[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Forbes Article - Bump Stock Rule Puts Constitution In The Crosshairs (Page 3 of 4)
|
Quoted:
I don't think you have to worry about that. Quoted:
Quoted:
If the bump stock ban gets up to SCOTUS, Roberts writes the opinion and in it overturns the ban and Chevron, I'm probably going to lose my account for ceaselessly mocking a lifer.  |
|
This ain't Wayne LaPierre's signature:
Attached File Trump was busy sitting down with DiFi and telling Republicans not to be afraid of the NRA and join him in backing gun control: Attached File Attached File 
|
|
Quoted:
We need an NRA logo with a "strike through" to indicate a life member that opposes the present NRA leadership after this bump stock nightmare. The NRA didn't seem to lift a finger to get grandfathering, registration or even compensation. Attached File |
|
Quoted:
Trump owns this shit, Orange man should swallow his price and rescind this bullshit. Quoted:
Quoted: Don't make this about Obama A repub did this 
|
|
Quoted:
That's a stretch. They basically reclassified/redefined what it means to pull a trigger in a manner that now encapsulates bump stocks. So they didn't ban anything new, MGs were already banned... they just used some rather tenuous logic to redefine bumpstocks as MGs. What in the world would magazines be redefined as that is already prohibited federally? Machineguns? AOWs? Lol. Magazines themselves dont skate anywhere the definition of anything that's regulated ... unlike bumpstocks which were always right at the edge of what constitutes a machine gun. Bad ruling, terrible precedent, and bumpstocks aren't MGs... but pretending that magazines will fall prey to the same tactic (with the current set of actual laws on the books) is behaving quite like Chicken Little. Quoted:
Quoted:
All you anti-Bumpsters... Just change the word "bump stock" with "high capacity magazines"...because left unchecked, it will be sooner than you think. all you guys who went out and raped credit cards and savings accounts buying lower receivers, you invested in vapor. They basically reclassified/redefined what it means to pull a trigger in a manner that now encapsulates bump stocks. So they didn't ban anything new, MGs were already banned... they just used some rather tenuous logic to redefine bumpstocks as MGs. What in the world would magazines be redefined as that is already prohibited federally? Machineguns? AOWs? Lol. Magazines themselves dont skate anywhere the definition of anything that's regulated ... unlike bumpstocks which were always right at the edge of what constitutes a machine gun. Bad ruling, terrible precedent, and bumpstocks aren't MGs... but pretending that magazines will fall prey to the same tactic (with the current set of actual laws on the books) is behaving quite like Chicken Little. |
| The courts do what it takes to protect the illegal power grab of .gov. Where did the legal authority come from to infringe on 2nd Ammendments rights? Now lawful citizens are being pen-stroked into felons literally overnight. In 18 days 520,000 have a choice to make. Principled and moral leaders don't do that to their citizens but tyrants sure do. |
|
Quoted:
Just another in a long list of examples of just how far the courts are willing to go to reach a desired result. At this point the only surprise is that some people still ask: "Is the rule of law dead in this country?" |
|
Quoted:
I would support this. Quoted:
Quoted:
We need an NRA logo with a "strike through" to indicate a life member that opposes the present NRA leadership after this bump stock nightmare. The NRA didn't seem to lift a finger to get grandfathering, registration or even compensation. |
|
Quoted:
He presents Obama as superior because Obama didn't ban bump stocks. That's Not true. Obama would have banned everything except for the fact that Obama was lazy and incompetent.  FDJT however.....said he wouldn't move backwards on the 2A. Hell, he said he'd have a task force to expand the 2A. All we have got is the erosion of the 2A at his grubby miniature trash panda sized hands. FDJT |
|
Quoted: Once Obama got his zerocare passed, he was largely content to get in good soundbites and then piss off to the golf course as opposed to doing any actual work. Hope he gets primaried. Hell, I hope he gets impeached and the Senate boots him out. We'd be better off with Pence. |
|
Quoted:
I know WHY they banned them. Like you mentioned, the too many pews in too short of a time. I was talking about HOW they banned bumpstocks. They didn't just say, Bumpstocks shoot fast like machineguns so they're illegal." Bumpstocks were on the raw edge of being legal in how the ATF originally determined their functionality as it applied to "single function of the trigger". They just "clarified" what function of the trigger actually meant and "analyzed" the operation of a bumpstock and claimed the continuous application of the shooters force against the protrusion on the stock constituted a single function of the trigger. Wham, bam, thank you ma'am... it's a Machinegun. I ain't saying it was right, but they were at least able to try and pin it on something. I know WHY they want to ban large magazines... but there is a HUGE hurdle of how to do it. They can't just say, "They let you shoot fast so they're a machinegun." There has t be some sort of categorical/technical reason they're being classified as SOMETHING already banned. So tell me, what is it? HOW the magazines get banned. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
All you anti-Bumpsters... Just change the word "bump stock" with "high capacity magazines"...because left unchecked, it will be sooner than you think. all you guys who went out and raped credit cards and savings accounts buying lower receivers, you invested in vapor. They basically reclassified/redefined what it means to pull a trigger in a manner that now encapsulates bump stocks. So they didn’t ban anything new, MGs were already banned... they just used some rather tenuous logic to redefine bumpstocks as MGs. What in the world would magazines be redefined as that is already prohibited federally? Machineguns? AOWs? Lol. Magazines themselves dont skate anywhere the definition of anything that’s regulated ... unlike bumpstocks which were always right at the edge of what constitutes a machine gun. Bad ruling, terrible precedent, and bumpstocks aren’t MGs... but pretending that magazines will fall prey to the same tactic (with the current set of actual laws on the books) is behaving quite like Chicken Little. If this fiat-ban is allowed to stand, then yes, a future/this president could issue an executive action to their AG to reclassify +10/etc round magazines as full-auto conversion kits, the same as lightning links & bump stocks. Most likely they would start with readily-identifiable/vilifiable "drum" magazines, like Clinton did for 'assault' shotguns in the 90s. The same public safety argument could likely be used to retire old vehicles lacking modern safety systems, engines/transmissions, emissions systems, or eventually self-driving systems I suppose. I was talking about HOW they banned bumpstocks. They didn't just say, Bumpstocks shoot fast like machineguns so they're illegal." Bumpstocks were on the raw edge of being legal in how the ATF originally determined their functionality as it applied to "single function of the trigger". They just "clarified" what function of the trigger actually meant and "analyzed" the operation of a bumpstock and claimed the continuous application of the shooters force against the protrusion on the stock constituted a single function of the trigger. Wham, bam, thank you ma'am... it's a Machinegun. I ain't saying it was right, but they were at least able to try and pin it on something. I know WHY they want to ban large magazines... but there is a HUGE hurdle of how to do it. They can't just say, "They let you shoot fast so they're a machinegun." There has t be some sort of categorical/technical reason they're being classified as SOMETHING already banned. So tell me, what is it? HOW the magazines get banned. |
|
Quoted:
I'm more worried about them declaring AR lowers to be machinegun lowers than a declaration that magazines are machineguns. Quoted:
Quoted: I know WHY they banned them. Like you mentioned, the too many pews in too short of a time. I was talking about HOW they banned bumpstocks. They didn't just say, Bumpstocks shoot fast like machineguns so they're illegal." Bumpstocks were on the raw edge of being legal in how the ATF originally determined their functionality as it applied to "single function of the trigger". They just "clarified" what function of the trigger actually meant and "analyzed" the operation of a bumpstock and claimed the continuous application of the shooters force against the protrusion on the stock constituted a single function of the trigger. Wham, bam, thank you ma'am... it's a Machinegun. I know WHY they want to ban large magazines... but there is a HUGE hurdle of how to do it. They can't just say, "They let you shoot fast so they're a machinegun." There has t be some sort of categorical/technical reason they're being classified as SOMETHING already banned. So tell me, what is it? HOW the magazines get banned. |
|
Quoted:
I'm more worried about them declaring AR lowers to be machinegun lowers than a declaration that magazines are machineguns. Reason being, Ohio had a law that said while you could possess magazines over 30 rounds, if you put it in a firearm, you now had a machine gun. I'm not sure if it ever faced judicial scrutiny but it was the law for a very long time and only went away after the legislature finally got rid of it not long ago. It certainly wouldn't be a stretch to have something on the national level that says magazines over 30 rounds are machine gun parts and, who says the rather arbitrary number of 30 rounds would be the cutoff. |
|
Quoted:
This ain't Wayne LaPierre's signature: https://www.AR15.Com/media/mediaFiles/102941/Bumpstock_Ban_Trump_Signed_jpg-870143.JPG Trump was busy sitting down with DiFi and telling Republicans not to be afraid of the NRA and join him in backing gun control: https://www.AR15.Com/media/mediaFiles/102941/trump_afraid_of_nra_feinstein_jpg-870144.JPG https://www.AR15.Com/media/mediaFiles/102941/trump-guns_told_nra_stop_nonsense_shootings_JPG-870145.JPG https://i.imgur.com/67IIwMt.jpg |
|
Quoted:
You mean President Obama and now Trump correct? Quoted:
Quoted:
Just another in a long list of examples of just how far the courts are willing to go to reach a desired result. At this point the only surprise is that some people still ask: "Is the rule of law dead in this country?" Perhaps you should spend some time reading the cases in which the courts have approved laws which infringe on Americans' liberties. Without the connivance of the courts, the legislatures and the executives (state and Federal) in the US could not successfully abridge our rights. |
|
Quoted:
Not much of a dichotomy. The NRA and Trump both fucked up. The NRA, for vocally lending support to a gun control measure, and Trump for enacting a gun control measure. Quoted:
Quoted:
This ain't Wayne LaPierre's signature: https://www.AR15.Com/media/mediaFiles/102941/Bumpstock_Ban_Trump_Signed_jpg-870143.JPG Trump was busy sitting down with DiFi and telling Republicans not to be afraid of the NRA and join him in backing gun control: https://www.AR15.Com/media/mediaFiles/102941/trump_afraid_of_nra_feinstein_jpg-870144.JPG https://www.AR15.Com/media/mediaFiles/102941/trump-guns_told_nra_stop_nonsense_shootings_JPG-870145.JPG https://i.imgur.com/67IIwMt.jpg The NRA did pay lip service to banning bumpstocks originally after Vegas but then the membership got pissed and they sent Dana Loesch on the talk circuit to walk that back. That article that meme was made from was dated October 2017. The bumpstock ban was proposed by Trump after Parkland in February 2018, almost a full 6 months after Vegas and after the NRA had walked back what they said about bumpstocks originally. No one was talking about banning bumpstocks until Trump brought it up. That and him wanting to raise the age on all firearms purchases to 21, which most people leave out. It just doesn't work to claim that the NRA was the one putting a gun to Trump's head over it, as the Trump cheer squad likes to say, especially when Trump himself was under the impression that they didn't want it and we busy telling Republicans to not be afraid of the NRA and jump on Trump's big beautiful gun control bandwagon. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
There was a video posted a while ago of a congress critter speaking on the floor about how legislative branch has gotten lazy and not ruffling feathers by allowing the alphabet agencies do the legislating for them. making the point that ABC agencies don't have to answer to voters, the heads are appointed not voted in. so they face no repercussions with their policies and enacting regulations which congress should only have the authority to do. If anyone remembers the video, please post It up. I don't remember who it was that was speaking but it was worth the watch and a good assessment of what is goin on.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=https://youtu.be/zhRGzr2LMYo |
|
Quoted:
Well, while the NRA isn't exactly blameless in this clusterfuck, they aren't the shadowy bogeyman the Trump cheer squad likes to claim they are to shift blame off Trump. The NRA did pay lip service to banning bumpstocks originally after Vegas but then the membership got pissed and they sent Dana Loesch on the talk circuit to walk that back. That article that meme was made from was dated October 2017. The bumpstock ban was proposed by Trump after Parkland in February 2018, almost a full 6 months after Vegas and after the NRA had walked back what they said about bumpstocks originally. No one was talking about banning bumpstocks until Trump brought it up. That and him wanting to raise the age on all firearms purchases to 21, which most people leave out. It just doesn't work to claim that the NRA was the one putting a gun to Trump's head over it, as the Trump cheer squad likes to say, especially when Trump himself was under the impression that they didn't want it and we busy telling Republicans to not be afraid of the NRA and jump on Trump's big beautiful gun control bandwagon. https://www.ar15.com/forums/general/Is-NRA-Quietly-Working-With-the-White-House-and-ATF-/5-2038866/ |
|
Quoted:
Look at the time stamps on this thread and then go back and research the times this news broke. I don't know who this guy is, but he is connected well enough to have some great info before anyone else had it. If anyone knows him, tell him he isn't banned anymore. https://www.ar15.com/forums/general/Is-NRA-Quietly-Working-With-the-White-House-and-ATF-/5-2038866/ Quoted:
Quoted:
Well, while the NRA isn't exactly blameless in this clusterfuck, they aren't the shadowy bogeyman the Trump cheer squad likes to claim they are to shift blame off Trump. The NRA did pay lip service to banning bumpstocks originally after Vegas but then the membership got pissed and they sent Dana Loesch on the talk circuit to walk that back. That article that meme was made from was dated October 2017. The bumpstock ban was proposed by Trump after Parkland in February 2018, almost a full 6 months after Vegas and after the NRA had walked back what they said about bumpstocks originally. No one was talking about banning bumpstocks until Trump brought it up. That and him wanting to raise the age on all firearms purchases to 21, which most people leave out. It just doesn't work to claim that the NRA was the one putting a gun to Trump's head over it, as the Trump cheer squad likes to say, especially when Trump himself was under the impression that they didn't want it and we busy telling Republicans to not be afraid of the NRA and jump on Trump's big beautiful gun control bandwagon. https://www.ar15.com/forums/general/Is-NRA-Quietly-Working-With-the-White-House-and-ATF-/5-2038866/ |
|
Quoted:
Well, while the NRA isn't exactly blameless in this clusterfuck, they aren't the shadowy bogeyman the Trump cheer squad likes to claim they are to shift blame off Trump. The NRA did pay lip service to banning bumpstocks originally after Vegas but then the membership got pissed and they sent Dana Loesch on the talk circuit to walk that back. That article that meme was made from was dated October 2017. The bumpstock ban was proposed by Trump after Parkland in February 2018, almost a full 6 months after Vegas and after the NRA had walked back what they said about bumpstocks originally. No one was talking about banning bumpstocks until Trump brought it up. That and him wanting to raise the age on all firearms purchases to 21, which most people leave out. It just doesn't work to claim that the NRA was the one putting a gun to Trump's head over it, as the Trump cheer squad likes to say, especially when Trump himself was under the impression that they didn't want it and we busy telling Republicans to not be afraid of the NRA and jump on Trump's big beautiful gun control bandwagon. The US Government began working on this rule change before the Parkland shooting and appeared as though they had their minds made up and the rule ready to push out the door not long after Parkland. The Judiciary Committee in the US Senate held a hearing on 6 December, 2017 where then acting head of ATF, Tom Brandon, spoke about bump stocks. You can listen starting at or around the 1:04:43 mark. Basically he was on record as saying bump stocks were legal and then changed his mind and put ATF lawyers to the task of finding a way to change that and "do something." Shortly after the Parkland Shooting, on 14 Feb 2018, then Attorney General Jeff Sessions says Trump committed to ban bump stocks "the day after" the 1 Oct shooting and he was ordered to work on this rule change. Here is a rough timeline. 1-Oct-2017: The LV shooting took place. 5-Oct-2017: Wayne LaPierre appears on Fox's Hannity program and proceeds to ask for the exact process that ultimately happens: ATF adds more regulations to bump stocks. 6-Dec-2017: The acting head of the ATF says they are working on promulgating regulations. 26-Dec-2017: ATF starts the rule making process requesting basic input from consumers, dealer, and manufacturers. 25-Jan-2018: Comment period closed. 14-Feb-2018: Parkland shooting took place. 27-Feb-2018: Attorney General Sessions says bump stocks can be banned via rule change and they have been working on this for a while. 29-Mar-2018: Comment period opens for ATF's proposed rule change. 27-Jun-2018: Comment period closed. 18-Dec-2018: Rule signed; bump stocks banned in 90 days. 26-Mar-2019: Bump stocks are machine guns and therefore banned. Parkland may have been used as a justification but by all appearances ATF and DOJ had their minds made up this was going to happen before that shooting occured. |
|
"The U.S. code defines a machine gun as a firearm that can shoot “automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.”
One can fire a machine gun with only one hand because the internal mechanism in the weapon will produce automatic fire with a “single function” of the trigger. " I can fire an M1 Carbine with one hand at its cyclic rate with one hand. Is it a machinegun? |
|
Quoted:
"The U.S. code defines a machine gun as a firearm that can shoot "automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger." One can fire a machine gun with only one hand because the internal mechanism in the weapon will produce automatic fire with a "single function" of the trigger. " I can fire an M1 Carbine with one hand at its cyclic rate with one hand. Is it a machinegun? Under the next democrat administration? With this ruling as a guide? I would be shocked if all "military style semi-autos" (read any semi-auto that is useful for resistance) were NOT declared to be machine guns either via the fact you can reach their cyclic rate using the weapon's recoil (bump firing) or by nature of them being readily convertible or anything else they can think of. The danger of this rule change cannot be overstated. 
|
|
Quoted:
Under this administration? No, probably not. Under the next democrat administration? With this ruling as a guide? I would be shocked if all "military style semi-autos" (read any semi-auto that is useful for resistance) were NOT declared to be machine guns either via the fact you can reach their cyclic rate using the weapon's recoil (bump firing) or by nature of them being readily convertible or anything else they can think of. The danger of this rule change cannot be overstated. I can't do this with all the semiautos I own, but the M1 Carbine is one I can do at will. |
|
Quoted:
Under this administration? No, probably not. Under the next democrat administration? With this ruling as a guide? I would be shocked if all "military style semi-autos" (read any semi-auto that is useful for resistance) were NOT declared to be machine guns either via the fact you can reach their cyclic rate using the weapon's recoil (bump firing) or by nature of them being readily convertible or anything else they can think of. The danger of this rule change cannot be overstated. 1. Holding the trigger finger in position is not an additional \ individual trigger pull. 2. Pushing forward on the firearm is not an additional \ individual trigger pull. 
|
|
Quoted:
Defend bump fire as semi with the following determinations in place: 1. Holding the trigger finger in position is not an additional \ individual trigger pull. 2. Pushing forward on the firearm is not an additional \ individual trigger pull. Quoted:
Quoted:
Under this administration? No, probably not. Under the next democrat administration? With this ruling as a guide? I would be shocked if all "military style semi-autos" (read any semi-auto that is useful for resistance) were NOT declared to be machine guns either via the fact you can reach their cyclic rate using the weapon's recoil (bump firing) or by nature of them being readily convertible or anything else they can think of. The danger of this rule change cannot be overstated. 1. Holding the trigger finger in position is not an additional \ individual trigger pull. 2. Pushing forward on the firearm is not an additional \ individual trigger pull. See the following references here, here, and here. Bonus points for anybody with access to simple dowels or a towel rack so they can bump fire their pistols. The NRA allowing machine guns to be offered up on the alter to be sacrificed for the rest of the second amendment, first in '34, then in '68, and ultimately in '86, was as shortsighted as it was stupid and while it may have bought us roughly a century, or so, time is running out. Oh well. |
|
Quoted: Exactly my point to the danger of this. It pits ALL semiautos in danger. I can't do this with all the semiautos I own, but the M1 Carbine is one I can do at will. Quoted: Exactly my point to the danger of this. It pits ALL semiautos in danger. I can't do this with all the semiautos I own, but the M1 Carbine is one I can do at will. We've come full circle as that which was old is new again. Removing semi-automatics from civilian ownership was the ultimate goal of the NFA in '34 and then Attorney General Cummings was livid at what Congress passed. This was the definition of a machien gun he proposed to congress and the one he really wanted: The term machine gun means any weapon designed to shoot automatically or semiautomatically twelve or more shots without reloading. |
|
Quoted:
The part in red is not completely accurate. The US Government began working on this rule change before the Parkland shooting and appeared as though they had their minds made up and the rule ready to push out the door not long after Parkland. The Judiciary Committee in the US Senate held a hearing on 6 December, 2017 where then acting head of ATF, Tom Brandon, spoke about bump stocks. You can listen starting at or around the 1:04:43 mark. Basically he was on record as saying bump stocks were legal and then changed his mind and put ATF lawyers to the task of finding a way to change that and "do something." Shortly after the Parkland Shooting, on 14 Feb 2018, then Attorney General Jeff Sessions says Trump committed to ban bump stocks "the day after" the 1 Oct shooting and he was ordered to work on this rule change. Here is a rough timeline. 1-Oct-2017: The LV shooting took place. 5-Oct-2017: Wayne LaPierre appears on Fox's Hannity program and proceeds to ask for the exact process that ultimately happens: ATF adds more regulations to bump stocks. 6-Dec-2017: The acting head of the ATF says they are working on promulgating regulations. 26-Dec-2017: ATF starts the rule making process requesting basic input from consumers, dealer, and manufacturers. 25-Jan-2018: Comment period closed. 14-Feb-2018: Parkland shooting took place. 27-Feb-2018: Attorney General Sessions says bump stocks can be banned via rule change and they have been working on this for a while. 29-Mar-2018: Comment period opens for ATF's proposed rule change. 27-Jun-2018: Comment period closed. 18-Dec-2018: Rule signed; bump stocks banned in 90 days. 26-Mar-2019: Bump stocks are machine guns and therefore banned. Parkland may have been used as a justification but by all appearances ATF and DOJ had their minds made up this was going to happen before that shooting occured. Quoted:
Quoted:
Well, while the NRA isn't exactly blameless in this clusterfuck, they aren't the shadowy bogeyman the Trump cheer squad likes to claim they are to shift blame off Trump. The NRA did pay lip service to banning bumpstocks originally after Vegas but then the membership got pissed and they sent Dana Loesch on the talk circuit to walk that back. That article that meme was made from was dated October 2017. The bumpstock ban was proposed by Trump after Parkland in February 2018, almost a full 6 months after Vegas and after the NRA had walked back what they said about bumpstocks originally. No one was talking about banning bumpstocks until Trump brought it up. That and him wanting to raise the age on all firearms purchases to 21, which most people leave out. It just doesn't work to claim that the NRA was the one putting a gun to Trump's head over it, as the Trump cheer squad likes to say, especially when Trump himself was under the impression that they didn't want it and we busy telling Republicans to not be afraid of the NRA and jump on Trump's big beautiful gun control bandwagon. The US Government began working on this rule change before the Parkland shooting and appeared as though they had their minds made up and the rule ready to push out the door not long after Parkland. The Judiciary Committee in the US Senate held a hearing on 6 December, 2017 where then acting head of ATF, Tom Brandon, spoke about bump stocks. You can listen starting at or around the 1:04:43 mark. Basically he was on record as saying bump stocks were legal and then changed his mind and put ATF lawyers to the task of finding a way to change that and "do something." Shortly after the Parkland Shooting, on 14 Feb 2018, then Attorney General Jeff Sessions says Trump committed to ban bump stocks "the day after" the 1 Oct shooting and he was ordered to work on this rule change. Here is a rough timeline. 1-Oct-2017: The LV shooting took place. 5-Oct-2017: Wayne LaPierre appears on Fox's Hannity program and proceeds to ask for the exact process that ultimately happens: ATF adds more regulations to bump stocks. 6-Dec-2017: The acting head of the ATF says they are working on promulgating regulations. 26-Dec-2017: ATF starts the rule making process requesting basic input from consumers, dealer, and manufacturers. 25-Jan-2018: Comment period closed. 14-Feb-2018: Parkland shooting took place. 27-Feb-2018: Attorney General Sessions says bump stocks can be banned via rule change and they have been working on this for a while. 29-Mar-2018: Comment period opens for ATF's proposed rule change. 27-Jun-2018: Comment period closed. 18-Dec-2018: Rule signed; bump stocks banned in 90 days. 26-Mar-2019: Bump stocks are machine guns and therefore banned. Parkland may have been used as a justification but by all appearances ATF and DOJ had their minds made up this was going to happen before that shooting occured. |
|
Quoted:
Sorry man.....but you're wrong. President Obama said he wouldn't take your guns.....and he didn't. He would have liked to, but he didn't and he remained true to his word. FDJT however.....said he wouldn't move backwards on the 2A. Hell, he said he'd have a task force to expand the 2A. All we have got is the erosion of the 2A at his grubby miniature trash panda sized hands. FDJT Quoted:
Quoted:
He presents Obama as superior because Obama didn't ban bump stocks. That's Not true. Obama would have banned everything except for the fact that Obama was lazy and incompetent. FDJT however.....said he wouldn't move backwards on the 2A. Hell, he said he'd have a task force to expand the 2A. All we have got is the erosion of the 2A at his grubby miniature trash panda sized hands. FDJT True Pres. DJT and the NRA have both back-stabbed supporters on this issue, but to say that Pres. Obama didn't try to do similar things is a falsehood. |
|
Quoted: [...]I was talking about HOW they banned bumpstocks. They didn't just say, [i]Bumpstocks shoot fast like machineguns so they're illegal." [...] They just "clarified" what function of the trigger actually meant [...] To reword that a little: holding one finger in place while pulling the gun forward with another is harnessing the recoil energy to automatically fire multiple rounds by a single function of the trigger. As this can be done with any semi-automatic firearm - "readily", without a bumpstock - every semi-automatic firearm is a "weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger." If the ATF's redefinition of "single function of the trigger" stands, then every semi-automatic firearm is a machine gun, despite the ATF's current protestations to the contrary. |
|
Quoted:
Forget about large magazines. The ATF says in this ruling that a bumpstock is a machine gun because of it "functioning as a self-acting or self-regulating mechanism that harnesses the recoil energy of the semiautomatic firearm in a manner that allows the trigger to reset and continue firing without additional physical manipulation of the trigger by the shooter." To reword that a little: holding one finger in place while pulling the gun forward with another is harnessing the recoil energy to automatically fire multiple rounds by a single function of the trigger. As this can be done with any semi-automatic firearm - "readily", without a bumpstock - every semi-automatic firearm is a "weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger." If the ATF's redefinition of "single function of the trigger" stands, then every semi-automatic firearm is a machine gun, despite the ATF's current protestations to the contrary. Quoted:
Quoted: [...]I was talking about HOW they banned bumpstocks. They didn't just say, [i]Bumpstocks shoot fast like machineguns so they're illegal." [...] They just "clarified" what function of the trigger actually meant [...] To reword that a little: holding one finger in place while pulling the gun forward with another is harnessing the recoil energy to automatically fire multiple rounds by a single function of the trigger. As this can be done with any semi-automatic firearm - "readily", without a bumpstock - every semi-automatic firearm is a "weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger." If the ATF's redefinition of "single function of the trigger" stands, then every semi-automatic firearm is a machine gun, despite the ATF's current protestations to the contrary. |
|
Quoted:
I can very easily see something saying magazines = machine gun. Reason being, Ohio had a law that said while you could possess magazines over 30 rounds, if you put it in a firearm, you now had a machine gun. I'm not sure if it ever faced judicial scrutiny but it was the law for a very long time and only went away after the legislature finally got rid of it not long ago. It certainly wouldn't be a stretch to have something on the national level that says magazines over 30 rounds are machine gun parts and, who says the rather arbitrary number of 30 rounds would be the cutoff. Quoted:
Quoted:
I'm more worried about them declaring AR lowers to be machinegun lowers than a declaration that magazines are machineguns. Reason being, Ohio had a law that said while you could possess magazines over 30 rounds, if you put it in a firearm, you now had a machine gun. I'm not sure if it ever faced judicial scrutiny but it was the law for a very long time and only went away after the legislature finally got rid of it not long ago. It certainly wouldn't be a stretch to have something on the national level that says magazines over 30 rounds are machine gun parts and, who says the rather arbitrary number of 30 rounds would be the cutoff.
|
|
Quoted:
All you anti-Bumpsters... Just change the word "bump stock" with "high capacity magazines"...because left unchecked, it will be sooner than you think. all you guys who went out and raped credit cards and savings accounts buying lower receivers, you invested in vapor. |
|
Quoted:
As we all know when it comes to guns and public outrage corrupt politicians and judges just do not care about the rule of law. Can anyone name another product in the history of this nation that was banned/outlawed by congress or with the stroke of a pen without compensation? As I understand it, even when they passed Prohibition individuals were allowed to keep what alcohol they had in their homes. |