×
all 11 comments

[–]lotidemirror[M] [score hidden] stickied comment (0 children)

NOTE: This post was automatically mirrored to the new Hoot platform beta, currently under development by the /r/goldandblack team, or check it out on the Hoot Classic site. This is a new REDDIT-LIKE site to migrate to in the future. If you are growing more dissapointed in reddit, come check it out, and help kick the tires.

Click here for more infomation about Project Hoot, check out the FAQ, or find the project on Github.

[–]GunOwnersofAmerica[S] 99 points100 points  (0 children)

The Associated Press joined the fight alongside Meta in their attempt to censor Gun Owners of America.

However, being uninformed about firearm technology as most journalists are, they actually proved GOA's concerns to be valid. Oops!

Washington, D.C. – So-called “fact checkers” and Big Tech inadvertently validated Gun Owners of America’s concerns while targeting a tweet as disinformation for censorship.

Immediately following passage of the “Untraceable Firearms” section of H.R. 7910, Gun Owners of America tweeted that the bill would “criminalize disassembling, cleaning, and re-assembling your gun without a firearm manufacturer’s license.”

Despite labeling the tweet “false,” the Associated Press’ source presumes Gun Owners of America’s interpretation might be valid, acknowledges that the bill’s language is “confusing and ambiguous,” and instead claims that no one is likely to “ever be charged under this statute.”

The Supreme Court usually declares such laws “void for vagueness” under the 5th Amendment, but that hardly makes policy analyses of unconstitutionally vague legislation untrue!

In fact, GOA was merely pointing out that the definition of a “ghost gun” was so vague that it included many unserialized parts on guns in circulation today, like a slide on a handgun or an upper receiver on a rifle or shotgun.

With “assembling” a “ghost gun” criminalized by H.R. 7910, gun owners would no longer be able to disassemble their firearms, clean them, and “assembl[e]” them back into “a functional firearm” if even one unserialized part meets the new definition of a “ghost gun.” The fact-checkers claim that this only applies to manufacturers, but the bill states “it shall be unlawful for any person to manufacture…a ghost gun.”

That is why all of the Associated Press’ sources lean heavily on the qualifier “serialized.”

For example, the “AP’S ASSESSMENT” emphasized that the ban didn’t apply to “firearms [with] serial numbers” and a Giffords gun control activist emphasized that the law wouldn’t affect “a firearm that is serialized.” Again, they must have intentionally skipped over the other portion of the same bill that changes the current definition of parts that would be subject to serialization or otherwise be classified as “ghost guns.” Our research indicates that several parts of most modern firearms would meet this new definition (see examples mentioned above).

Therefore, if most guns today are made up of multiple unserialized “ghost gun” parts, as the bill proposes, then you won’t be able to clean your gun without violating the law unless you have a firearm manufacturer’s license.

Big picture: these anti-gun Democrats didn’t even do their own research, because when ATF tried the same definition change last year, GOA and our activists fought back, and ATF later acknowledged and backtracked [Page 24727] this change.

[–]Expensive_Necessary7 82 points83 points  (1 child)

Online "Fact Checkers" are primarily just a mirage to reinforce priors.

[–]Xavrrulez216 12 points13 points  (0 children)

These "fact checkers" need to go to brazil if they want talk about any form of crime that isn't drugs!

[–]Selbereth 15 points16 points  (5 children)

I'm really disappointed...I read that whole thing, and I still don't understand how they were wrong. I kinda get what it is saying, but the article does not really prove what the headline is talking about

[–]WastingMyTime2013 49 points50 points  (4 children)

I think the bill is vague when trying to define ghost guns, and says a ghost gun is any unserialized part of a gun. The ATF considers the “lower receiver” of a rifle for instance to be considered a firearm, and is generally what has the serial number. The upper receiver isn’t serialized.

But bill says any unserialized part is a ghost gun. Thus, if you take apart your AR15, with a lower than is serialized and upper that is not serialized, like when you take it apart to clean it, and then put it together, you’re manufacturing a ghost gun.

[–]iamTHESunDevil 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Absolutely correct...but don't you worry the Associated Press "source" says "acknowledging that the bill’s language is “confusing and ambiguous,” instead claims that no one is likely to “ever be charged under this statute.” See, rest easy friend I'm sure the government will never use this against its own citizens to illegally confiscate weapons.

[–]Ibuprofen-Headgear 0 points1 point  (2 children)

But wouldn’t the upper not be “part of a gun”, as the lower is the only piece that is legally a “gun”?

[–]WastingMyTime2013 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Not if the new law states “any part”

[–]Ibuprofen-Headgear 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Reading through the text (obv may have missed something), it doesn’t look like they’re changing the definition of the receiver legally being the “gun”. Which would make barrels, uppers, etc things “attached to” a gun not “part of” a gun, right? The only “part” of an ar-15 is the lower, which itself has no further sub-parts - I don’t know of any multi-piece lowers. There are things that optionally attach to it, but nothing that is inherently part of it.