Tom

https://apnews.com/article/trump-arrested-indicted-hush-money-manhattan-prosecutor-a48428984cf99d23f46b4157b34160ae?utm_source=homepage&utm_medium=TopNews&utm_campaign=position_01

Well, now this isn’t something I honestly expected on my BINGO card… https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-64992727 BBC News: ICC issues arrest warrant for Russian president

Cue “breaking news” from CNN: Slovakia to send 13 MiG-29s to Ukraine…

It gives DeSantis a headline “owning the libs”. It might even distract a little from his Ukraine comments. If he’s planning to run for the Republican nomination, looking good to the base is probably the most pressing issue he has.

That is a distinct possibility. I can be pedantic. When I see the "marketed to", I mentally link to the marketing of sugary breakfast cereals to children on Saturday morning cartoons (back when Saturday morning cartoons were still a thing). The product was placed so that children would see it and then pester mommy to buy it next trip to the grocery store. That's my generous response. My more cynical response is politicians/activists are clutching at their pearls and worrying about children actually be exposed to guns in a positive manner - which is my cynical response towards politicians/activists clutching at their pearls and warning of the dangers of drag story time at the library because they're worried about children being exposed to the LGBTQ+ community in a positive manner. If you're worried about desensitization and trivialization of guns, the JR15 is the wrong target, even if it does look like a military rifle. It ships with a 1-shot magazine and has a safety mechanism designed to only be operated by an adult. Yeah, nothing's fool proof, but that doesn't look like "Marketing to Irresponsible Idiots 101" to me. (oh, and that looks like Autumn on the top of the company's home page - somebody looking for a market must have read the article where she complained about a lack of AR-style rifles in a pint-sized frame) Instead, I suggest asking yourself who routinely trivializes and glamorizes the use of firearms as the best/only solution to every problem... One half, at least. The other half was likely abortion. At least those were the two that always seemed to be the focus as far back as I can recall. And the biggest reason, IMO, is that the hard core "against" side of both arguments have made it clear that they will accept nothing less than absolute victory. That's not to say the "for" sides don't have their absolutists as well, but it's really hard to for more reasonable people to accept compromises when the "against" people treat each concession like a first down in American football - the ball is still in play and they're that much closer to their ultimate goal.

While I respect your having your own opinions, I would like to make a couple of observations. First, no one here has argued that the JR15 isn't marketed for kids. And I fully expect parents who enjoy shooting to show, and buy, it for their kids. Second, while there are certainly societal differences at play, it would be incorrect to say that's the whole story. The gun range where I work is roughly an hour drive from a Canadian border crossing and I've met quite a few Canadians who enjoy shooting as much as I do - both while at my job and over the years.

Can you say where you found the JR15 ad? Was it in media targeted at adults or children? I won't disagree the firearm is marketed for children, but I will question whether the firearm is being marketed to children. Since "marketing to children" is how Biden's executive order is formulated, I consider that to be a fair question. The YouTube video is a different can of worms. The first point is it is not firearms industry marketing, at least not at any surface level. It's someone who made a YouTube channel about guns that is using his daughter as the presenter. The follow-up questions require more digging than I'm up to attempting: 1) What are the channel's demographics? 2) How much financial support is the channel receiving from the firearms industry? I expect at least some level of support, based on other channels I've seen (ie: loaning guns to be reviewed). (I've seen the channel before, but I can't manage to watch more than the first couple of minutes. A little too hokey for me, which may or may not be a sign that it's aimed at a younger demographic.) I'm inclined to think of the channel as a form of firearms marketing, I'm just not sure that it is actually directed towards children - though I can see it appealing to people who would likely want to share it with their children. Yeah, me neither. There are YouTube channels on just about everything imaginable... More to the point, I work at a shooting range. I routinely see parents introducing their kids to firearms or out for a fun time together. I taught my kids how to shoot. Both because I hoped they'd share in my hobby and because I felt they needed to know how to handle firearms safely since I own several. I also taught my kids how to play TTRPGs. If it makes you feel any better, my kids don't own guns (and they are of legal age to do so these days), but they still have lots of dice and play TTRPGs (not Hero though, darn it).

The first two are real guns marketed to adults who are either still children at heart or just childish - I’ll leave that to your discretion as it would be a matter of opinion. I wouldn’t consider it as marketing firearms to children, however. (I’d classify the “Block 19” as an ill conceived stunt to “own the libs” as opposed to any sort of marketing ploy, personally, though I may be judging the people responsible too harshly due to the media coverage it received) The third link is likely closer to the mark, though should that be considered marketing by the firearms industry or toy makers producing what sells? Toy guns have been a part of the US cultural landscape for probably longer than any of us has been alive. I also doubt the manufacture and marketing of toys is what the politicians have in mind in relation to the call to investigate the firearms industry’s marketing practices. It’s certainly not what they’re pointing to/waving in the air when they accuse the firearms industry of marketing to children at a press event. A gun like the JR-15 (brought up in an earlier exchange) is a real firearm chambered in .22LR, not a piece of plastic which looks like a gun and shoots foam darts. It also circles back to my point that firearms are a glamorized, and normalized, part of life in the US - particularly in the entertainment industry (which is where I’d categorize toy makers). It should certainly be part of a broader conversation, but, while I can’t see the firearms industry being upset by it, it isn’t something I’d lay at the firearms industry’s feet either.

It’s still too soon to see anything from ATF, so all I’ve got to work with is the release linked above and what I’ve seen in the news (well, and some YouTube click-bait I haven’t watched). Most of this seems focused on enforcing existing laws and writing reports demonstrating how federal agencies are enforcing existing laws. The call to investigate marketing by the firearms industry is nothing new, but does put the weight of the presidency behind it. I’m still trying to figure out how the industry is marketing to minors. The closest I can come is video games and movies - but I haven’t heard too many criticisms of the entertainment industry on the subject outside of a Bill Maher segment recently. I’m not the biggest consumer of typical advertising driven mass media, so anyone who can point to examples of firearm industry marketing to minors can help me broaden my horizons. Marketing to the tacticool crowd is definitely a thing, though…. Increased federal support following mass shootings. I’m curious what definition they’re using. FBI “active shooter” criteria or the standard currently being used by the media. If the latter, the price tag will probably require congressional action in all likelihood. Undetectable Firearms Act of 1988. Issue is still mostly in the realm of Hollywood/sci fi, but there is something to be said for addressing potential issues beforehand.

It's actually a bit more complicated than that, for even a not quite casual gun nerd like me. If I break that down as you have it literally, it's absolute nonsense. I can think of only two centerfire .22 caliber cartridges which are used in anything 'commonly' accepted as a pistol, .22TCM and .221 Remington Fireball - and while the .22TCM is available in a 1911-style handgun, I'm pretty sure the .221 Rem Fireball was only used in the Remington XP-100 (which is a bolt action, single shot, target pistol). The 'threaded barrel' bit is just throwing stuff at the wall, as the primary use in most people's minds is to attach a suppressor (aka: silencer) and I'm fairly sure suppressors are already illegal in CA. I haven't dug around yet, but I believe I've seen elsewhere that all NFA governed items are illegal in CA. However... The legal definition of a pistol is a bit broader than the more casual observer might suspect, as anyone who raised an eyebrow at my description of the XP-100 above might have guessed. AR pistols are a thing (think sawed off AR-15 with no stock - which looks goofy because of the buffer tube) and 5.56x45mm is a centerfire cartridge firing a .22 caliber bullet. Without digging for specifics again, I'm pretty sure these guns are already heavily regulated in CA, assuming they're on the official list of guns people of CA are allowed to own. This type of pistol is also wrapped up in the ATF's new pistol brace rule which was talked about a bit further up thread. (like I said, it's kinda complicated) Threaded barrels can also be used to attach barrel extensions (among other things). If the new 'assault pistol' thing being thrown about (and isn't 'pistol' already covered under 'weapon') is just politicians showing the public they're 'doing something' following the dance hall shootings, and assuming the firearm used is actually what I saw mentioned in one media article (Cobray M11), then it makes a certain amount of sense (at least from the 'doing something' standpoint). The Cobray M11 is a civilianized MAC-10 submachinegun (converted to fire from a closed bolt in semi-auto only). From a shootability stand point, it has the ergonomics of a brick. However, if you add a barrel extension (typically a faux suppressor, because, kewl - and why else would you want semi-auto submachinegun look-alike), it's a little easier to shoot.

Coming back to this a bit, I thought I'd provide a bit of context for the typical (from a gun person perspective) on inclusion of selective fire as part of the definition of an 'assault rifle' and one possible explanation for why the term 'assault weapon' seems so hard to pin down. For someone with a historic interest in military firearms, the 'assault rifle' is an actual thing. We know what it is and what characteristics define it. We can even point to a specific gun and say: "this is where it all begins..." We might debate whether 'this' gun or 'that' gun is an 'assault rifle' or a 'battle rifle' (gun nerds can be as bad as Hero gamers tearing apart a character sheet -- well, maybe not that bad), but we can agree on what isn't an 'assault rifle' and selective fire is part of the core definition. 'Assault weapon' as we are seeing, is a nice vague term that sounds threatening, but that we're having a hard time (though we haven't really dug that deep into things here) actually defining it. Sort of like 'pornography' - "I know it when I see it." Or, more simply, it's whatever I say it is. For anyone interested in a bit of military history:

I'm going to insert a quibble here. Even if you don't know the sharp edge cuts and the pointy end goes in the other person, as long as you can at least figure out which part to hold onto you can do a lot of damage with a knife. On the other hand, while firearms are certainly more dangerous than a knife in most situations, I can't tell you how many new shooters I've worked with who can't figure out how to load a firearm without physical assistance and multiple repetitions or have shown up to shoot without the correct ammunition to even fit into their firearm. While one should always assume a firearm is loaded as a matter of best practice, an unloaded firearm is no more dangerous physically than any other paperweight of similar size and mass. Yeah, I really don't have an issue with a training requirement before someone is allowed to own a gun.

Open bolt designs are typical only in submachineguns and machineguns. You don't generally find them in firearms intended to fire in semi-automatic even with military/police guns (they do exist though). Open bolt does terrible things to your accuracy, so anything where 'semi-' isn't included as an afterthought is generally closed bolt. And this is why even 'reasonable' gun people tend to be resistant to additional legislation. Owning an unregistered fully automatic weapon is illegal in the US. Owning unregistered parts to make a firearm fully automatic is illegal in the US. Typical response - let's make more stuff illegal... Even before 3D printers, it's not particularly hard to build a submachinegun.

Through what time period are we considering? And does the firearm have to have had adaptations made to its form or functions? How different does a civilian firearm have to be from a military-issued firearm of similar type and capabilities in order to not be considered a 'weapon of war'? Can a rifle chambered in .22LR ( a rimfire cartridge) be considered a 'weapon of war'? So pretty much every semi-automatic centerfire rifle with a detachable magazine and a barrel length of less than 20" (roughly), assuming by 'weapon' we are only referring to rifles. Fairly broad, but I can think of a few rifles that would not be covered by it such as any Pistol Caliber Carbine (PCC - based on cartridge length and I'm assuming you're going by overall length and not case length) and rifles such as the Springfield Armory M1A (civilianized M-14, overall length is 44.33" in Standard Issue configuration) or the Soviet SKS rifle (doesn't have a detachable magazine) which would likely still cause appropriately minded activists and politicians heartburn. I'm also assuming you're not intending an overlap in definitions with 'weapon of war'. What is the concern with semi-automatic? The action type has been in use since the 1890s, though it didn't see much in the way of military adoption in rifles until the 1940s - which is still 80(ish) years ago.

I’m really curious how Florida thinks it has authority over people in other states… I know DeSantis is considered a potential candidate for the Republican nomination, but he hasn’t even unofficially stated an intent to run to the best of my knowledge let alone been elected President.