Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Angel Eyes on November 29, 2018, 02:21:20 AM
-
https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/28/politics/final-bump-stock-ban/index.html?utm_medium=social&utm_source=fbCNN&utm_term=link&utm_content=2018-11-29T01%3A30%3A08
Not a fan of bump stocks myself, but any infringement, however small, should be challenged.
-
To quote myself from a facebook post,
All it actually says is that Trump will announce something dealing with the bump-stocks, doesn't even actually quote anything that Trump said about the announcement. Stop falling for CNN's anti-Trump crap. Does no one remember when Trump tricked the media into giving him coverage by saying he had a "major announcement"? The media took it that he was going to talk about the whole Obama birther thing and all he did was basically turn it into a campaign add for himself.
-
To quote myself from a facebook post,
Right, because Trump never said that he was planning on banning bump stocks or ordered bATFeieio to find a way to do it.
If it goes in a direction other than moving forward with a ban I’d be utterly shocked.
-
Right, because Trump never said that he was planning on banning bump stocks or ordered bATFeieio to find a way to do it.
If it goes in a direction other than moving forward with a ban I’d be utterly shocked.
Correct, he did not. He gave the media a distraction to make it look like something was being done.
-
So the article says it will require owners to destroy or turn in ones owned. It doesn’t mention compensation. That would seem to me to be an immediate constitutional issue.
-
So the article says it will require owners to destroy or turn in ones owned. It doesn’t mention compensation. That would seem to me to be an immediate constitutional issue.
If the constitution mattered, you would be able to buy a new m16 at the gun store. And social security would not exist.
The gov has never had a problem retroactively banning guns before and screwing over the owners (atkins accelerator, ak-47s imported with the third hole drilled etc).
-
Correct, he did not. He gave the media a distraction to make it look like something was being done.
We'll see.
-
Let's all mail him Levi's belt loops.
-
There are going to be court cases showing that the ATF is 1) Violating their rule making ability sans Congressionally passed legislation, 2) Violating their own rule on the definition of semi vs fully automatic. 3) The "takings clause" of constitution, and 4) other things that my non-legal mind can't conceive.
-
There are going to be court cases showing that the ATF is 1) Violating their rule making ability sans Congressionally passed legislation, 2) Violating their own rule on the definition of semi vs fully automatic. 3) The "takings clause" of constitution, and 4) other things that my non-legal mind can't conceive.
"And creatin' a nuisance"?
-
"And creatin' a nuisance"?
All right, you . . . . . off to the Group W bench.
-
And here I was about to buy a bump stock for my 642.
-
and 5) Aggravated Mopery.
-
They just rolled summon Alan Gura.
-
They just rolled summon Alan Gura.
??? Do what????
-
Like rolling a seven? They crapped out and now will have to contend with hotshot pro gun attorneys?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Gura
Gura successfully argued two landmark constitutional cases before the United States Supreme Court, District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago.
On March 22, 2013, the National Law Journal named Mr. Gura one of "The 100 Most Influential Lawyers in America."[2]
Did I get that right? Gura's one of my long-standing Heroes Of The Republic.
Terry
-
I didn't really get that either.
I don't have a bump stock anymore. I am mainly concerned with how they write the rule and how it will be stretched to cover other items. I do have a binary trigger (they are fun toys).
-
They just rolled summon Alan Gura.
I believe he's referring to rolling a die in a role-playing game (such as Dungeons & Dragons). Their actions will provoke Alan Gura to challenge them.
-
Oh gawds... I find it hilarious that fistful got the reference, while nobody else did
-
I believe he's referring to rolling a die in a role-playing game (such as Dungeons & Dragons). Their actions will provoke Alan Gura to challenge them.
Winner winner.
Seriously, none of you degenerates ever played D&D?
-
I guess I got close, but in a non-D&D context.
-
Not a D&D player, ever, but I inferred that was the reference because I AM a huge nerd/geek...
-
Not a D&D player, ever, but I inferred that was the reference because I AM a huge nerd/geek...
Cool story, bro.
-
Yer jus jealous...
-
Seriously, none of you degenerates ever played D&D?
I was busy being not-a-nerd.
-
I was busy being not-a-nerd.
It's all kinds of fun when you're military and poor, if you have a decent group.
-
i read somewhere that NJ had made a law requiring they be turned in and no one did.
however, i have no problem believing no one in todays NJ knows what they even are.
-
Winner winner.
Seriously, none of you degenerates ever played D&D?
Roommate and I in college played Avalon Hill wargames. Mostly Panzer Blitz and The Russian Campaign. We also played AH Multi-player railroad with some female friends. The names of the Games currently escape me.
-
I betcha parts of FOPA get overturned before this is settled.
-
I betcha parts of FOPA get overturned before this is settled.
Hopefully the right parts.
-
I betcha parts of FOPA get overturned before this is settled.
i have a suspicion that trump plans to "lose" the inevitable court case and voila, more gun rights.
if however, we end up with less rights after 4yrs of trump than i am done with the R party
-
At least two lawsuits filed the same day to fight this.
https://www.firearmspolicy.org/lawsuit-challenging-trump-bump-stock-ban (https://www.firearmspolicy.org/lawsuit-challenging-trump-bump-stock-ban)
https://www.gunowners.org/goa-file-bump-stock-suit.htm (https://www.gunowners.org/goa-file-bump-stock-suit.htm)
-
I betcha parts of FOPA get overturned before this is settled.
What parts?
The law addressed 5 major areas:
- FFL inspection reforms
- New machine guns
- Safe passage
- Registry prohibition
- Prohibited Persons clarification
I don't think this case will help overturn the new machine gun ban. I absolutely hope it does, but I won't hold my breath. Maybe Trump, the NRA, GOA, and the lawyers, are playing the long game here and this is all the foundation to repel those bans. Who knows?
-
i have a suspicion that trump plans to "lose" the inevitable court case and voila, more gun rights.
if however, we end up with less rights after 4yrs of trump than i am done with the R party
The GOP has presided over just as much gun legislation as the DNC in the last 30 years, and Trump isn't playing some long game to save our gun rights. He's proven to be a reactionary dolt with no interest in saving our rights.
-
Trump isn't playing some long game to save our gun rights. He's proven to be a reactionary dolt with no interest in saving our rights.
(https://i.imgflip.com/2pd0r5.jpg) (https://imgflip.com/memegenerator)
-
https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regulations/bump-stocks
ATF is asking people to make appointments to turn in their bump devices to an ATF office.
I think it'd be hilarious if people made a bunch of appointments to turn in belt loops and rubber bands and bits of string and such.
-
The GOP has presided over just as much gun legislation as the DNC in the last 30 years, and Trump isn't playing some long game to save our gun rights. He's proven to be a reactionary dolt with no interest in saving our rights.
GOP =/= Trump
IMO, it is the NRA we should be dumping on more than Republicans. It was La Pierre and Chris Cox who first went public about administratively banning bump stocks. Republicans just went along with it since the NRA is supposed to represent gun owners. I put Trump in that category as I think he is taking his lead on gun rights from them.
-
Everything is a bargaining chip to one extent or another for Trump. 2nd amendment freedoms probably fall into that category also, up to a point.
There may not be multidimensional chess being played, but we certainly aren’t in on what the hell is really going on in the halls of power.
Bush was against nation building, Obama and Trump were going to wind down our Middle East wars.
Republicans voted to cancel Obamacare multiple times when it didn’t count then punted when they had power.
Something or someone(s) is more powerful than the will of the people in charting our course forward.
I don’t care a bit about bump stocks but if I had my way, that bargaining chip wouldn’t have been played.
-
I personally think bump stocks are stupid and can actually be dangerous. They are even harder to control and keep on target than a firearm with a real happy switch. The couple times I tried one I found them difficult to make work and fire accurately. It’s hard to maintain a firm grip and stable firing position with them. I have a pretty good amount of experience with real full auto, I own a FA AR receiver, Uzi, Thompson and AC556.
I’m kind of ambivalent about them being legal or not, however this law by regulation thing is not constitutional and a very slippery slope. The ATF cannot be allowed to just make up laws. Their regulation contradicts the statute they are using to make the regulation. If Congress carefully wrote a law that outlawed them I’d dislike it, but not be as concerned. It would be safer to just allow new FA items to be registered to be honest though from my experiences with bump firing.
-
Reading that rule, I think they are in deep crap in court. They specifically use the phrase:
"as the result of a self-acting or self-regulating mechanism that allows the firing of multiple rounds through a single pull of the trigger."
Seems like it would be pretty simple to put an AR w/ Slide Fire in a rest in the court room, pull the trigger and slide it into the stock, then let go......and wait for it to self act or self regulate. They don't. If I didn't think the ATF was evil, I'd think they had written that rule so that it would be found illegal.
Also, FWIW, who ever wrote it seems to not have heard of binary triggers.
-
Whoever wrote it might be perfectly aware of what they are doing.
Write the law and get it passed but have written it so that it can't survive a court challenge.
I've been thinking recently that the AWB was written in such a way that it was easy to discredit.
All that business about bayonet lugs and flash hiders and so forth made the bill very easy to ridicule and to show just how ignorant the anti-gun crowd is.
Was that by chance or were there politicians involved in the drafting of the bill, who knew that it was stupid but was going to pass regardless, used their promise to vote for it to have influence in the drafting stage? And made sure all that idiocy got into the bill so that when the sunset came the bill would be very difficult to defend because of all the negative publicity on the meaningless stuff?
-
https://babylonbee.com/news/tragic-every-single-bump-stock-in-nation-suddenly-lost-in-boating-accident
-
Worth the read...
http://www.michaelzwilliamson.com/blog/index.php?itemid=484
-
i have a suspicion that trump plans to "lose" the inevitable court case and voila, more gun rights.
If however, we end up with less rights after 4yrs of trump then I am done with the R party
I also have that sweet golden dream... and that it ultimately leads to a reconsideration and overturning of The National Firearms Act (NFA) of 1934.
Then I smell the coffee.
Terry, 230RN
-
I'm thinking of starting "Terry's Leaky Boat Rental" business.
Holes in the bottom calibrated for the distance from shore that is required before the boat sinks.
Terry
-
Everything is a bargaining chip to one extent or another for Trump. 2nd amendment freedoms probably fall into that category also, up to a point.
I'm afraid this is more truth than any of us may want to believe. After a conversation with some insiders, it is my understanding that a new AWB was floated by the Trump administration, but the Dems weren't willing to cave on border security/immigration in trade for it.