General Categories > Laws and Legislation
Bump Stock Ban
Jito463:
--- Quote from: eelstrebor1 on March 26, 2019, 10:12:42 AM ---Stupid laws that don't solve anything.
--- End quote ---
I would argue there isn't a single "gun law" that solves one iota.
eelstrebor1:
--- Quote from: bullit on March 25, 2019, 07:40:11 PM ---The DC Appellate Court ruled about 2 hours ago that the "stay" will ONLY apply to the original Complaintants. So there you go .... destroy'em if you got'em.
--- End quote ---
Done. I wasn't happy about destroying mine but I'd rather destroy a $200 item than risk prison time over this nonsense ATF rewriting of the law. I had considered keeping it because it's unlikely the ATF would've found out that I had one and because it's possible that the rewrite of the regulation could still be overturned. If everyone complied with the current ATF regulation then why bother pursuing overturning the regulation? No one's going to go out a buy another one if the regulation is overturned. Oh well, what other infringements is the government going to do? And why didn't the NRA aggressively challenge this regulation? Since the NRA didn't challenge this and the Hughes Amendment I have to assume that the NRA isn't the civil liberties defender that they claim to be. And the NRA seems to be OK with red flag laws. The NRA seems to be OK with certain infringements.
eelstrebor1:
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/sup...un-bump-stocks
"The NRA believes that devices designed to allow semi-automatic rifles to function like fully-automatic rifles should be subject to additional regulations,"
I don't know why everyone (almost), including the NRA, continues to make a distinction between "weapons of war" and semi-autos instead of coming out and saying that the 2A doesn't distinguish between any firearm. We have too many emotional responses to firearms and not enough knowledge and patriotism to prevent infringement on the 2A. It should be pointed out that this article states that there were 12 rifles equipped with bump stocks but no statement that any were used in the attack. And so what if he had bump stocks? This murderer was rich enough to have bought pre-1986 machine guns if bump stocks didn't exist anyway! I guess I'm beating a dead horse.
Mntnman:
--- Quote from: eelstrebor1 on March 28, 2019, 12:34:19 PM ---https://www.foxnews.com/politics/sup...un-bump-stocks
"The NRA believes that devices designed to allow semi-automatic rifles to function like fully-automatic rifles should be subject to additional regulations,"
--- End quote ---
The NRA has been harassing me to renew for a couple of months. I have finally decided that I am not going to bother. Besides their willingness to accept certain infringements, all they seem interested in is selling me wine and insurance. I'm sure they are the source of the constant political spam that finds its way to my inbox as well. There are other pro 2a folks more worthy of your money, IMHO.
eelstrebor1:
https://bearingarms.com/tom-k/2019/04/08/supreme-court-rejects-bump-stock-bid/
SCOTUS still refuses to issue a stay even though there are still challenges making their way through the court system. Not much hope for an overturn but it's still possible. I somewhat care about following this process because it sets a precedent for any existing or future rate increasing devices even though, like bumpstocks, they don't meet the original/true definition of a machine gun. All it takes is just ONE person and it ruins things for rest of us. I don't know about you guys/gals but I'm tired of so few people causing our rights to be eroded because politicians cave to public emotions rather than following the Constitution. And then we have to challenge these infringements in court which takes money and probably years just to get a court hearing. If I was a one-issue voter I wouldn't vote for anyone that infringes on the 2A.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version