Saturday 3-10-18, Justice Dept Just Made Next Move to BAN Bump Stocks

[Tommygunn]

The importance of Heller is that it invalidated the District's absolute ban on handguns (in place since 1976). The principle of the case is that the 2nd Amendment precludes absolute bans on guns. That's important, but it leaves a lot of room for restrictions short of absolute bans. The antigunners can concoct schemes that, in practice, make gun ownership very difficult.

*SIGH!* Somebody ought to send these judges and politicians dictionaries, with a bold marking on the word "INFRINGE." It means "intrude upon," or "diminish."
Or do judges, lawyers, an politicians get to use a special TOP SECRET dictionary with unique definitions of words that can only be used and known amongst themselves?

"If the Constitution can mean whatever we want at the time, then why a written document?" ~~Justice Learned Hand.


ETA: The above represents only MY opinion and does not constitute legal advice.

 

[AlexanderA]

That's all well and good, but I should think we both know that neither of those Democrats are more pro-gun than their counterparts, nor will side with gun owners during actual votes. It's played out over and over where supposed pro-gun Democrats are given the opportunity, and side with the national party every time. That party simply does not tolerate deviation from platform orthodoxy on this issue, the way the Republican party does.

The Republicans take gun owners for granted, and therefore they can betray them with impunity. Gun owners would be in a much stronger position if there was party rivalry for their support. The idea is to play both sides off against each other. That's why we should support pro-gun Democrats whenever possible. If enough of them are elected, they might even be able to sway their national party platform.

ETA: Single-issue voters have enormous power, if they play their cards right. Single-issue voters are the groups that professional politicians are most afraid of. But here's the question, though -- how many gun-rights voters are single-issue pro-gun voters? I'm afraid that, because of polarization, the gun-rights position is getting muddled. When someone is identified as belonging to the "conservative" tribe, then he's expected to support the whole constellation of "conservative" issues. The gun message gets connected to all sorts of unrelated things. (BTW, there are pro-gun liberals.)

 

[barnbwt]

Of course there are pro-gun liberals, they just vote for anti-gun politicians and cannot advance in the Democrat party past dog catcher. I, too, think that competition would be good for us, but it's all contained inside the Republican party; the Dems aren't even trying, and have been actually doing the opposite for some thirty years, now. And unlike the Republicans, the DNC has a very insular leadership structure that simply does not respond to grass roots demands as you suggest. The GOP is more open on that front, which is a major source of its infighting.

 

[DeepSouth]

The recent upset victories of Doug Jones in Alabama and Conor Lamb in Pennsylvania -- both of whom ran on pro-gun platforms -- show that guns are not an exclusively partisan issue.

I just have to say Douge Jones did NOT run on a pro-gun platform, he avoided the issue like the plague, and in the rare instances he did get pinned down he towed the DNC line as an anti trying keep from sounding to extreme.

And for what it’s worth, as long as the DNC has gun control in their party platform, I will take them at their word.

 

[DoubleMag]

29 days left in the comment period. June 27,2018. Remember, that's YOUR Ar15 machine gun worth $35,000 + they're trying to confiscate without giving any $mack for it.

And, without price, supposedly a freebie, a gimme...your rights.
And, the grave potential of future administrations to use same language & rationale to ban...whatever their kingship so sees fit which is far worse a problem IMHO

Machine gun? Well, that is what they (DoJ) claims it is. Dummie me just agrees, so pay me da' MONEY.
And yes the going rate for a full auto m16 platform is approx. $35LARGE

tick, tock tick, tock tick...

 

[AlexanderA]

Machine gun? Well, that is what they (DoJ) claims it is. Dummie me just agrees, so pay me da' MONEY.
And yes the going rate for a full auto m16 platform is approx. $35LARGE

Actually, that's about $10K too high. The going rate for a bona fide Colt M16 is about $25K. Maybe higher if unfired in its original box. You can get a Sendra conversion for $18K.

You are paying for the paper, not the gun. The price is for the registration, proving that the gun was made by May 19, 1986. Anything made after that (unless a dealer sample, etc.) is worthless. In fact it has negative value in that it can land you in federal prison. Since all bump stocks are post-1986, they have no value if defined as machine guns.

Administratively redefining things as machine guns is a huge development. Taken to its logical conclusion, it means that all AR-15's and the like can be deemed to be machine guns. A hostile future administration could do this with a stroke of a pen.

If things are going to be retroactively redefined as machine guns, at least there should be a way to add them to the existing MG registry.

I have a feeling that this bump-stock banning process is not going to go as smoothly as some in the administration would have liked.

 

[DoubleMag]

If I want to buy a M16 form a private party, I pay them the $25K.

Anyways, I have heard the $35K from various internet sources etc. Take it down to the $25K cited, and the # of ARs with the stocks attached at 250,000 of the DoJ cited 400,000, the ca$h register rings up at $6.25BILLION

Again, I am not saying that the lowly AR with an added bump stock is a machine gun, and therefore pumped up in value, DoJ is. I actually never thought of it until I read their 55 page complaint against Freedom. It's their position, their paper.