.
- tptacek 2y ago
  And then I come back with 3 paragraphs about the legislative history of the assault weapons ban, which began by singling out a bunch of weapons by name but with a catchall of semi-automatic weapons with detachable clips, and got lobbied down to its cosmetic definition by the NRA. You might believe I'm completely wrong about all of this, and that's OK. That's how message boards work. But do you think "you haven't read the assault weapons ban and don't know how silly it is" is going to work as a rhetorical strategy here? Or we can just accept that reasonable, informed people might disagree on these points, and there's no winning this.
  - gruez 2y ago
    >And then I come back with 3 paragraphs about the legislative history of the assault weapons ban, which began by singling out a bunch of weapons by name but with a catchall of semi-automatic weapons with detachable clips, and got lobbied down to its cosmetic definition by the NRA. Where is this?

standardUser 2y ago

The term "assault weapon" usually indicates larger magazines and higher rate of fire than firearms that are typically used for self defense or sport. I don't know about "uniquely dangerous", but if a firearm can shoot more bullets faster it clearly has the potential to be more dangerous and cause more injury and loss of life than other firearms. Even the people who want to die on the hill of being pedantic about the term "assault weapon" have to admit that.

RiceRichardJ 2y ago
Will not have to admit. The term has nothing to do with rate of fire. Normally purchased weapons, assault or not, are semi automatic. Rate of fire only applies to automatic weapons.
- highcountess 2y ago
  [dead]
- ganoushoreilly 2y ago
  Right, even then the rate of fire is only relevant as to say it was a single pull for multiple projectiles vs a pull for each round. If you have the money to pay the $200 tax stamp, undergo the background check, and can find a pre 1986 minigun, you can shoot upwards of 6k rpm. Some states may have prohibitions on it, but again, those are being contested in courts and I suspect post BRUEN they're not going to hold up to muster.
- standardUser 2y ago
  A semi-automatic firearm has a significantly higher rate of fire compared to a single-shot firearm.
highcountess 2y ago
[dead]
jack_h 2y ago
> The term "assault weapon" usually indicates larger magazines and higher rate of fire than firearms that are typically used for self defense or sport. This is incorrect. An "assault weapon" is semi-automatic and it has no intrinsic rate of fire. The National Firearms Act of 1934 already regulates automatic firearms at the federal level. The definition of an assault weapon varies by state, but usually comes down to cosmetic and minor features such as a pistol grip, a shrouded barrel, a folding stock, a threaded barrel, etc...

rbranson 2y ago

The issue is that law enforcement is flagrantly committing serious crimes, for their own profit. It’s offensive and disgusting.

15155 2y ago
Would they be able to profit if these items weren't scarce?

jopsen 2y ago

I get that law enforcement might want to sell surplus equipment. But buying things with the idea of selling seems like an organization that's operating way outside it's mandate. Which isn't something a law enforcement organisation should ever do.

gruez 2y ago
>But buying things with the idea of selling seems like an organization that's operating way outside it's mandate. >Which isn't something a law enforcement organisation should ever do. It's unclear whether it's the "law enforcement organizations" doing the transactions, or its employees.
wl 2y ago
Where law enforcement organizations have gotten involved here is writing a "law letter" saying, "Dear ATF: We're interested in firearm X. Please let machinegun dealer Y acquire a sample to demonstrate it for us." Then dealer Y can buy firearm X and keep it as long as they maintain their license, only being able to sell it to the government or another licensed machinegun dealer.

15155 2y ago

> significantly more dangerous Is something really "significantly more dangerous" if you can carve a part out a piece of thin sheet metal to obtain the property in question?

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

johnea 2y ago

Of course the children getting their brains blown out market should not be subject to big government overreach!

rsync 2y ago

"These firearms, which often are significantly more dangerous than the kinds of firearms normal people can lawfully acquire, have never been used in a crime." This is incorrect. NFA weapons have been used, albeit very rarely in crimes: "Since 1934, there appear to have been at least two homicides committed with legally owned automatic weapons. One was a murder committed by a law enforcement officer (as opposed to a civilian). On September 15th, 1988, a 13-year veteran of the Dayton, Ohio police department, Patrolman Roger Waller, then 32, used his fully automatic MAC-11 .380 caliber submachine gun to kill a police informant, 52-year-old Lawrence Hileman." [1] Ironically, it was a LEO who committed this crime. And now, of course, it is possible that the UHC CEO was killed with a suppressed handgun which would add to the extremely small list of crimes committed with NFA weaponry. [1] https://guncite.com/gun_control_gcfullau.html https://guncite.com/gun_control_gcfullau.html EDIT: I see your reply to my sibling post - you were referring very specifically to post-sample MGs and I suspect you are correct.