"Assault weapons" ban is one thing, but full auto??

1
I oppose any 'assault weapons' ban, which essentially just bans any semi-auto. But the SCOTUS ruling today lifting the ban on bump stocks essentially lifts the National Firearms Act of 1934 ban on machine guns. What's next, lifting the ban on possession of explosives? Trump's corrupt SCOTUS is taking us back decades. Let the gang wars and carnage begin, screw the bystanders.

Re: "Assault weapons" ban is one thing, but full auto??

4
As liberal Justice Sotomayor correctly said, “When I see a bird that walks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, I call that bird a duck.” Bump stocks enable a semi-auto to operate as a machine gun. You may be technically correct, but it's spitting hairs to the tenth degree. Machine guns are legal in 14 states, illegal in 10 and variable in the rest. In the ones where that can be bought outright, at least it requires a $200 tax stamp and a background check. Now any yahoo with a few buck can go down to their LGS and buy what makes their AR into what is essentially a machine gun. I'm surprised so few liberal gun owners (no one?) has a problem with this.

Automatic Weapons Legality by State 2024;
https://worldpopulationreview.com/state ... y-by-state

Re: "Assault weapons" ban is one thing, but full auto??

5
NevGuns wrote:I oppose any 'assault weapons' ban, which essentially just bans any semi-auto. But the SCOTUS ruling today lifting the ban on bump stocks essentially lifts the National Firearms Act of 1934 ban on machine guns. What's next, lifting the ban on possession of explosives? Trump's corrupt SCOTUS is taking us back decades. Let the gang wars and carnage begin, screw the bystanders.
Not sure where to begin here.

SCOTUS ruled the ATF exceeded its authority, which it did.

Bump stocks do not meet the statutory definition of machine guns per GCA'68. They are and always were accessories.

The NFA of 1934 restriction on machine guns remains in effect. The GCA of 1968 statutory definitions remain in effect.

Also, the bump stock ban was Trump's doing.

In short, bills should be made by the legislature and signed into law by the president, not concocted by bureaucracies that report to the Executive.

Thus, if you want a bump stock ban you can lobby your legislators.
sbɐɯ ʎʇıɔɐdɐɔ pɹɐpuɐʇs ɟo ןןnɟ ǝɟɐs
ɯɯ6 bdd ɹǝɥʇןɐʍ
13ʞ
"ǝuıqɹɐɔ 1ɐ4ɯ" dɯɐʇsןןoɹ --- ɯoɔos0269ǝן ʇןoɔ
"ǝuıqɹɐɔ ʇuǝɯǝɔɹoɟuǝ ʍɐן sʇןoɔ" dɯɐʇsןןoɹ --- 0269ǝן ʇןoɔ
(béɟ) 59-pɯɐ

Re: "Assault weapons" ban is one thing, but full auto??

6
The National Firearms Act of 1934 is a federal law, not a state one. State legislatures can ban bump stocks. A federal agency can't just decide to write a regulation (rule) banning or allowing something unless it is based specifically in a federal statute/law passed by both houses of Congress and signed by the president. Bump stocks don't meet the legal definition of a machine gun in the NFA, no matter how much ATF tried to make it fit.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: "Assault weapons" ban is one thing, but full auto??

7
I don't like a lot of the speech the right engages in, especially with regard to white supremacy bullshit. But they have the right to say it, and I'll defend their right until it has clearly crossed a line into illegal (hate speech, for example) or action (lynch mob, for example). I personally object to bump stocks finding them both useless and an attempt at circumventing the law. But they don't actually break existing law. The technical details matter. So does the way the law was crafted. The ATF exceeded its authority to regulate and stretched a definition too far.

Re: "Assault weapons" ban is one thing, but full auto??

8
featureless wrote: Sat Jun 15, 2024 9:55 am I don't like a lot of the speech the right engages in, especially with regard to white supremacy bullshit. But they have the right to say it, and I'll defend their right until it has clearly crossed a line into illegal (hate speech, for example) or action (lynch mob, for example). I personally object to bump stocks finding them both useless and an attempt at circumventing the law. But they don't actually break existing law. The technical details matter. So does the way the law was crafted. The ATF exceeded its authority to regulate and stretched a definition too far.
I agree featureless, the anti-immigrant rhetoric is bullshit from the right and the defund the police is bullshit from the left. I've never owned a bump stock and never will and if Congress banned them tomorrow I wouldn't shed a tear. I object to federal agencies like ATF using their Rule Making powers to ban an item or redefining who can sell a firearm other than FFLs, without authority from a specific federal law.
Last edited by highdesert on Sun Jun 16, 2024 2:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: "Assault weapons" ban is one thing, but full auto??

9
highdesert wrote: Sat Jun 15, 2024 10:48 am
featureless wrote: Sat Jun 15, 2024 9:55 am I don't like a lot of the speech the right engages in, especially with regard to white supremacy bullshit. But they have the right to say it, and I'll defend their right until it has clearly crossed a line into illegal (hate speech, for example) or action (lynch mob, for example). I personally object to bump stocks finding them both useless and an attempt at circumventing the law. But they don't actually break existing law. The technical details matter. So does the way the law was crafted. The ATF exceeded its authority to regulate and stretched a definition too far.
I agree featureless, the anti-immigrant rhetoric is bullshit from the right and the defund the police is bullshit from the left. I've never owned a bump stock and never will and if Congress banned them tomorrow I wouldn't shed a tear. I object to federal agencies like ATF using their Rule Making powers to ban an item or redefining who can sell a fire other than FFLs, without authority from a specific federal law.
This. If people want bump stocks banned as said earlier lobby your congress and senatorial critters. Personally I would not support such politicians not because I want a bump stock I don’t, but I see it as not addressing underlying causes of violence in our society. I prefer the root cause direction to approaching issues. The three justices that descentes were just parroting the anti gun groups agenda they are beholding to. There’s nothing liberal about their position. Liberal should be to expand and protect rights and not limit them.
Image
Image

"Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated!" Loquacious of many. Texas Chapter Chief Cat Herder.

Re: "Assault weapons" ban is one thing, but full auto??

10
All this crowing on about gun control to save lives is pure bullshit. If we wanted to save lives, we'd ban refined sugars and trans fats. That and required exercise would essentially cure heart disease, many cancers and diabetes. We'd save millions versus the 400 of so killed per year with rifles. Not to mention the enormous savings on medical treatment. But it isn't really about saving lives. Just like guns are the leading cause of death in "children" (if you entirely redefine "children"), gun control is built entirely on propaganda. It ignores who is dying and where. It's a continuation of making white people feel safe so we can keep eating ourselves to death in peace, if not harmony.

Re: "Assault weapons" ban is one thing, but full auto??

11
featureless wrote: Sat Jun 15, 2024 11:42 am All this crowing on about gun control to save lives is pure bullshit. If we wanted to save lives, we'd ban refined sugars and trans fats. That and required exercise would essentially cure heart disease, many cancers and diabetes. We'd save millions versus the 400 of so killed per year with rifles. Not to mention the enormous savings on medical treatment. But it isn't really about saving lives. Just like guns are the leading cause of death in "children" (if you entirely redefine "children"), gun control is built entirely on propaganda. It ignores who is dying and where. It's a continuation of making white people feel safe so we can keep eating ourselves to death in peace, if not harmony.
Thanks! You reminded me, I really need to start looking at my diet again. I’ve completely let it go for too long. Agree with the above by the way. The blood in our streets cry is a bit much considering the numbers.
Image
Image

"Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated!" Loquacious of many. Texas Chapter Chief Cat Herder.

Re: "Assault weapons" ban is one thing, but full auto??

12
The Democratic nanny state is as bad as the Republican bible thumpers, they both have a condescending way of saying that they know what is best for us. After Prohibition which was the epitome of nanny state/bible thumper power, states created state liquor stores to control peoples access to alcohol to reduce alcoholism. Whether it worked or not is debatable, but a number of blue and red states still have them. Occasionally the control freaks join hands like state laws requiring age verification to access to online porn sites. States do have a compelling interest in a number of areas which I support, like child welfare, health and education.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: "Assault weapons" ban is one thing, but full auto??

13
highdesert wrote: Sat Jun 15, 2024 12:10 pm The Democratic nanny state is as bad as the Republican bible thumpers, they both have a condescending way of saying that they know what is best for us. After Prohibition which was the epitome of nanny state/bible thumper power, states created state liquor stores to control peoples access to alcohol to reduce alcoholism. Whether it worked or not is debatable, but a number of blue and red states still have them. Occasionally the control freaks join hands like state laws requiring age verification to access to online porn sites. States do have a compelling interest in a number of areas which I support, like child welfare, health and education.
I have to disagree. The odds of you needing a gun to protect yourself, even post 2016, is still very, very small. I'm 68 years old and so far, I haven't needed a gun's immediacy. And I have 4 handguns and 4 long guns. That's what Blue states are limiting--and I live in one. OTOH, just about EVERYONE engages in sex, most of us reproduce, and, preferably, only when and where we want to. Some prefer their own sex. Others need help conceiving--I have 2 nieces and a nephew, triplets, born by IVF. They will turn 20 next month and are all doing very well as undergrads. A childhood friend has 2 children, one adopted, and, the other, a "miracle baby" who was her and her husband's frozen embryo for 8 years! Red state bible thumpers affect everyone's daily lives, not just those rare situations. They deny poor kids free lunches, are forcing regional hospitals to close (Mississippi), restrict voting rights, purge legitimate voters from registration rolls, don't give a flying fuck about child welfare, health, and education--and they are all, ALL bible-thumpers! They are SO "pro-life" they are happy to let pregnant women, and poor people DIE!

All the Blue states do is use stupid ineffectual means to try to cut down on gun deaths. They are NOT as bad as Red States.
"Even if the bee could explain to the fly why pollen is better than shit, the fly could never understand."

Re: "Assault weapons" ban is one thing, but full auto??

15
highdesert wrote: Sat Jun 15, 2024 12:10 pm The Democratic nanny state is as bad as the Republican bible thumpers, they both have a condescending way of saying that they know what is best for us. After Prohibition which was the epitome of nanny state/bible thumper power, states created state liquor stores to control peoples access to alcohol to reduce alcoholism. Whether it worked or not is debatable, but a number of blue and red states still have them. Occasionally the control freaks join hands like state laws requiring age verification to access to online porn sites. States do have a compelling interest in a number of areas which I support, like child welfare, health and education.
I would agree and agree where the state has a compelling interest.
Image
Image

"Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated!" Loquacious of many. Texas Chapter Chief Cat Herder.

Re: "Assault weapons" ban is one thing, but full auto??

16
I have so much I'd like to add to this discussion that it would take days just to type it and edit it. Highlights:

I *do* need a gun and have several times in my Life *needed* a gun. The Constitution outlines my Right to be armed.

No one has the right to tell me what I can have and can't have in terms of firearms. The law decides that. If I break the law, I should be punished, not everyone who is armed in a similar manner with the same tools.

The BATF enforces laws put into place by the congress. The BATF does not make the laws.

Bump stocks do not make a firearm a machine gun. If they need to be limited it should be done at the State level.

If we really want to save lives (taken by firearms) we need to resolve our health care issues in the US - many of the people who have commited mass murder using firearms were "on the radar" of law enforcement and health care professionals and nothing was done. People who kill a bunch of other people with a firearm are AFU. Wanna be safer? Deal with the small percentage of people who are AFU and stop trying to ban the way into a solution. Like prohibition, it will only make the matter worse mostly for people who aren't the problem.

....and it goes on and on and on.....

VooDoo
Tyrants disarm the people they intend to oppress. Hope is not a Plan.

Dot 'em if ya got 'em!

Re: "Assault weapons" ban is one thing, but full auto??

17
NevGuns wrote: Sat Jun 15, 2024 5:24 am As liberal Justice Sotomayor correctly said, “When I see a bird that walks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, I call that bird a duck.” Bump stocks enable a semi-auto to operate as a machine gun. You may be technically correct, but it's spitting hairs to the tenth degree. Machine guns are legal in 14 states, illegal in 10 and variable in the rest. In the ones where that can be bought outright, at least it requires a $200 tax stamp and a background check. Now any yahoo with a few buck can go down to their LGS and buy what makes their AR into what is essentially a machine gun. I'm surprised so few liberal gun owners (no one?) has a problem with this.

Automatic Weapons Legality by State 2024;
https://worldpopulationreview.com/state ... y-by-state
Apparently Attorney General Eric "Fast 'N' Furious" Holder didn't agree. His DOJ is the one who wrote and signed the "bump stocks are OK" letter. You should read it.

https://www.vpc.org/wp-content/uploads/ ... r-2010.pdf

Even the "factcheck.org" Web site acknowledges this fact.

https://www.factcheck.org/2018/04/atf-r ... mp-stocks/
"SF Liberal With A Gun + Free Software Advocate"
http://www.sanfranciscoliberalwithagun.com/
http://www.liberalsguncorner.com/
Image

Re: "Assault weapons" ban is one thing, but full auto??

18
Sotomayor's "quacks like a duck" dissent ought to be a source of professional embarrassment for her, given it shows she misses the point, but the firearm prohibition lobby and media have adopted it as a mantra. So that nonsense is here to stay.

Democrats now have dredged up S.1909, which contains language meant to be abused. It would be counterproductive to allow the legislature to alter the statutory definitions of automatic and semiautomatic under the guise of banning bump stocks.

S1909 Banning Unlawful Machinegun Parts Act of 2023:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-con ... -bill/1909

The sponsor's fact sheet on the bill:
https://www.heinrich.senate.gov/imo/med ... heet_2.pdf

Re: "Assault weapons" ban is one thing, but full auto??

19
DispositionMatrix wrote: Tue Jun 18, 2024 8:34 am Sotomayor's "quacks like a duck" dissent ought to be a source of professional embarrassment for her, given it shows she misses the point, but the firearm prohibition lobby and media have adopted it as a mantra. So that nonsense is here to stay.

Democrats now have dredged up S.1909, which contains language meant to be abused. It would be counterproductive to allow the legislature to alter the statutory definitions of automatic and semiautomatic under the guise of banning bump stocks.

S1909 Banning Unlawful Machinegun Parts Act of 2023:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-con ... -bill/1909

The sponsor's fact sheet on the bill:
https://www.heinrich.senate.gov/imo/med ... heet_2.pdf
Agree, the law IS technical and its language and words matter. Otherwise why is there a need for a legal profession, put everything up for popular vote and to hell with precedent and legal principles.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: "Assault weapons" ban is one thing, but full auto??

20
highdesert wrote: Tue Jun 18, 2024 8:45 am
DispositionMatrix wrote: Tue Jun 18, 2024 8:34 am Sotomayor's "quacks like a duck" dissent ought to be a source of professional embarrassment for her, given it shows she misses the point, but the firearm prohibition lobby and media have adopted it as a mantra. So that nonsense is here to stay.

Democrats now have dredged up S.1909, which contains language meant to be abused. It would be counterproductive to allow the legislature to alter the statutory definitions of automatic and semiautomatic under the guise of banning bump stocks.

S1909 Banning Unlawful Machinegun Parts Act of 2023:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-con ... -bill/1909

The sponsor's fact sheet on the bill:
https://www.heinrich.senate.gov/imo/med ... heet_2.pdf
Agree, the law IS technical and its language and words matter. Otherwise why is there a need for a legal profession, put everything up for popular vote and to hell with precedent and legal principles.
Agree. Changing definitions is BS. If they want to legislate out a device they simply need to do it without twisting definitions.
Image
Image

"Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated!" Loquacious of many. Texas Chapter Chief Cat Herder.

Re: "Assault weapons" ban is one thing, but full auto??

22
featureless wrote: Tue Jun 18, 2024 10:50 am I find it interesting that the Dems are working harder to ban bump stocks than they have to secure women's rights.
As I’ve noted before, I’m totally disgusted with the priority the dems and biden placed on gun control and ban initiatives. Within weeks of being in office biden felt guns were an issue he should tackle. There are so many issues I’d prefer including universal healthcare which biden seems to oppose. It wouldn’t benefit his monied neoliberal supporters. Business first is his motto.
Image
Image

"Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated!" Loquacious of many. Texas Chapter Chief Cat Herder.

Re: "Assault weapons" ban is one thing, but full auto??

23
I'm sorry about all these legal loophole arguments are BULLSHIT! The point of machine gun (fully automatic) is to send massive amounts of bullets at your target rapidly and that's EXACTLY what a bump -stock is designed to make happen, and make happen easily. Yeah there are techniques that allow you to do it with the bump stock, but then, again, that's NOT easy, just like shooting an arrow from a bow is not as easy as pulling a trigger.
"Even if the bee could explain to the fly why pollen is better than shit, the fly could never understand."

Re: "Assault weapons" ban is one thing, but full auto??

24
It needs a law then - not a ban or determination by BATF or executive order. If bump stocks create "machine guns "(they do not) then they need to be regulated like machine guns/automatic weapons. Not banned via any other means. Otherwise we can ban folding stocks because they make firearms more concealable and muzzle device because they are facilitated via threaded barrels (which enables suppressor installation) or pistols grips because they enable enhanced control in rapid fire, etc.

We are a nation of laws- make a law and let BATF enforce the law.

VooDoo
Tyrants disarm the people they intend to oppress. Hope is not a Plan.

Dot 'em if ya got 'em!

Re: "Assault weapons" ban is one thing, but full auto??

25
VodoundaVinci wrote: Wed Jun 19, 2024 1:58 pm It needs a law then - not a ban or determination by BATF or executive order. If bump stocks create "machine guns "(they do not) then they need to be regulated like machine guns/automatic weapons. Not banned via any other means. Otherwise we can ban folding stocks because they make firearms more concealable and muzzle device because they are facilitated via threaded barrels (which enables suppressor installation) or pistols grips because they enable enhanced control in rapid fire, etc.

We are a nation of laws- make a law and let BATF enforce the law.

VooDoo
Agree, but our dem comrades seem to not get the point.
Image
Image

"Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated!" Loquacious of many. Texas Chapter Chief Cat Herder.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests