Are automatic weapons illegal?
The answer to the subject question above is both yes and no. Federal law makes it a crime for anyone to own any automatic weapon that was manufactured after 1987. That law is the Firearm Owners Protection Act, signed into law in 1986 by then President Reagan.
You can legally purchase an automatic weapon manufactured in 1986 or earlier in the U.S., but it is a difficult and expensive process. Considering that the Las Vegas Massacre shooter, Stephen Paddock was apparently a wealthy man, the expensive part would not have been a problem.
First you have to find such a weapon that is in the hands of a dealer with the appropriate federal license to sell you the weapon. There aren't a lot of them and you can expect to pay in excess of $10,000 for it.
Then you need to fill out the application. 12 pages. If you have any criminal history other than parking tickets or minor moving violation citations, don't even bother trying. If you were ever committed to a mental institution, don't waste your time. Even having a completely "clean" record does not guarantee approval, which can take a year or longer.
* * *
Did Stephen Paddock have legally purchased, fully automatic weapons in the Mandalay Bay hotel suite on the hotel's 32nd floor? All we know at the moment is that one of the weapons was modified to fire rapidly using a "bump-stock" which uses the weapon's recoil to allow the shooter to fire a semi-automatic weapon more rapidly. There are reports that some of the other weapons in the suite may have been legally purchased semi-automatic weapons that were modified with devices that are legal to purchase.
Hearing that there were modified weapons used by this mass murderer reminded me of an episode of "Law & Order" from 1999. It was titled "Gunshow" and involved a shooter who murdered 15 women in Central Park with a semi-automatic weapon that he modified to fire in fully automatic mode with a kit he bought at a gun show. Realistic? It is fairly simple to do this but the modified weapons are notoriously inaccurate and prone to jam easily. Then again, Paddock was firing into a crowd of thousands, so accuracy was not an issue.
One bottom line here is that it is long past time to make it more difficult to modify semi-automatic weapons to fire in fully automatic mode. Bump stocks, hand-cranks and other such devices can be outlawed.
One of the arguments going on in the aftermath of this massacre is that the laws currently in place regarding gun purchases and ownership were or were not violated by Paddock. Initial reports are that all of the literally dozens of guns he bought were legal purchases. He had no criminal background, and passed numerous background checks performed as part of his gun purchases.
59 dead and over 500 injured seems to me to make it very clear that the laws as presently constituted and enforced are not sufficient to prevent mass shootings.
* * *
There is also a lot of discussion about why authorities have not called Stephen Paddock a terrorist, and the Las Vegas Massacre as an act of terrorism.
Let's review the definition of terrorism:
Terrorism is defined by federal law in Title 22 Chapter 38 U.S. Code § 2656f as "premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents.
NATO defines terrorism in the AAP-06 NATO Glossary of Terms and Definitions, Edition 2014 as "The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence against individuals or property in an attempt to coerce or intimidate governments or societies to achieve political, religious or ideological objectives".
So a lot of people are saying that this is not terrorism because we have no knowledge or evidence of any political motive.
But there is another definition of terrorism, and it is one that is more relevant that the two above. Nevada Law:
NRS 202.4415 “Act of terrorism” defined.
You can legally purchase an automatic weapon manufactured in 1986 or earlier in the U.S., but it is a difficult and expensive process. Considering that the Las Vegas Massacre shooter, Stephen Paddock was apparently a wealthy man, the expensive part would not have been a problem.
First you have to find such a weapon that is in the hands of a dealer with the appropriate federal license to sell you the weapon. There aren't a lot of them and you can expect to pay in excess of $10,000 for it.
Then you need to fill out the application. 12 pages. If you have any criminal history other than parking tickets or minor moving violation citations, don't even bother trying. If you were ever committed to a mental institution, don't waste your time. Even having a completely "clean" record does not guarantee approval, which can take a year or longer.
* * *
Did Stephen Paddock have legally purchased, fully automatic weapons in the Mandalay Bay hotel suite on the hotel's 32nd floor? All we know at the moment is that one of the weapons was modified to fire rapidly using a "bump-stock" which uses the weapon's recoil to allow the shooter to fire a semi-automatic weapon more rapidly. There are reports that some of the other weapons in the suite may have been legally purchased semi-automatic weapons that were modified with devices that are legal to purchase.
Hearing that there were modified weapons used by this mass murderer reminded me of an episode of "Law & Order" from 1999. It was titled "Gunshow" and involved a shooter who murdered 15 women in Central Park with a semi-automatic weapon that he modified to fire in fully automatic mode with a kit he bought at a gun show. Realistic? It is fairly simple to do this but the modified weapons are notoriously inaccurate and prone to jam easily. Then again, Paddock was firing into a crowd of thousands, so accuracy was not an issue.
One bottom line here is that it is long past time to make it more difficult to modify semi-automatic weapons to fire in fully automatic mode. Bump stocks, hand-cranks and other such devices can be outlawed.
One of the arguments going on in the aftermath of this massacre is that the laws currently in place regarding gun purchases and ownership were or were not violated by Paddock. Initial reports are that all of the literally dozens of guns he bought were legal purchases. He had no criminal background, and passed numerous background checks performed as part of his gun purchases.
59 dead and over 500 injured seems to me to make it very clear that the laws as presently constituted and enforced are not sufficient to prevent mass shootings.
* * *
There is also a lot of discussion about why authorities have not called Stephen Paddock a terrorist, and the Las Vegas Massacre as an act of terrorism.
Let's review the definition of terrorism:
Terrorism is defined by federal law in Title 22 Chapter 38 U.S. Code § 2656f as "premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents.
NATO defines terrorism in the AAP-06 NATO Glossary of Terms and Definitions, Edition 2014 as "The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence against individuals or property in an attempt to coerce or intimidate governments or societies to achieve political, religious or ideological objectives".
So a lot of people are saying that this is not terrorism because we have no knowledge or evidence of any political motive.
But there is another definition of terrorism, and it is one that is more relevant that the two above. Nevada Law:
NRS 202.4415 “Act of terrorism” defined.
1. “Act of terrorism” means any act that involves the use or attempted use of sabotage, coercion or violence which is intended to:
(a) Cause great bodily harm or death to the general population; or
(b) Cause substantial destruction, contamination or impairment of:
(1) Any building or infrastructure, communications, transportation, utilities or services; or
(2) Any natural resource or the environment.
2. As used in this section, “coercion” does not include an act of civil disobedience.
That makes this an act of terrorism and Stephen Paddock a terrorist. But I understand the reluctance of authorities to label it as such, due to the lack of evidence of any motive.
* * *
Whoever and whatever Stephen Paddock was, this was a very well-planned mass shooting. He arranged to have the "high ground." He rented a suite that gave him two firing points with different angles on the target. He managed to get more than a dozen weapons into his suite, along with thousands of rounds of ammunition.
Some are questioning how he got so much ammo up into his suite. "Ammo is heavy" is one statement I am hearing over and over again. Paddock had four Daniel Defense M-4s and three FN-15s in his suite. They fire ammunition that has a weight of roughly one pound for every 133 rounds.
That's right. 13,300 rounds would weigh one hundred pounds. Not exactly lightweight but not so heavy as to make it impossible to transport from wherever he stored it to his suite.
* * *
I've seen some who are critical of those who offer their "thoughts and prayers" for the victims. These critics say that the offering of thoughts and prayers is actually to comfort those who make the offer, rather than the victims and their families.
Sorry critics, but prayer is a personal thing. Until you can prove to me in a scientific way that miracles do not happen, let's let people pray as they wish.
That being said, we need to do more. We need to find a way to prevent the next massacre. After the Pulse Nightclub shooting in Orlando, which was the worst mass shooting in our nation's history until Sunday night, I wrote this blog with one idea about how to deal with the claims of those who say the Second Amendment gives them the unfettered right to bear arms.
When we live in a nation where estimates tell us there is roughly one firearm for every person living here, that's a recipe for trouble. The right to own handguns and hunting rifles should not be altered, as long as we ensure that those who do own them are of sound mind. But no one outside of the military and law enforcement needs access to automatic weapons.
posted by me at 4:33 AM
<< Home