ADVERTISEMENT

What will you all do if Trump...

Gets some sort of Gun control passed, because of Florida? We all know that it will just be another law to be walked around like the dozens of current laws that have been, but what will your response be?
It depends on what it is. I personally interpret the 2nd Amendment through the lens of the States needing to form well-regulated militias, and not the need of individuals to own guns. That is to say - that if one is a true second amendment advocate then they should be joining the National Guard of their state. As it happens, weapons will be provided to them, so the whole "I need to bring my gun" thing is kind of a non-starter for me.

He can start by reinstating the Obama regulation that he shit-canned that made it more difficult for the mentally ill to get the weapons. Age restrictions don't bother me, and it should be at least as difficult to get a gun as it is to get a driver's license, in my opinion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hurryin76hoosier
Of course I know President OBama was known for his TelePrompTer. Pardon me, but we must have different senses of humor.
Well, that’s why it’s humorous. . .forget it, extremely partisan people, on both sides, seem to lack a sense of humor.
 
  • Like
Reactions: brebelle3
Well, that’s why it’s humorous. . .forget it, extremely partisan people, on both sides, seem to lack a sense of humor.
Or maybe, you're just not as funny as you think you are? There's a reason there aren't any conservative comedians.
 
The ATF determined in 2010 based on the letter of the law that bump stocks do not convert a gun into a machine gun. It was the right decision. The law simply does not allow ATF to regulate bump stocks. If people think this is a problem - and I happen to, myself - there is only one available fix: Congress must amend the law.

I get that regulatory agencies sometimes change their minds about how to interpret the law based on changing circumstances, but this wouldn't be a matter of benign reinterpretation. The law lays out in explicit detail exactly what the ATF can regulate. The terms are well-defined. To regulate bump stocks, ATF would have to not only reinterpret the law; they'd have to ignore it completely.

Looks like the Supremes have said you were right. Which means they are legal again and congress of course won't touch this with a 50 foot pole.
 
It was Trump’s ban on bump stocks they overturned though. Technically speaking the ruling was probably right in what the law says. Congress can add language to the law which would support a ban. I hope they do.
I have a bump stock. Biggest POS I have ever purchased. If I had fish in a barrel, I'm pretty sure they would all get away. Total waste.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: mcmurtry66
You read the opinion? What part of the legal analysis is "ridiculous" or "extreme?"

It reminds me of yesterday's ruling, more technical. In this case, the agency cannot do it. I must admit I don't know if I like Thomas' rationale in one part. He says it isn't multiple shots from one pull because you must maintain proper pressure. For a novice, that may be true. If it works as I have heard, if you can apply the correct pressure you do get multiple shots. Almost like a gas pedal. Some people speed up and slow down like crazy because they cannot hit the sweet spot to drive 70. So they go 75 to 65 and back over and over.
 
From the Syllabus. Not ridiculous, not extreme. Garden-variety statutory analysis:

The National Firearms Act of 1934 defines a “machinegun” as “any 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.” 26 U. S. C. §5845(b). With a machinegun, a shooter can fire multiple times, or even continuously, by engaging the trigger only once. This capability distinguishes a machinegun from a semiautomatic firearm. With a semiautomatic firearm, the shooter can fire only one time by engaging the trigger. Using a technique called bump firing, shooters can fire semiautomatic firearms at rates approaching those of some machineguns. A shooter who bump fires a rifle uses the firearm’s recoil to help rapidly manipulate the trigger. Although bump firing does not require any additional equipment, a “bump stock” is an accessory designed to make the technique easier. A bump stock does not alter the basic mechanics of bump firing, and the trigger still must be released and reengaged to fire each additional shot.

For many years, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) consistently took the position that semiautomatic rifles equipped with bump stocks were not machineguns under §5845(b). ATF abruptly changed course when a gunman using semiautomatic rifles equipped with bump stocks fired hundreds of rounds into a crowd in Las Vegas, Nevada, killing 58 people and wounding over 500 more. ATF subsequently proposed a rule that would repudiate its previous guidance and amend its regulations to “clarify” that bump stocks are machineguns. 83 Fed. Reg. 13442. ATF’s Rule ordered owners of bump stocks either to destroy or surrender them to ATF to avoid criminal prosecution.

Held: ATF exceeded its statutory authority by issuing a Rule that classifies a bump stock as a “machinegun” under §5845(b). Pp. 6–19.

(a) A semiautomatic rifle equipped with a bump stock is not a “machinegun” as defined by §5845(b) because: (1) it cannot fire more than one shot “by a single function of the trigger” and (2) even if it could, it would not do so “automatically.” ATF therefore exceeded its statutory authority by issuing a Rule that classifies bump stocks as machineguns. P. 6.

(b) A semiautomatic rifle equipped with a bump stock does not fire more than one shot “by a single function of the trigger.” The phrase “function of the trigger” refers to the mode of action by which the trigger activates the firing mechanism. No one disputes that a semiautomatic rifle without a bump stock is not a machinegun because a shooter must release and reset the trigger between every shot. And, any subsequent shot fired after the trigger has been released and reset is the result of a separate and distinct “function of the trigger.” Nothing changes when a semiautomatic rifle is equipped with a bump stock. Between every shot, the shooter must release pressure from the trigger and allow it to reset before reengaging the trigger for another shot. A bump stock merely reduces the amount of time that elapses between separate “functions” of the trigger.

chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-976_e29g.pdf
 
Alito's concurrence, which is right on the money:

JUSTICE ALITO, concurring.

I join the opinion of the Court because there is simply no other way to read the statutory language. There can be little doubt that the Congress that enacted 26 U. S. C. §5845(b) would not have seen any material difference between a machinegun and a semiautomatic rifle equipped with a bump stock. But the statutory text is clear, and we must follow it.

The horrible shooting spree in Las Vegas in 2017 did not change the statutory text or its meaning. That event demonstrated that a semiautomatic rifle with a bump stock can have the same lethal effect as a machinegun, and it thus strengthened the case for amending §5845(b). But an event that highlights the need to amend a law does not itself change the law’s meaning.

There is a simple remedy for the disparate treatment of bump stocks and machineguns. Congress can amend the law—and perhaps would have done so already if ATF had stuck with its earlier interpretation. Now that the situation is clear, Congress can act.
 
You read the opinion? What part of the legal analysis is "ridiculous" or "extreme?"
Thomas: "Nothing changes when a semiautomatic rifle is equipped with a bump stock." Do you agree? Why or why not?

Why do you think the Trump administration tried to ban bump stocks? Just good PR after Vegas?
 
It took Nixon to go to China, maybe it takes Trump to pass gun legislation. It would be great.
Do you seriously think criminals are going to care what legislation passes. You idiots and your bullshit about guns are ****ing tiresome. Let’s take the rights away from those who obey the law because Demorat assholes want to. Just another way the ****ing government wants to control people. Take that bullshit and flush it along with anything that comes out of a Demorats mouth.
 
Do you seriously think criminals are going to care what legislation passes. You idiots and your bullshit about guns are ****ing tiresome. Let’s take the rights away from those who obey the law because Demorat assholes want to. Just another way the ****ing government wants to control people. Take that bullshit and flush it along with anything that comes out of a Demorats mouth.
This post needed graphic representation.
RkDp.gif
 
Tossing out the bump stock ban is ridiculous. The SC is now even more extreme than the Trumpers.

What a hot, and utterly stupid take. Goat told you years ago how this would and should go.

At some point Congress is going to have to become something other than a completely dysfunctional body. Relying upon tortured executive actions and hoping an activist judiciary will let it fly is no way to run a country.
 
What a hot, and utterly stupid take. Goat told you years ago how this would and should go.

At some point Congress is going to have to become something other than a completely dysfunctional body. Relying upon tortured executive actions and hoping an activist judiciary will let it fly is no way to run a country.
You are correct. Sadly, as the border bill proved, playing to base is all that matters. I don't see that changing soon.
 
Unfortunately, the concert attendees in Vegas didn’t all get away.
I am nearly finished getting enough of your comments, implanted into my AI mainframe.

it is of my opinion, based from my own very well established expertise , that the vegas concert shooter, could have done more damage, without a bump stock.

There it is, and expert opinion. And actually factual.
 
I am nearly finished getting enough of your comments, implanted into my AI mainframe.

it is of my opinion, based from my own very well established expertise , that the vegas concert shooter, could have done more damage, without a bump stock.

There it is, and expert opinion. And actually factual.
Uh huh.
 
This post needed graphic representation.
RkDp.gif
Yeah! Just a liberal piece of shit. You think everyone that’s a conservative is a toothless hillbilly. That just shows how ignorant leftist assholes are. What’s also funny is I don’t own a gun, but if I ever decided to get one, then the government shouldn’t have the right to say what gun I can get and what attachment. They already limit the size of the magazines. I’m just glad you jackasses like being told by the government what you can buy and not buy. The sorry ass government in some states are already making future laws where you have to buy EV’s. I guess you’re too stupid to understand that.
 
Yeah! Just a liberal piece of shit. You think everyone that’s a conservative is a toothless hillbilly. That just shows how ignorant leftist assholes are. What’s also funny is I don’t own a gun, but if I ever decided to get one, then the government shouldn’t have the right to say what gun I can get and what attachment. They already limit the size of the magazines. I’m just glad you jackasses like being told by the government what you can buy and not buy. The sorry ass government in some states are already making future laws where you have to buy EV’s. I guess you’re too stupid to understand that.

speechless-nathan-fillion.gif


Anyone else see it?
 
  • Like
Reactions: BradStevens
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT