
California school shooting shines light on murky 'ghost gun' world - motiw
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-california-shooting-ghostgun-idUSKBN1XW1AL
======
Rebelgecko
Why are journalists writing about guns so bad? I don't want to totally derail
the thread by going down the "fake news" rabbit hole, but when an article
about something I'm marginally knowledgeable about has huge inaccuracies, it
makes me wonder: is it just difficult to fact-check this particular topic? Or
are all news articles equally untrustworthy and I'm just not informed enough
to realize it?

Anyways, literally the first sentence of the article is false[1]. Self-made
firearms in California are required to have a serial number, must be put into
the state registry (a somewhat byzantine process), and are illegal to
resell[2]. In other words, the gun is either legal OR untraceable. It can't be
both at the same time.

[1]: [https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/attachments/press-
docs/consu...](https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/attachments/press-
docs/consumer-alert.pdf)

[2]: For ones manufactured after 2018, your family can't even inherit them
when you die— they have to be surrendered to the police for destruction. If
you have a relative you _really_ don't like, you should definitely bequeath
them your homemade guns— there's a non-zero chance they'll end up in prison
for possession.

~~~
strken
Can you explain the mistake the author made in more detail? I think he's
confusing "it's legal to own an 80% lower and some gun parts with no serial
number until you mill the lower" with "it's legal to own the resulting gun",
but I'm not a gun owner and don't know the law.

~~~
Rebelgecko
What I'd suspect is happening:

In California you need the state DOJ's permission to mill an 80% lower, then
they give you a serial number that you have to engrave on it within 10 days.

Other states have different laws. Some are similar to CA but most are less
restrictive. There are places where it is true to say that "Such firearms have
no serial numbers, and ... legally bypass background checks and registration
regulations." But the author is conflating the national laws with the laws for
manufacturing in California (without mentioning that what happened in
California is actually multiple felonies). It's either ignorant,
unintentionally misleading, or pushing a narrative.

------
pmoriarty
As technology advances and information gets more and more effectively
disseminated, not just guns but weapons of all types (including chemical and
biological weapons, drone-mounted and robot-mounted weapons, poisons,
explosives, etc) will become easier and easier for DIY enthusiasts to
manufacture at home or from kits.

I'm not sure what can be done about this, ultimately, short of turning society
in to a completely totalitarian surveillance state where everyone's actions
are fully monitored and controlled by the state and there is effectively no
privacy.

Those who are trying to control technology are fighting a losing battle.

~~~
bsder
> Those who are trying to control technology are fighting a losing battle.

However, there is a vast difference between having to fire up a lathe and
machine a barrel vs putting together a kit of a half-dozen or so primary
parts.

By analogy, most people can put together a computer. Only a very few can
actually design and manufacture a motherboard even though it is relatively
cheap to do so nowadays.

In addition, most people who are going to go on a shooting rampage probably
don't have the skills to operate a lathe or milling machine.

~~~
jcims
The point isn’t that there are multiple ways to get a gun, it’s more that
there are a _lot_ of ways to kill people and advances in technology and
dissemination of information is going to bring more of them within reach of
the average homicidal person.

~~~
bsder
> it’s more that there are a lot of ways to kill people and advances in
> technology and dissemination of information is going to bring more of them
> within reach of the average homicidal person.

I don't buy this.

The "average" homicidal person generally isn't that capable. And everything
you mentioned requires at least above average skill levels in quite a few
different areas.

Yes, a smart homicidal maniac may have a lot more options, but most homicidal
people simply aren't that smart.

~~~
CompanionCubee
The degree of planning and preparation that goes into the infamous mass
shootings does suggest that they are capable.

------
ndesaulniers
Typically a gun assembled from parts would still have the lower receiver
stamped with an ID.

~~~
milkthefat
Pretty sure the kits they are referring to are “unfinished or 80% lowers”
which become functioning with a trivial amount of drilling and cutting and are
essentially sold as raw material instead of a part.

~~~
madengr
It’s not a trivial amount. I’m in the process of finishing an 80% AR-15 lower.
Deep pocket milling with a hand router and crappy endmill just sucks.

~~~
nlp_1
The glock 80% market is blowing up with very very easy to finish kits. It can
be done with a hand drill and an xacto knife in under a hour.

The shooter in the article probably built a 1911 from an 80% kit and the kits
are getting easier to finish. The virginia tech shooter used two pistols I
believe.

Just stating that some pistol kits are very easy to finish as opposed to an
ar/ak

~~~
madengr
I’d think a 1911 would require more, given they seem to be so finicky. Maybe
that’s next on my project list. Glocks, meh. Never cared for them.

The ATF raided some shop in CA specializing in polymer lowers. Claimed they
were too easy to finish, though they still met the 80% standard.

------
gddvhy
1\. Why did he do that? 2. Wait. What registrations? The Constitution clearly
forbids any kind of gun registries.

~~~
mantap
I'm not American but where exactly does the constitution forbid gun
registries?

~~~
sam36
"the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

"Infringed" can certainly be read as any process that gets in the way of gun
purchasing.

~~~
rtkwe
That's basically the maximalist interpretation and that's not the one US law
works under at all. Under that all of the current restrictions on purchase
would be illegal including felon, drug addict, domestic violence, and non-
citizen and those are strong, I don't think I've seen any meaningful challenge
to those today. Buying from any legal store you must go through a NICS check
and can be denied or delayed. [0]

[0] Except in cases where you have a CCW (which you go through a background
check to get already), a purchase permit (many states require a check from the
sherrif or similar office before buying a handgun) or some other similar stand
in that does something significantly similar to the NICS checks.

~~~
rayiner
> That's basically the maximalist interpretation and that's not the one US law
> works under at all.

It’s not a “maximalist” interpretation. With nearly any other federal right,
we’d agree that maintaining a registry of people exercising that right would
impermissibly create a chilling effect. You can be a member of a minority
religion, but only if you place yourself on a registry! You can exercise
freedom of speech or assembly, but only if you put yourself on a registry.
It’s not maximalist, it’s giving an enumerated constitutional right a full and
fair reading.[1]

I do agree that the existing precedent in the area has been impoverished. The
Supreme Court has important work to do correcting that.

[1] The framers were gun nuts and would have been troubled by the decline of
gun ownership. The idea that you have a civic duty to own firearms would be
closer to the original intent than the idea that the government can limit gun
ownership to formal militias.

> Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in
> almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce
> unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed,
> and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops. – Noah
> Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal
> Constitution, October 10, 1787

~~~
mantap
Surely putting a person on a registry and putting a gun on a registry are
different things? A gun is physical object, it has a location that is
independent of its owner's location. The US doesn't keep a registry of people
with minority religions but it does keep registries of religious buildings
where people congregate.

~~~
rayiner
Gun registry proposals universally require recording the gun’s owner:
[https://lawcenter.giffords.org/gun-laws/policy-areas/gun-
own...](https://lawcenter.giffords.org/gun-laws/policy-areas/gun-owner-
responsibilities/registration/)

The US doesn’t keep registries of religious buildings either. There’s
obviously titles and whatnot for buildings. But it would likely be deemed a
constitutional violation to require registration of every place that would be
used to hold religious services. Some in Germany have proposed a “mosque
registry”: [https://www.dw.com/en/german-politician-wants-islam-law-
and-...](https://www.dw.com/en/german-politician-wants-islam-law-and-mosque-
registry/a-38200982).

