Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Info/corrections/clarifications
Regarding the WSJ article by Ashby Jones and Dan Frosch:
<< http://www.wsj.com/articles/rifles-used-in-san-bernardino-shooting-illegal-under-state-law-1449201057 >>
"While they were originally sold legally, with magazine locking devices commonly known as bullet buttons, the rifles were subsequently altered in different ways to make them more powerful, according to Meredith Davis, a special agent with the ATF."
The Smith & Wesson rifle was changed in an attempt to enable it fire in fully automatic mode, while the DPMS weapon was modified to use a large-capacity magazine, she said.
Those alterations made the weapons unlawful under California’s ban on assault weapons, which bans guns with magazines that can detach for quick reloading."
The Smith & Wesson rifle was changed in an attempt to enable it fire in fully automatic mode, while the DPMS weapon was modified to use a large-capacity magazine, she said.
Those alterations made the weapons unlawful under California’s ban on assault weapons, which bans guns with magazines that can detach for quick reloading."
I'm not really sure "...an attempt to enable it fire in fully automatic mode," actually means and I note that the authors did not quote Agent Davis. An attempt sounds like work that was unsuccessful or incomplete.
Modifications to make magazines removable and or to accept a mag of greater capacity would hardly be difficult, involved or require skills beyond bicycle assembly and maintenance.
Neither of these changes adapts the rifle to a higher powered round that make them "more powerful".
It seems that Jones and Frosch aren't well informed about their topic.
"Such a review checks only limited categories of information, like whether a purchaser has a criminal history or has been involuntarily committed to a mental-health facility. Federal background checks wouldn't turn up other possible red flags, like whether a purchaser has ties to terrorist organizations."
Since the NICS does not have any secret Bush lists as criteria, characterizing the check as "limited" is misleading. Since California participates in the NICS as full point of contact which indicates California would also check its own database for any disqualifying records for a purchaser.
10 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
maybe there was a rubber band on the trigger 
is it true bullet button is also called "the bullshit button"?
