Reply With Quote
What gun control bill is before the Senate that existed prior to the shooting? Prior to the shooting you were focused on Roe v Wade. Prior to that the left was flying the Ukraine colors. Show me gun control on the agenda.
Left: "The goal is fewer guns in the hands of citizens. I know, let's wait for an emotional event and then threaten to enact gun control legislation"
Collective left: "Yeah! That's when we can get it to pass!"
Right: "That event that just happened means the left will want to use the momentum to get gun control passed, everyone will be buying up ammo and magazines, and maybe even receivers so I better get mine now"
Collective right "Yeah, we better do that too!"
Business minded individual who doesn't give 2 s about either side "emotional event! Buy buy buy!.. hope it passes! Raise prices and resell because no legislation ever affects merchandise already stocked, only manufacture of new items. But to hedge my bets, if it fails to pass, I can dump all this still for more than I gave for it, before the fervor related dust settles"
Left: "Well the right stopped the legislation... they are the true problem, but we were morally just by trying to remove guns from the hands of citizens"
Right: " I have twice as many guns as I had before, now I need to buy ammo and high cap magazines before this happens again"
Moderate: "I never owned a gun but I went and bought a couple AR's because I need to be protected and I can always resell for more than I gave if I change my mind"
Result - more guns in circulation.
Great job
What gun control bill is before the Senate that existed prior to the shooting? Prior to the shooting you were focused on Roe v Wade. Prior to that the left was flying the Ukraine colors. Show me gun control on the agenda.
2A was actually to be coupled with the 3rd as the FF were intent on not having a standing army.
We got one anyway which basically rendered the 2nd and 3rd amendments unnecessary. You never here about the 3rd. No $$$ to be made there like there is in the 2nd
Nope, show your quote in action or fold, liar.
2005: Congress' Republican majority is joined by dozens of Democrats in passing the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms, signed into law by President George W. Bush. The legislation shields gun manufacturers from legal liability in almost all instances where their firearms are criminally used -- with exceptions for defects in gun design, breach of contract and negligence. (PLCAA has since become a major target of Democratic ire, singled out by President Joe Biden, though such protections are not unheard of for other industries.)
You are culpable.
2013-2016: Partially prompted by the Sandy Hook Elementary School and Pulse nightclub killings, Congress takes up and then votes down various measures to expand background checks for sales online and at gun shows and to block people on no-fly and terrorism watch lists from being able to buy firearms.
You:
Left: "The goal is fewer guns in the hands of citizens. I know, let's wait for an emotional event and then threaten to enact gun control legislation"
Collective left: "Yeah! That's when we can get it to pass!"
Nope. Not there.
The Final Rule
The rule will go into effect March 26, 2019; 90 days from the date of publication in the Federal Register.
The final rule clarifies that the definition of “machinegun” in the Gun Control Act (GCA) and National Firearms Act (NFA) includes bump-stock-type devices, i.e., devices that allow a semiautomatic firearm to shoot more than one shot with a single pull of the trigger by harnessing the recoil energy of the semiautomatic firearm to which it is affixed so that the trigger resets and continues firing without additional physical manipulation of the trigger by the shooter.
Access the final rule in the Federal Register
What To Do
Current possessors of bump-stock-type devices must divest themselves of possession as of the effective date of the final rule (March 26, 2019).
One option is to destroy the device, and the final rule identifies possible methods of destruction, to include completely melting, shredding, or crushing the device. Any method of destruction must render the device incapable of being readily restored to function.
How to destroy bump stocks
Current possessors also have the option to abandon bump-stock-type devices at the nearest ATF office. ATF advises that it is best to make an appointment beforehand with the nearest ATF office.
Find your local ATF office
Background
On February 20, 2018, President Trump issued a memorandum instructing the Attorney General “to dedicate all available resources to… propose for notice and comment a rule banning all devices that turn legal weapons into machineguns.”
In response to that direction the Department reviewed more than 186,000 public comments and made the decision to make clear that the term “machinegun” as used in the National Firearms Act (NFA), as amended, and Gun Control Act (GCA), as amended, includes all bump-stock-type devices that harness recoil energy to facilitate the continuous operation of a semiautomatic long gun after a single pull of the trigger.
one of the few actual laws in the past 20 years that banned a gun related item, and it was signed into law by Trump. It wasn't just the manufacture, but the possession itself was banned and confiscation was enacted.
Thing is, there are so many mass shootings that bills are constantly being brought up before the NRA led Republicans shoot them down.
There's no "let's wait until the next one". Nobody on the left is sitting and waiting for the next one after this current round gets shot down again.
Last edited by Blake; 05-28-2022 at 07:34 PM.
It wasn't a law, it was an ATF rule, so Trump didn't "sign into law" anything, and by making it a rule, didn't expose the conservative side of Congress to having to vote this down.
Also, the rule was thoroughly challenged in court, and currently sitting in front of the SCOTUS:
https://news.bloomberglaw.com/white-...-appeals-court
https://news.bloomberglaw.com/produc...its-on-gun-law
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketP...Certiorari.pdf
This is indeed the problem of skirting Congress to enact meaningful regulation.
Then there are binary triggers that the ATF said are legal to own and use by anyone.
They allow the rifle to discharge a round on squeezing the trigger and discharging another round on releasing the trigger.
Like bump stock, lots of rounds go down range, almost like a fully automatic rifle.
derpa derpa
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...-idUSKBN20P259
Couldn't the same be done with semiautos since you can simply hook a thumb through a belt loop and get the same result?
I'm aware of that, but the SCOTUS didn't actually rule on the matter, just didn't take the certiorari:
The justices left in place a lower court’s decision that upheld the Trump administration’s action to define bump stocks as prohibited machine guns under U.S. law even as litigation over the policy continues.
and
“How, in all this, can ordinary citizens be expected to keep up?” Gorsuch asked, adding that the bump stock dispute may return to the Supreme Court at a later date.
You can technically do anything you want as far as issuing ATF rules. The problem is that courts generally look at "what Congress intended".
This is why it's critical that this gets done by Congress, because it removes any ambiguity. Sure, the court might still deem what Congress passed uncons utional, but the standard is just much higher.
I think automatic fire, one pull of the trigger and the ability to fire off several rounds, was the intent of the automatic weapons ban. This is where wording matters. The sear in an automatic weapon is what allows it to function that way, otherwise the semi and full auto are basically the same. If you can create an external sear effect, like a bump stock or using your thumb to capture the energy of recoil, you in effect create an automatic weapon. That should be both a class 2 and an NFA offense. Class 2 since you are basically altering a firearm or manufacturing a different class, even if temporary.
I agree. These are conversations worth having. And to be clear, this rule passed as a knee jerk reaction to the Vegas shooter, so don't discard something positive can be built out of these things.
If you don't understand sentence structuring I guess that would mean something. It was describing the militia, not the arms. Otherwise it would have said "A Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear well regulated Arms, shall not be infringed.." or "A Militia, being necessary to the security of a well regulated free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.."
Since it didn't create the right, only stated that it shall not be infringed, the reasoning for say it is a moot point. The right exists, and shall not be infringed. Maybe they should have consulted Twitter.
It gets infringed all the time.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
