Jump to content

Recommended Posts

LOL! And one of my neighbors just got one last week!..... Kiss that $ goodbye!

 BUT...... How many dyed in the wool rednecks are actually going to turn their bumpstocks in to BATF?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Mrleft8 said:

LOL! And one of my neighbors just got one last week!..... Kiss that $ goodbye!

 BUT...... How many dyed in the wool rednecks are actually going to turn their bumpstocks in to BATF?

 

Having grown up a bit west of there, the big bend of FL is definitely come on over and get it territory....

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's the Duopoly, I tell ya.

-- what Tom will say when faced with this most unwelcome news.

Hillary would have been worse.

-- what Jeff will say when faced with this most unwelcome news.

Fake News.

-- what Dog will say when faced with this most unwelcome news.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mrleft8 said:

LOL! And one of my neighbors just got one last week!..... Kiss that $ goodbye!

 BUT...... How many dyed in the wool rednecks are actually going to turn their bumpstocks in to BATF?

 

So far, reports indicate zero NJ residents have turned in their banned property in the past week.

Similarly, CT has "scores of thousands" of felons in possession and a far smaller number who signed up to have their property confiscated.

Even Canada has thousands of felons in possession of squirrel shooters waiting in limbo to see what will happen to them and not a SOLution in sight.

I'd guess that redneck cooperation rates are far lower than New England gun owners' rates, though how far below zero one can fall is a question.

So the answer to your question is somewhere between zero and any possible negative number.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Not guilty said:

Another nothing burger as you don't need a bump stock to bump fire a rifle.

Not necessarily. Some of the definitions I have seen are broad and would include things like custom triggers because they can act to increase rate of fire.

So what's a bump stock?

Grabbers say they want to ban assault weapons and people who don't read definitions do not think they're talking about plinking handguns in my namesake caliber like this one, but they are.

SWVictory22silver-flower.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

BFD.  It will accomplish nothing, but, people will still yell with spittle flying - those who will proclaim this as a "victory" and those who decry it as a travesty.  Both are wrong - this is a big "Meh".   Let me know when someone w/an illegal bump stock gets caught and stopped from going on a rampage, and I'll change my mind. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Not guilty said:

It would be better if they went on a rampage with one of these as they would only make one shot. Their is a reason the majority of military weapons don't use full auto.

image.png.ea836e549c0fa705fa0601fe4b29cb42.png

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Fakenews said:

A very small step towards comprehensive gun control and targeted confiscation IMHO.

Yes, I agree.

The ongoing confiscation programs in CT, NJ, CA, NY, and elsewhere are much bigger steps.

That's why I don't want the proposed confiscation program in FL to pass.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And now for some Koch-$pon$ored propaganda

Quote

Today the Justice Department finalized its ban on bump stocks, which Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker claims merely "clarifies" federal law. It actually rewrites federal law, a function the Constitution assigns to Congress. Whitaker also wants us to believe that the bump stock ban shows "President Donald Trump is a law and order president." To the contrary, it shows he is a president who ignores the law whenever it proves inconvenient.

(With apologies for the blind support of TeamR's leader, of course.)

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, dogballs Tom said:

So far, reports indicate zero NJ residents have turned in their banned property in the past week.

Similarly, CT has "scores of thousands" of felons in possession and a far smaller number who signed up to have their property confiscated.

Even Canada has thousands of felons in possession of squirrel shooters waiting in limbo to see what will happen to them and not a SOLution in sight.

I'd guess that redneck cooperation rates are far lower than New England gun owners' rates, though how far below zero one can fall is a question.

So the answer to your question is somewhere between zero and any possible negative number.

1.  Off to 'limbo, eh? LMFAO. You lose. "In lawful use at the time" is a gonner.

2. The constitution, not CATO,  determined the legitimacy of such laws.

3. In general Tom, you need to decide if you support proper legislation, or not.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

BFD.  It will accomplish nothing, but, people will still yell with spittle flying - those who will proclaim this as a "victory" and those who decry it as a travesty.  Both are wrong - this is a big "Meh".   Let me know when someone w/an illegal bump stock gets caught and stopped from going on a rampage, and I'll change my mind. 

 

BONDO MAN DOES VEGAS

You need to think this out better. The Las Vegas shooter had something like 11 or 12 bumpstocks, cue'd up on beds near windows, facing two directions. Ninety shots were carpet sprayed down into a concert In ten seconds. 1100 rounds were fired in ten minutes. Horrifying.

And in the background, there are 115,000 registered machine guns in NV.

You are not thinking clearly. Yer full of shit IMO,  AGIC.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Not guilty said:

Have you read the new notice released by the ATF?

Reading it now.

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/5635249/Bump-Stock-Final-Rule.pdf

I just got to the part where they test the Akins Accelerator.

The test machine gun? The infamous Ruger Ten Twenty Two! LMAO.

It really is common as dirt and trying to ban it really is the stupidest project TeamD could try to undertake.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, dogballs Tom said:

....    ...    ...

It really is common as dirt and trying to ban it really is the stupidest project TeamD could try to undertake.

Look how sneaky those dadgum libby-rull gun-grabbers are! Posing as far-right Republicans so they can push through an attempt to grab your dogballs!

Deep State! Black Helicopters! Free Weed! Time to muster those bloggers in pajamas!!

-DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, dogballs Tom said:

Reading it now.

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/5635249/Bump-Stock-Final-Rule.pdf

I just got to the part where they test the Akins Accelerator.

The test machine gun? The infamous Ruger Ten Twenty Two! LMAO.

It really is common as dirt and trying to ban it really is the stupidest project TeamD could try to undertake.

I just love Tom. His boy Shitstain imposes a ban on bump stocks and he doesn't even have the decency to blame it on the Duopoly but instead goes straight for TeamD. He's so funny.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:
14 hours ago, dogballs Tom said:

The test machine gun? The infamous Ruger Ten Twenty Two! LMAO.

It really is common as dirt and trying to ban it really is the stupidest project TeamD could try to undertake.

The Trump Justice department is TeamD?  Is this the point where you own up to your "libertarian duopolys suck" bullshit is just bullshit so you don't have to own up to the consequences of all of the TeamR fuckups, or is going to be a post where you sidle away and play some game you think is smart, but isn't, because face it dogballs you aren't smart.

As the part you cut out demonstrates, I was talking about the TeamD proposed ban on the squirrel shooter my wife owns.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:
14 hours ago, dogballs Tom said:

....    ...    ...

The test machine gun? The infamous Ruger Ten Twenty Two! LMAO.

It really is common as dirt and trying to ban it really is the stupidest project TeamD could try to undertake.

It really is common as dirt and trying to ban it really is the stupidest project TeamD could try to undertake.

Look how sneaky those dadgum libby-rull gun-grabbers are! Posing as far-right Republicans so they can push through an attempt to grab your dogballs!

As the part you cut out demonstrates, I was talking about the TeamD proposed ban on the squirrel shooter my wife owns.

And really, even you can't compete with him in the "hateful troll" category and trying is a bad look.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Olsonist said:

I just love Tom. His boy Shitstain imposes a ban on bump stocks and he doesn't even have the decency to blame it on the Duopoly but instead goes straight for TeamD. He's so funny.

You must have missed the Koch-$pon$ored propaganda I provided.

23 hours ago, dogballs Tom said:

And now for some Koch-$pon$ored propaganda

Quote

Today the Justice Department finalized its ban on bump stocks, which Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker claims merely "clarifies" federal law. It actually rewrites federal law, a function the Constitution assigns to Congress. Whitaker also wants us to believe that the bump stock ban shows "President Donald Trump is a law and order president." To the contrary, it shows he is a president who ignores the law whenever it proves inconvenient.

(With apologies for the blind support of TeamR's leader, of course.)

Just to clarify: ignoring the law when it proves inconvenient is bad in my view and that's what Trump has decided to do.

More broadly, I still believe that Trump would return to his previous support of scary "assault" weapon bans the moment he thought 51% of the people in front of him would like it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

More Koch-$pon$ored $upport for Trump
 

Quote

 

In this case, the existing law specifically defines “machine gun”; several administrations have reviewed bump stocks and repeatedly determined that they don’t fall in that category. It’s been clear for decades that Gatling guns and bump stocks were not machine guns. This regulation is not an attempt to clarify a vague law, but to seize political expediency to expand the power of the executive.

If the government really wants to regulate bump stocks, it needs to do so by passing a new law, not by assigning new meaning to an old one. The Founders weren’t short-sighted; there is a reason laws that affect the entire nation have to come through Congress, not reimagined by bureaucrats.

What’s worse is the fact that the administration’s attempt to skirt the Constitution is for something as inconsequential as bump stocks. We are talking about seriously damaging the integrity of our legal system over a novelty item. In a country as divided as ours, this seems like a squandering of political capital.

 

It sorta looks like condemnation of Trump, but viewed through a partisan lens, that condemnation is coming from those who say bad things about TeamD gun bans and confiscation programs. Anyone who does that is pro-Trump.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 months later...

Bump Stocka Felons In Possession
 

Quote

 

..."In fact, no bump stocks will be 'grandfathered in,'" as NPR's Martin Kaste reported last month. "The new federal rule reclassifies them all as 'machine guns,' no matter when they were purchased, and owning one will become a felony."

...

RW Arms, a prominent bump stock retailer based in Fort Worth, Texas, says its entire remaining inventory of 60,000 bump stocks has now been turned over to the ATF's custody. The items will be "shredded and recycled under the supervision of ATF agents," the company said.

In the run-up to the total ban, RW Arms had rushed to sell as many bump stocks as it could, posting a countdown clock on its website to warn customers of the impending change. Its bump stocks were priced at between $179 and $199; the website now says they're out of stock.

 

So the retail value of the (inventory, nuisance) would be somewhere above ten million dollars.

Whether you think there should be just compensation for this taking, as required by the fifth amendment, depends on which word you chose from the two in parenthesis.

The same is true on a smaller scale for people who paid a couple of hundred bucks for their (property, nuisance.) Yesterday it was property, today it's a nuisance and a felony to possess it.

This often causes boating safety problems.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I never wanted a bump stocka before but for some reason I find I'm interested in one now.

I don't have any suitable guns but they did make them for my wife's assault weapon.

megskull.jpg

That was the only one I saw in a girly color. "Magenta Skull"

I think I'll keep looking.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, mikewof said:

Can we put this topic to bed? I would like to talk about the Stockas Market, or maybe some methods to make some decent chicken stockas.

Let’s just put it on the back burner until the next massacre.   It’s been a few weeks, so it will be our turn real soon.  50 50 odds it will be Florida.   Schools, religious temples, YouTube offices and baseball games and more schools have been done.   Shopping malls like Africa are sort of passé, maybe an Amazon hub?    

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Sean said:

 

Bump Stock Ban Proceeds After Supreme Court Denies Gun Makers' Request To Halt It

https://www.npr.org/2019/03/28/707637489/bump-stock-ban-proceeds-after-supreme-court-denies-gun-makers-request-to-halt-it

Likely proceeding about like the other bans and confiscation programs: lots of new felons in possession, some boating accidents, some smug satisfaction from grabbers who have made felons out of undesirables, and that's about it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Given the potential for inadvertant discharge I would have thought some enterprising bureaucrat or litigator would have gone after the stupid things on a consumer safety issue.  Same thing with the bayonet mount that makes something an "assault weapon".

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Saorsa said:

Given the potential for inadvertant discharge I would have thought some enterprising bureaucrat or litigator would have gone after the stupid things on a consumer safety issue.  Same thing with the bayonet mount that makes something an "assault weapon".

I can't believe the Tacky Police haven't gone after anything in Magenta Skull pattern.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/27/2019 at 10:17 AM, Lark said:

Let’s just put it on the back burner until the next massacre.   It’s been a few weeks, so it will be our turn real soon.  50 50 odds it will be Florida.   Schools, religious temples, YouTube offices and baseball games and more schools have been done.   Shopping malls like Africa are sort of passé, maybe an Amazon hub?    

Unfortunately, you may be right, but let's hope otherwise and help try to keep at-risk maniacs emotionally healthy. Hug your local pre-homicidal psychopath before he becomes a homicidal psychopath.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Saorsa said:

Given the potential for inadvertant discharge I would have thought some enterprising bureaucrat or litigator would have gone after the stupid things on a consumer safety issue.  Same thing with the bayonet mount that makes something an "assault weapon".

Oh c'mon you know that guns are the one thing in the world that's exempt from us consumer safety law.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Saorsa said:

Given the potential for inadvertant discharge I would have thought some enterprising bureaucrat or litigator would have gone after the stupid things on a consumer safety issue.  Same thing with the bayonet mount that makes something an "assault weapon".

My trusty, 100 year old Dragoon has a bayonet mount. I even have the bayonet somewhere. I got it many years ago, is there new legislation about it that I don't know?

Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, MR.CLEAN said:

Oh c'mon you know that guns are the one thing in the world that's exempt from us consumer safety law.

Yes, but a bayonet is not a gun.  It's basically a spear with the gun acting as the shaft.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Saorsa said:

Yes, but a bayonet is not a gun.  It's basically a spear with the gun acting as the shaft.

 

yeah but it's in the constitution and in all those paintings of the revolutionary war

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MR.CLEAN said:

yeah but it's in the constitution and in all those paintings of the revolutionary war

Knives, spears and swords are apparently not considered arms because they couldn't like you know, kill anyone or something.

Nobody would want to restrict those.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

There you go again. Trying to confuse the personal with the political. You do sound like the sort of shooter who would personally look at bump stocks as stupid and that is indeed what you are saying in your post. But that's not disagreeing with what I 'said'. So let's be clear here. Being indifferent to us evil liberals banning bump stocks is one thing.

Are you in favor of banning bump stocks, yes or no?

That's another.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

Bump Stocka Sellers Sue Over Confiscation

Quote

The case, filed in a Washington, D.C. federal court, argues that the ban’s requirement that bump-stocks be surrendered or destroyed within a 90-day period, with no opportunity for registration, violated the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment which states that private property can’t be taken for public use without compensation.

They should win but I expect they will lose because of the longstanding grabber legal theory that banned guns are a public nuisance, not property that would require compensation if confiscated.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, MR.CLEAN said:

what?

In post 39, you claimed guns are the one thing that have liability exemption.

Not true, as I pointed out in post 42.

You then went to "it's the courts who did it" in post 42.

The link shows that Congress did it, specifically in the part that begins like this:

Quote

(b) EXTENSION OF LIABILITY RELIEF TO AIRCRAFT MANUFACTURERS AND OTHERS

But I'm glad you're here, since you're an expert on eminent domain takings and all.

The legal theory used to confiscate the bump stocka is the same as any banned gun or gun part: they're a nuisance, not property, so no compensation is required when they are taken by the public.

Countries like New Zealand and Australia actually pay people who have created such a nuisance when they take it away.

Do you think we should?

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/29/2019 at 11:19 AM, MR.CLEAN said:

Oh c'mon you know that guns are the one thing in the world that's exempt from us consumer safety law.

I guess if you tell a lie long enough it becomes truth, right?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/11/2019 at 8:48 PM, bpm57 said:

I guess if you tell a lie long enough it becomes truth, right?

 

The liability exemption for aircraft manufacturers is tolerable and seldom noticed because grabbers want to fly, even if someone flies an airplane into a building.

If they didn't want to fly and didn't want others to fly, bankrupting aircraft manufacturers in response to crimes would make as much sense to them as bankrupting gun manufacturers in response to crimes.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Old thread. And it starts with fake news from the NY Times.

Bump stocks work by harnessing a firearm’s recoil energy to slide it back and forth to bump against a squeezed trigger, so that it keeps firing without any need for the shooter to pull the trigger again. Associated Press

It is exactly because it requires the finger to pull the trigger each time a round is fired that it was legal in the first place.All the NEWS that is fit to print.  Ha.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Nailing Malarkey Too said:

Old thread. And it starts with fake news from the NY Times.

Bump stocks work by harnessing a firearm’s recoil energy to slide it back and forth to bump against a squeezed trigger, so that it keeps firing without any need for the shooter to pull the trigger again. Associated Press

It is exactly because it requires the finger to pull the trigger each time a round is fired that it was legal in the first place.All the NEWS that is fit to print.  Ha.

Weird that Trump buys into it, huh?

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Importunate Tom said:

The liability exemption for aircraft manufacturers is tolerable and seldom noticed because grabbers want to fly, even if someone flies an airplane into a building.

If they didn't want to fly and didn't want others to fly, bankrupting aircraft manufacturers in response to crimes would make as much sense to them as bankrupting gun manufacturers in response to crimes.

While that is cute Tom, I was responding to (now MIA) cleans oft repeated lie about what PLCAA does.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
On 4/11/2019 at 8:48 PM, bpm57 said:
On 3/29/2019 at 11:19 AM, MR.CLEAN said:

Oh c'mon you know that guns are the one thing in the world that's exempt from us consumer safety law.

I guess if you tell a lie long enough it becomes truth, right?

 

On 4/13/2019 at 2:18 PM, bpm57 said:

While that is cute Tom, I was responding to (now MIA) cleans oft repeated lie about what PLCAA does.

So was I, by providing an example of something beyond the "one thing."

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:
12 hours ago, Raz'r said:

I can't apologize for being pissed off that the nutz continue to fight ANY proposals to end the killing. Wear it proud.  So very Christian to say "oh, they're dead, that's so sad. Too bad we can't do anything about the killing"

ANY proposals?  Really?  I recall trump just approving a ban on bump stockas.  Along with a few other things.  Sounds like you got something through with nary a fight. 


Bad example because that fight is ongoing. Lawsuits like the one mentioned in post 53 take a while to resolve.

I would have chosen any of the ongoing and proposed state-level TeamD gun bans and confiscation programs as examples that DOING SOMETHING STOOPID is indeed possible and has happened repeatedly.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 months later...
4 hours ago, Olsonist said:

We have all silently agreed that gun threads are meant to be a safe space for conservatives to vent and not have their boy Shitstain brought up.


Uh oh. I missed another meeting and didn't know about this agreement when I made this unsafe comment to Jack.

 

On 4/13/2019 at 7:14 AM, Importunate Tom said:
On 4/13/2019 at 7:06 AM, Nailing Malarkey Too said:

Old thread. And it starts with fake news from the NY Times.

Bump stocks work by harnessing a firearm’s recoil energy to slide it back and forth to bump against a squeezed trigger, so that it keeps firing without any need for the shooter to pull the trigger again. Associated Press

It is exactly because it requires the finger to pull the trigger each time a round is fired that it was legal in the first place.All the NEWS that is fit to print.  Ha.

Weird that Trump buys into it, huh?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/13/2019 at 7:06 AM, Nailing Malarkey Too said:

Old thread. And it starts with fake news from the NY Times.

Bump stocks work by harnessing a firearm’s recoil energy to slide it back and forth to bump against a squeezed trigger, so that it keeps firing without any need for the shooter to pull the trigger again. Associated Press

It is exactly because it requires the finger to pull the trigger each time a round is fired that it was legal in the first place.All the NEWS that is fit to print.  Ha.

How is it that some of our dear departed Malarkey posts still survive?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bad news for owners of fingers and rubber bands
 

Quote

 

A new lawsuit against the manufacturers of guns used in the 2017 Las Vegas mass shooting argues that AR-15-style rifles are illegal because they are compatible with bump stocks, which increase their rate of fire. The plaintiffs, parents of a woman who was murdered in the Las Vegas massacre, argue that bump stocks like the ones used in that attack convert semi-automatic rifles into illegal machine guns—a position that has been endorsed by the Trump administration. Therefore, they argue, AR-15s are themselves illegal, since the federal definition of machine guns includes firearms that "can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger."

...

During the Obama administration, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) concluded on several occasions that bump stocks, which facilitate a firing technique in which the rifle moves back and forth, repeatedly resetting the trigger and pushing it against the shooter's stationary finger, do not turn rifles into machine guns.

The reason is clear. A rifle equipped with a bump stock does not automatically fire more than one shot for each function of the trigger. It fires one round each time the trigger is activated, and the process is not automatic, since the shooter has to maintain forward pressure on the weapon and keep his finger in position.

Notwithstanding that reality, Donald Trump, in response to the Las Vegas massacre, decided he could ban bump stocks by administrative fiat—the approach favored by the National Rifle Association. He instructed the Justice Department, which includes the ATF, to come up with a rationale, which required defining "function of the trigger" as "pull of the trigger," defining a trigger pull so as to exclude what happens during bump firing, and treating the shooter as part of the rifle mechanism.

...

the logic of Trump's ban suggests that any semi-automatic rifle is now illegal, since bump firing does not require bump stocks. The ATF concedes that "individuals wishing to replicate the effects of bump-stock-type devices could also use rubber bands, belt loops, or otherwise train their trigger finger to fire more rapidly." The implication is that any semi-automatic rifle, if owned by someone who also has rubber bands, belt loops, or fingers, could be considered a machine gun.

 

It's too bad that the sensible approach of the Obama administration has been supplanted by Trump's power grab based on the idea that fingers are gun parts and worse that my ACLU/NRA $pon$or$ have gone along with Trump's nonsense.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...
12 hours ago, Fakenews said:

3  separate mass shootings were barely avoided this week  if each case the shooters were loaded for bear with AW’s and some variation of extended capacity mags, titanium body armor, ballistic helmets, thousands of rounds of ammo. The stated goal was to kill 100 people

One thing not found was bump stocks, presumably because they were BANNED.  

My suggestion is we ban all of the above and throw people found with them in prison for not less than 10 years. 

https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/18/us/three-potential-attacks-foiled/index.html


People who are contemplating mass murder want to make sure they obey gun laws?

I still agree with Obama that the President doesn't have the authority to legislate from the Oval Office and admire his restraint in refraining from doing so. Of course, he had reasons for restraint: TeamR would have freaked right out if he engaged in the kind of power grab that Trump did, but they won't stand up to Trump because TeamR.

Meanwhile, we can't count on TeamD to stand up to Trump's power grab because it was in the service of gungrabbing and anything, including Trump power grabs, is OK in the service of gungrabbing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

Boating Accidents Claim Hundreds of Thousands of Bump Stocka
 

Quote

 

Between the issuance of the final rule banning the devices in December 2018 and April 4, 2019, shortly after the prohibition took effect in late March, 582 bump stocks were “abandoned” to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, according to Justice Department records, and 98 bump stocks were kept as evidence.

The Times obtained the records through a Freedom of Information Act request.

The administration cited estimates that 280,000 to 520,000 bump-stock-type devices were in circulation when it published the final rule in December.


 

Kept as evidence?

Quote

She said the 98 devices that were held for “evidence” were turned over by people who said they wanted them back if the ban was successfully blocked in the courts.

Oh. Non-boaters.

Link to post
Share on other sites

True story, I had a dream recently that I accidentally invented a legal replacement for the bump stockas, and for the first time in my career I had people calling me up to buy my things. The whole time I'm thinking in my dream, wtf, nobody even really wanted bump stockas when they were legal, I know next to nothing about guns, how did this happen?

Must have been all that friggen sugar in that bottle of Grand Marnier, I sleep better with a touch of tequila than that stuff.

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, mikewof said:

True story, I had a dream recently that I accidentally invented a legal replacement for the bump stockas, and for the first time in my career I had people calling me up to buy my things. The whole time I'm thinking in my dream, wtf, nobody even really wanted bump stockas when they were legal, I know next to nothing about guns, how did this happen?

Must have been all that friggen sugar in that bottle of Grand Marnier, I sleep better with a touch of tequila than that stuff.

Not sure how it happened but I'll buy one of your bump stocka, Mike.

(Using your real name to make this post more of a conspiracy to engage in illegal interstate commerce. I'm a Section 230 fan and don't think The Ed should be held responsible for our criminal behavior. How about you?)

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Hypercapnic Tom said:

Not sure how it happened but I'll buy one of your bump stocka, Mike.

(Using your real name to make this post more of a conspiracy to engage in illegal interstate commerce. I'm a Section 230 fan and don't think The Ed should be held responsible for our criminal behavior. How about you?)

I have no knowledge of how I actually made the thing, or even what it was, I only remember that the gun guys made me wealthy in my dream.

And now, I just sold one of my things to you without even knowing what it was or what it did. The gun business sure seems easier than the folding boat business.

Maybe my device wasn't a gun thing, but a hunter thing? I currently sell a winter version of my folding boat, a gear sled that folds up to hang on a backpack, weighs 3.5 pounds, and has been tested to move 100 lbs of weight (i.e. deer carcass, firewood, beer) through snow, ice and grass. I sell them to backcountry skiers, but maybe I should talk to the gun guys and gals at Bass Pro.

It comes in high-viz yellow, blaze orange or green camo. How many dollars would that be worth to a gun guy, Normy?

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/11/2019 at 5:19 AM, Hypercapnic Tom said:

Boating Accidents Claim Hundreds of Thousands of Bump Stocka
 

Kept as evidence?

Oh. Non-boaters.

Boating accidents, until it hurts. How cute. This ^^^ is what conscious corruption looks like.

Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

 I found that if I consciously tried, I could consistently get a controlled 3 round burst and occasionally a 5-7 round burst.  How cool is that?  :ph34r:

BTW - with subsonic 9mm ammo and the suppressor - holy shit is that quiet.  Like approaching hollywood quiet.

It not cool at all.

Other things you think are cool but actually aren’t.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/stephenlaconte/reddit-things-cool-actually-embarrassing

Edit: subsonic 9mm rounds should be banned.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Speaking of bump stockas - I was shooting a friend's new suppressed 9mm AR SBR the other day.  I kept getting 2 and 3 round bursts.  I thought WTF, something's wrong with the trigger.  However, it did NOT have a bump stocka and no one else in our group was getting it.  Then I realized it was bump-firing because I was being lazy and not following through on the trigger pull.  I found that if I consciously tried, I could consistently get a controlled 3 round burst and occasionally a 5-7 round burst.  How cool is that?  :ph34r:

BTW - with subsonic 9mm ammo and the suppressor - holy shit is that quiet.  Like approaching hollywood quiet.

You're not allowed to have fingers that are trained that way in the USA. And don't substitute a rubber band either!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
19 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

In fact it's so monolithic that two of it's major coalition partners, the witch-burners and the gun-nutz, have been forced to accept a top leader who blatantly scoffs at their core principles. And yet they are still marching in lock step! Amazing! 

 

On 7/5/2019 at 6:49 AM, Hypercapnic Tom said:

It's too bad that the sensible approach of the Obama administration has been supplanted by Trump's power grab

Praising Obama's restraint on the topic issue and condemning Trump's power grab is "marching in lock step?"

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 months later...

Biden Promises To Do What Trump Already Did

Quote

BIDEN: “A guy has 12 (assault weapons, ordinary .22's) with bump stocka, which means you can fire it faster, you can pull the trigger faster. And 100 rounds. Why in God’s name should anyone, anyone, anyone be able to own that? It’s just wrong, and we’ve got to — and I promise you as president, I am going to get these guys. 
(Applause)

I still agree with noted constitutional scholar Obama that a President would be usurping Congressional power if he unilaterally banned bump stocka.

Usurping Congressional power is sometimes bad, you know, and can even get a guy impeached.

Weird that Biden doesn't even know that Trump already did it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

Gorsuch comments
 

Quote

 

...

Today, Justice Neil Gorsuch threw a little shade at the Trump administration for unilaterally rewriting federal gun laws. "The agency used to tell everyone that bump stocks don't qualify as 'machineguns.' Now it says the opposite. The law hasn't changed, only an agency's interpretation of it," Gorsuch wrote. "How, in all of this, can ordinary citizens be expected to keep up—required not only to conform their conduct to the fairest reading of the law they might expect from a neutral judge, but forced to guess whether the statute will be declared ambiguous….And why should courts, charged with the independent and neutral interpretation of the laws Congress has enacted, defer to such bureaucratic pirouetting?"

Gorsuch's statement came attached to the Supreme Court's denial of certiorari in Guedes v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. Damien Guedes, who challenged the legality of Trump's bump stock ban, recently lost before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which said the ban was entitled to judicial deference under the Chevron precedent. The Supreme Court today declined to hear Guedes' case.

Gorsuch agreed with that. "Other courts of appeals are actively considering challenges to the same regulation," he wrote, and "before deciding whether to weigh in, we would benefit from hearing their considered judgments." But, he added, waiting for the right case to come along "should not be mistaken for lack of concern."

 

Is ignorance of the law an excuse if the law changes without actually, you know, changing?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 5 weeks later...

Gorsuch has company
 

Quote

 

...

This week, Judge Brantley Starr, a Trump appointee who sits on the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, issued an opinion in Lane v. United States that basically accused the Justice Department of ignoring basic principles of constitutional governance in its defense of the Trump administration's bump stock ban.

The Justice Department justified the ban as a lawful exercise of the federal police power, Judge Starr observed. But "the federal government forgot the Tenth Amendment and the structure of the Constitution itself," which grants no such power to the feds. "It is concerning that the federal government believes it swallowed the states whole. Assuming the federal government didn't abolish the states to take their police power," Starr wrote, he had no choice but to deny the government's motion to dismiss the case. He then tartly added: "The Court will allow the government to try again and explain which enumerated power justifies the federal regulation."

...

 

I still agree with noted constitutional scholar Obama that a President would be usurping Congressional power if he unilaterally banned bump stocka.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 months later...
17 hours ago, kent_island_sailor said:

In this thread I don't want to hash out why they are wrong, more like how they will adapt almost ANY policy when told. The only constant is really guns 


Nope. Conservatives who would have howled with outrage if Obama reinterpreted a law the way Trump did mostly said nothing.

TeamD types who would normally howl with outrage if Trump reversed what Obama decided also mostly said nothing. Seems to me that TeamR are reliably Trumpist and TeamD are reliably gungrabby,.

  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

Utah Man Challenges Bump Stocka Ban
 

Quote

 

...

In the Tenth Circuit, Clark Aposhian, of Salt Lake City, Utah, filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Utah, claiming the BATFE did not have the authority to change a law which had been made by Congress, and which they had been upholding for decades. The suit was backed by the New Civil Liberties Alliance (NCLA). The NCLA frames the case this way:

May a federal agency rewrite a federal statute? May that rewrite turn otherwise innocent Americans into criminals? Those questions are what this case is about.

The case was filed on 16 January 2019. On 15 March 2019, the Circuit court denied the motion for a preliminary injunction. The motion was appealed to the Tenth Circuit.

The three-judge panel issued a split decision on 7 May 2020, against Aposian.

Aposian petitioned for a rehearing of the case by the Tenth Circuit, en banc. Aposian made the case the Tenth Circuit was violating their own previous precedent.

On 4 September 2020, the Tenth Circuit agreed to re-hear the case, en banc.

...

 

From the dissent in the panel decision:
 

Quote

 

I part ways with the majority when it concludes that the “statute is silent” (and therefore ambiguous) as to whether that action centers on “the movement of the trigger, or the movement of the trigger finger.” In fact, the statute speaks clearly: the function/action must be “of the trigger.”

 The NFA mentions nothing about trigger finger or any other “external impetus” that happens to interact with the trigger.  Guedes v. Bur. of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives, 920 F.3d 1, 43 (D.C. Cir. 2019) (Henderson, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) 7 (observing that the word “function” in the NFA “focus[es] on how the trigger acts”).  And given that omission, we must presume “that [the] legislature says . . . what it means and means . . . what it says”—that is, we must presume that the function/action of the trigger itself is the only variable that matters.  Henson v. Santander Consumer USA Inc., 137 S. Ct. 1718, 1725 (2017) (alterations in original) (quoting Dodd v. United States, 545 U.S. 353, 357 (2005)).  By concluding otherwise and allowing an inquiry into the trigger finger, the majority effectively “replac[es] the actual text” of the NFA “with speculation as to Congress’ intent.”  Magwood v. Patterson, 561 U.S. 320, 334 (2010).  That the majority cannot do without taking on a legislative role.  As a result, Congress’s use of the phrase “single function of the trigger” in the NFA can mean only “single action of the trigger” and not “single action of the trigger finger.”

 

If corporations can be people I guess fingers can be triggers, or something.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
7 hours ago, Cacoethesic Tom said:

The thread on the Vegas shooting seems to have disappeared in one of the purges, but I guess this is kinda bump stocka related.

Judge approves $800M Las Vegas shooting settlement

Excellent, holding venues accountable is exactly the right thing to do. It's not like we don't know there are nutters out there who want to shoot shit up.

Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

Excellent, holding venues accountable is exactly the right thing to do. It's not like we don't know there are nutters out there who want to shoot shit up.

I'm curious as to what you think hotels and concert venues should do to prevent future nutterz from doing something similar?  Are you suggesting outdoor concert venues post snipers on all the surrounding roofs as a precaution?  

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Burning Man said:

I'm curious as to what you think hotels and concert venues should do to prevent future nutterz from doing something similar?  Are you suggesting outdoor concert venues post snipers on all the surrounding roofs as a precaution?  

Security baby. You guys wanted a security state, you’re gonna get one

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 months later...

Gun control first for Biden executive orders
 

Quote

 

Stef Feldman, the national policy director of Biden's presidential campaign, included the Democrat’s gun plan in a list of initial executive actions set to be unleashed after Inauguration Day.

Speaking in a Zoom briefing hosted by Georgetown University’s Institute of Politics and Public Service, she said that Biden is planning to “make big, bold changes through executive action, not just on policing and climate like we talked about previously, but in healthcare and education on gun violence, on a range of issues.”

She added that “there's really a lot you can do through guidance and executive action.”

 

This is great news for those who haven't gotten rid of their bump stocka!

Without knowing exactly what Biden might do, it's easy to guess he will prefer Obama's interpretation of executive power over Trump's and will therefore reverse the bump stocka ban.

Hah! Kidding, of course. If the result is gungrabby, he'll obviously stick with Trump's wisdom over Obama's constitutional guesswork.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/2/2020 at 1:03 PM, Raz'r said:

Security baby. You guys wanted a security state, you’re gonna get one

If I have to go through a metal detector or wand every day to enter my school   Anyone can  for a concert, sporting event  or go into a hotel. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

Great news! Biden promises to go back to Obama's interpretation of Presidential power!

Quote

There is a Constitution. It's our only hope. Our only hope and the way to deal with it is, where I have executive authority, I will use it to undo every single damn thing this guy has done by executive authority. But I'm not going to exercise executive authority where it's a question, where I can come along and say, 'I can do away with assault weapons.' There's no executive authority to do away that. And no one has fought harder to get rid of assault weapons than me, me, but you can't do it by executive order.

"Every single damn thing!"

This should prevent LOTS of boating accidents and as a fan of boating safety, I approve.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...
  • 1 month later...
  • 4 weeks later...

  

2 minutes ago, Olsonist said:

You don't have to defend Obama from me. I'm a huge fan except for Afghanistan


Wow, that's the closest any TeamD partisan has come to saying Obama was right and Trump was wrong about banning bump stocka.

Glad we could find an area of agreement!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 months later...
On 9/13/2020 at 8:08 AM, Excoded Tom said:

Utah Man Challenges Bump Stocka Ban
 

Quote

 

...

In the Tenth Circuit, Clark Aposhian, of Salt Lake City, Utah, filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Utah, claiming the BATFE did not have the authority to change a law which had been made by Congress, and which they had been upholding for decades. The suit was backed by the New Civil Liberties Alliance (NCLA). The NCLA frames the case this way:

May a federal agency rewrite a federal statute? May that rewrite turn otherwise innocent Americans into criminals? Those questions are what this case is about.

The case was filed on 16 January 2019. On 15 March 2019, the Circuit court denied the motion for a preliminary injunction. The motion was appealed to the Tenth Circuit.

The three-judge panel issued a split decision on 7 May 2020, against Aposian.

Aposian petitioned for a rehearing of the case by the Tenth Circuit, en banc. Aposian made the case the Tenth Circuit was violating their own previous precedent.

On 4 September 2020, the Tenth Circuit agreed to re-hear the case, en banc.

Expand  

The 10th Circuit, over several dissents, then changed its mind and decided not to hear the Aposhian case en banc.

So now there's a petition asking SCOTUS to hear the case.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.