4 ms·

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.

• convolvatron 7mo ago
  I don't know the situation with the actual charge, but if you can make a gun, you can certainly make ammunition.
  • asdff 7mo ago
    I guess you are right, both are pretty easy to make.
  • subhobroto 7mo ago
    > 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.
    • ahs1 7mo ago
      > 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 7mo ago
        They’ll be selectively enforced
    • asdff 7mo ago
      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 7mo ago
        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 7mo ago
          >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.
          • rolph 7mo ago
            definately not a kids toy. i have couple of pellet rifles that will penetrate [2] gallon milk jugs full of water at 50 yards and leave pellets on the bottom of the third, 6" grouping with quick reload shooting. dont get me started on souping up the piston, ive already talked about alternative projectiles, but yes it can be made even more powerfull so it will yeet signifigant grain wt.
  • rolph 7mo ago
    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 7mo ago
      For maximally effective commercial ammo, yes. If your goal is just to propel a projectile it's super easy.
  • redsocksfan45 7mo ago
    [dead]
  • mothballed 7mo ago
    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.
• dabluecaboose 7mo ago
  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 7mo ago
    The guns needed for the U.S. revolution came from the French. Most U.S. farmer guns were shit for actual warfare.
    • dabluecaboose 7mo ago
      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.
• ahs1 7mo ago
  because gun control isn't about guns, it's about control
• rolph 7mo ago
  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 7mo ago
    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 7mo ago
    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 7mo ago
      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 7mo ago
• bdcravens 7mo ago
  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 7mo ago
    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 7mo ago
      > 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 7mo ago
        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 7mo ago
          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.
• cucumber3732842 7mo ago
  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 7mo ago
    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.
• ggreer 7mo ago
  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-ammunition-background-check-system https://calwaterfowl.org/navigating-californias-new-ammuniti...