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

[Hokie_PhD]

Barnbwt, your anti-Trump rant doesn’t address the issue nor my comment.

Love him or hate him, he was elected as many felt he was the lesser of two evils.

Contrary to what you and the far left feel (and Trump hatersof all stripes) he’s done nothing worthy of being run out of office. And there are many that would consider such act as an actual attempt an attack on our way of life, Constitution etc.

So the real issue is what is his administration DOING. And how do we ensure that our rights are protected. Specifically to this site, how do we insure our 2nd Amendment Rights aren’t violated.

Frankly I don’t see bump stocks or raising the age to purchase as big issues to take our rights away. Yes, I don’t agree with them, I understand why some will be willing to compromise on them.

Personally, I see bigger worries. Banning specific guns, so call large capacity magazines, etc.

Worse I see our “silent majority” as a bigger problem. We have have to end our silence, and we need to stop being reactive. It’s time we become proactive. We were close to national conceal carry and suppressors and we lost them, plus the momentum we had.

So I’m not sure what we do, but we have high school kids playing on the “protect the children” nerve. Unfortunately too many buy that hook line and sinker and do see that when we “protect the children” we often lose some of our liberty. But rantin* about Trump isn’t going to protect our rights or help get those we’ve lost back.

 

[psyopspec]

Frankly I don’t see bump stocks or raising the age to purchase as big issues to take our rights away. Yes, I don’t agree with them, I understand why some will be willing to compromise on them.

Of course you don’t. Like most people, when something doesn’t personally impact you it’s easy to sign off on it. For me, having been the 20 year old veteran who could neither (technically) attend meetings at the VFW where I was a member since it was a bar, or being to buy a handgun, or CCW in most states, this was a big deal that affected me personally. Make an exception for veterans, some might say. Not good enough for me. As a soldier I wasn’t “more equal.”

Picking and choosing which infringements are fine based on one’s own myopic experience is another example of being a statist, and disingenuous to the republic.

 

[danez71]

Our "Lyin'" runner-up is out there, right now, defending our RKBA as he always has against the arguments of the "law and order" president who wants to circumvent both due process and the legislature.

"Who should we elect?" Maybe vote for candidates with even a basic understanding of this issue, and better yet a positive record on it. Refuse to re-elect leaders who work against us, and fail to demand the opportunity to vote for bills in our favor.

Frankly, the best future I see now is the once-again anti-gun Trump being bum-rushed out of Washington by a supermajority of the gunowners that sent him there, and a major schism splitting the useless NRA Fudds off for good. As Heston's "cold dead hands" replaced compromisers of years past, we need leaders who understand the need to stand firm, and win back lost ground at least occaisionally. So long as congress is divided we need fear no new laws; that is Obama's legacy if nothing else.

IMO, Teddy was clearly a better choice than Donny. I don't see how SO many others logically thought otherwise.

He didnt get pass the nomination hurdle because didn't have catch phrases, huge promises, or hyper asserive demeanor and people were PO'd and wanted the pendulum to swing hard the other way. He didn't resonate with enough nomination voters that weren't, imo, thinking logically.

But the continued railing about it now, so many months later, has about the same result as spitting into the wind and somewhat comes across the same way as those that are still saying ' not my president '.

The fact is, he is. People will either choose to work with what they have or choose the live in their own alternative-fact world.

 

[danez71]

Of course you don’t. Like most people, when something doesn’t personally impact you it’s easy to sign off on it. For me, having been the 20 year old veteran who could neither (technically) attend meetings at the VFW where I was a member since it was a bar, or being to buy a handgun, or CCW in most states, this was a big deal that affected me personally. Make an exception for veterans, some might say. Not good enough for me. As a soldier I wasn’t “more equal.”

Picking and choosing which infringements are fine based on one’s own myopic experience is another example of being a statist, and disingenuous to the republic.

I don't think its quite fair to quote that part of what hokie PhD said without also quoting this part too.

Personally, I see bigger worries. Banning specific guns, so call large capacity magazines, etc.

In context, he has a valid point.

My fight now isn't for me. It's for my daughter, son in law, and God willing, my very soon to be healthy granddaughter, neices and nephews.

IMO, its misguided and wrong to ban bump stocks and I don't agree at all with inconsistent political based age restrictions. I've said so in many threads....many many times.

But I also believe the gun is more important than the stock it's attached to and therefore it is, by default, the bigger o the 2 fish to be concerned about.

 

[Hokie_PhD]

Of course you don’t. Like most people, when something doesn’t personally impact you it’s easy to sign off on it. For me, having been the 20 year old veteran who could neither (technically) attend meetings at the VFW where I was a member since it was a bar, or being to buy a handgun, or CCW in most states, this was a big deal that affected me personally. Make an exception for veterans, some might say. Not good enough for me. As a soldier I wasn’t “more equal.”

Picking and choosing which infringements are fine based on one’s own myopic experience is another example of being a statist, and disingenuous to the republic.

Reread the rest of my post. And many of my other posts on the subject.

I agree with you. My point was, those issues don’t matter to me. And I see others feeling the same way. But just because I don’t care about them doesn’t mean I’m ok with losing any ground.

That said, if we change the age to buy a gun, then IMHO we need to change the voting age, any any other law that considers an adult being 18 or older. I don’t have a dog in that fight, I just say pick an age.

As for bump stops, personally I think they’re a waste of money. But I see it as a lost battle. So let’s move on, and learn from the loss. It was a battle we shouldn’t have lost.

The rest of my post and others I’ve made is we need to change our way of fighting. We need to stop being quiet, and we need to stop playing defense. Only then will we not lose things like bump stops and the others that we’ve lost or are losing.

 

[CapnMac]

500,000 people being expropriated of their belongings or made felons...

Not quite. The bar against ex post facto still stands (even if it is a huge annoyance to some in power).

Let us presume that the regulation asserts that the items are a clear and immediate danger to public safety (as alcohol was in 1920), an enactment or "grace" period is required to exist to allow those legally owning the dangerous thing to dispossess themselves of the item. After which it is contraband and subject to seizure without recompense.

Which is actually exactly where the comments ought to be addressed. That a national ban would require present owners to seek foreign purchasers, whihc would be an ITAR violation.

Sadly, they probably have a solution in hand, which is to make them Title II AOR. Which would side-step the closed MG Registry issue.

 

[barnbwt]

IMO, Teddy was clearly a better choice than Donny. I don't see how SO many others logically thought otherwise.

He didnt get pass the nomination hurdle because didn't have catch phrases, huge promises, or hyper asserive demeanor and people were PO'd and wanted the pendulum to swing hard the other way. He didn't resonate with enough nomination voters that weren't, imo, thinking logically.

But the continued railing about it now, so many months later, has about the same result as spitting into the wind and somewhat comes across the same way as those that are still saying ' not my president '.

The fact is, he is. People will either choose to work with what they have or choose the live in their own alternative-fact world.

Cruz can still run again; maybe former Trump supporters would be more receptive now that their tantrum vote has had some cold water thrown on it. I hope that Trump's victory was cathartic for folks, in that it proved grass roots support can still (barely) outdo machine politics in this country. With that out of the way, maybe we can get serious and elect someone who is a known good quantity.

 

[barnbwt]

Not quite. The bar against ex post facto still stands (even if it is a huge annoyance to some in power).

Let us presume that the regulation asserts that the items are a clear and immediate danger to public safety (as alcohol was in 1920), an enactment or "grace" period is required to exist to allow those legally owning the dangerous thing to dispossess themselves of the item. After which it is contraband and subject to seizure without recompense.

Which is actually exactly where the comments ought to be addressed. That a national ban would require present owners to seek foreign purchasers, whihc would be an ITAR violation.

Sadly, they probably have a solution in hand, which is to make them Title II AOR. Which would side-step the closed MG Registry issue.

No, they'll use the old grace period chestnut to sidestep the fact they destroyed millions in personal assets without compensation. Best case they do the Akins Accelerator thing and order owners to glue the stock closed but retain possession, worst is they require proof they be destroyed or be registered as post samples (similar to the shotgun bans of the 90s but with Hughes flavoring).

Their won't be grandfathering, I doubt they would attempt to invent yet another category of non-machinegun-machineguns out of thin air like they did for open bolts, but is possible.

Oddly enough, I'd be willing to bet they aren't restricted by ITAR at this time, seeing as they have no strategic or military value, which itself does seem to under cut their supposed dangerousness requiring a ban.

 

[AlexanderA]

Sadly, they probably have a solution in hand, which is to make them Title II AOR. Which would side-step the closed MG Registry issue.

They are not by any stretch "Any Other Weapons." Where this is going is that bump stocks will be defined, by regulation, as "conversion devices," and, hence, as post-1986 machine guns. Instant contraband, and current owners will simply be out of luck. Just be careful that your bump stock is not found installed on a gun, because that would make the whole gun subject to confiscation.

My dream was that this would force the reopening of the MG registry. That can't happen without actual legislation. Maybe Congress can hurry and forestall the regulation?

 

[barnbwt]

Barnbwt, your anti-Trump rant doesn’t address the issue nor my comment.

Love him or hate him, he was elected as many felt he was the lesser of two evils.

Contrary to what you and the far left feel (and Trump hatersof all stripes) he’s done nothing worthy of being run out of office. And there are many that would consider such act as an actual attempt an attack on our way of life, Constitution etc.

So the real issue is what is his administration DOING. And how do we ensure that our rights are protected. Specifically to this site, how do we insure our 2nd Amendment Rights aren’t violated.

Frankly I don’t see bump stocks or raising the age to purchase as big issues to take our rights away. Yes, I don’t agree with them, I understand why some will be willing to compromise on them.

Personally, I see bigger worries. Banning specific guns, so call large capacity magazines, etc.

Worse I see our “silent majority” as a bigger problem. We have have to end our silence, and we need to stop being reactive. It’s time we become proactive. We were close to national conceal carry and suppressors and we lost them, plus the momentum we had.

So I’m not sure what we do, but we have high school kids playing on the “protect the children” nerve. Unfortunately too many buy that hook line and sinker and do see that when we “protect the children” we often lose some of our liberty. But rantin* about Trump isn’t going to protect our rights or help get those we’ve lost back.

Failing to elect Trump a second time for betraying gunowners is unconstitutional. Hmm

Banning bump stocks because they shoot too fast is acceptable since it isn't a stepping stone toward banning assault weapons that shoot just as fast. Uh-huh

Barring 18-21 year old full fledged adults from buying any kind of firearm during their politically formative years surely isn't an attack on the future gun culture. Yep

Banning specific gun accessories couldn't possibly lead to bans on specific guns, or "assault" features. Bans on high rate of fire surely could not justify magazine bans. Whew

Hokie, if you want to know who the useless silent majority is, it's people that tolerate.this creeping incrementalism because it isn't bad, today. You have to at least try to think of what the long game is, and this latest batch of restrictions is all about:

1) Confusing machineguns with semiautos
2) Arbitrarily deciding to withhold RKBA from demographic segments by majority vote

I'd say it's a pretty bad strategic misstep to allow 'compromise' on these issues. Frankly, I'd argue they are more dangerous than Obama's background checks in the near-term. Were you okay with that compromise as well?

 

[Hokie_PhD]

I’ve never once said we should compromise. In fact AGAIN READ MY POSTS in MULTIPLE THREADS I thought I was perfectly clear. I’m all for us taking the offense and stop playing defense.

I said I understand why they’re being made. I’ve repeatedly said why I think they’re bad.

Just because I think bumpstocks are useless and feel that we need a single age for what constitutes an adult doesn’t mean I’m for banning bump stocks or changing the age.

 

[CapnMac]

My real point was all of the "without compensation" hue and cry is just that--wasted breath. The unfair 'taking" will be given a gloss, a very real and legal gloss, to prevent leaving a piper to be paid.
Happened in 1920 with distilled spirits, and also with canabis and cocao (although the existing products were largely ignored in the latter case).
In each of those, there was rampant non-compliance, too.

I'll wager alexanderA is accurate, that "the plan" (such as one may actually exist) would be some "high visibility" enforcement. The agencies involved, though, rather have a bad record with that.

 

[DoubleMag]

One thing is for certain. The only data the bureau has is from the comment . , how much $ did the stocks cost; how many sales; did you see what they were selling for. Those type of questions...all about the money

Wonder why?????

 

[MachIVshooter]

I want to see how they address the issue of existing, legally-purchased bump stocks. This has to be a legal minefield, and is guaranteed to foster litigation. All this will come to a head right about the time of the midterm elections this fall. Shows complete lack of political dexterity on the part of the administration. Trump needs to let the controversy die down, not stoke the fires.

That's my thoughts. It's constitutionally sketchy enough to devalue a possession by making it non-transferable; to make it illegal to own or sell and not compensate for the forfeiture or destruction of the item? That's a pretty blatant 4th amendment violation.

 

[ford8nr]

I don't like the fact they take any of our existing privileges away.

I'll get flamed but ... Owning an AR15 is a RIGHT. Attaching a bump fire stock is a privilege. Buying a beer or gun at 18 is a privilege, adulthood is not spelled out in the Constitution.

We all talk like there is no current regulations. How about MG registry. Suppressor stamps, barrel and overall firearm length. We need to pick our fights. Once you fight and lose a round, are on the ropes you're just waiting for the ref to call the whole fight.

So we fight and win the bump stock ban. Now every crazy knows what a bump stock is. Next mass shooting get committed with a bump stock. What do you think the final cost will be to the shooting community that advocated for them ?

 

[plinky]

FUBARed Please delete

 

[entropy]

And the next nut that mows down a bunch of people with a car? Do you think there'll be a hue and cry for banning cars? Even if they did it in a schoolyard, there wouldn't be. AR's and their attachments are are low-hanging fruit for those who would assume total control because of public ignorance of them. I do get a kick out of the would-be state senator in GA that cut her husband's AR up on TV. She is now being investigated by the ATF-she cut the barrel shorter than 16" first, and cut the receiver with a saw, not a torch per ATF. Just desserts.
Then there is this photo of Sen. Feinstein at a press confrence.....

Hmm...Bet she didn't observe Rule #1, and certainly not Rule #4. Ignorance is rampant in the anti camp, but sadly, unreversable there. But our efforts can and should be concentrated on the vast majority who are neither ant nor pro-gun. Their ignorance can be reversed, and often a pro-gunner made in the process. Or at least someone willing to think about it, and not parrot the anti pablum.

 

[plinky]

Half the semi autos for sale in California, are designed to be in compliance with law.. and we all know what their “intent/effect” was.



Half the semi autos for sale in California, are designed to be in compliance with law.. and we all know what their “intent/effect” was.

.

To comply with the law? I know the banners are shocked and consider it "cheating" but when you in fact ban flash hiders, bayonet lugs, heat shields, etc, why should you be surprised when the same popular rifles simply come back without those "deadly features"?

They are probably trying to come up with a catchy name for this "loophole". The "Complying With the Law Loophole" lacks a certain punch.

 

[MachIVshooter]

I don't like the fact they take any of our existing privileges away.

I'll get flamed but ... Owning an AR15 is a RIGHT. Attaching a bump fire stock is a privilege. Buying a beer or gun at 18 is a privilege, adulthood is not spelled out in the Constitution.

Yeah, you will, because adulthood is not a prerequisite for exercise of constitutional rights, including the right to keep and bear arms. Your concept of rights and privileges is a bit tail wagging the dog.

 

[ford8nr]

because adulthood is not a prerequisite for exercise of constitutional rights, including the right to keep and bear arms.

Soooo, a 7 yr old should be able to walk into a gun store and buy a handgun. Really ?
Soooo, 10 yr olds should be able to vote ?

We complain about the "otherside" and we're no better.

 

[ford8nr]

because adulthood is not a prerequisite for exercise of constitutional rights,

My kids use to try that with Free Speech. Never got them very far.

 

[entropy]

Yeah, you will, because adulthood is not a prerequisite for exercise of constitutional rights, including the right to keep and bear arms. Your concept of rights and privileges is a bit tail wagging the dog.

Actually, the Bill of Rights originally extended only to land-owning free males over the age of 21. We needed several amendments to include everyone 18 and over.

 

[MachIVshooter]

Soooo, a 7 yr old should be able to walk into a gun store and buy a handgun. Really ?
Soooo, 10 yr olds should be able to vote ?

We complain about the "otherside" and we're no better.

Did I say that was my position?

You submit that buying a rifle at 18 is a privilege. Driving is a privilege. Being able to purchase tobacco and liquor are privileges. Buying dirty magazines is a privilege. Rights are not privileges, and I say being able to exercise all of your rights when you reach the age at which you are responsible as an adult for all of your actions, as well as being required to serve in the military if called upon, is not something that should ever be questioned or imposed upon in any way.

My kids use to try that with Free Speech. Never got them very far.

Bet you'd have a conniption if their school or some other public place told them they couldn't voice a certain opinion, though. What were you saying to the effect of hypocrisy and double standards?

The constitution and Bill of Rights are not about how you raise your kids, nor how a person or business can limit/dictate behavior or discriminate on their private property within certain boundaries. It's about what government can and cannot do.

Actually, the Bill of Rights originally extended only to land-owning free males over the age of 21. We needed several amendments to include everyone 18 and over.

The 26th amendment applies exclusively to voting, and is the only constitutional amendment addressing the 18 years "age of majority"

 

[entropy]

The 26th amendment applies exclusively to voting, and is the only constitutional amendment addressing the 18 years "age of majority"

Like I said, we needed several amendments.

In 1789, only white, land owning men had the ability to vote in most states.

From FairVote. One could not own land until one reached the age of majority, which was 21 at the time.

It took the 15th,(males of all races) 19th, (women) 23rd, (residents of DC) 24th, (the poor, by abolishing poll taxes) and 26th (18-20 year olds) Amendments to extend the vote to where it is today.

As far as being able to excercise one's 2nd Amendment rights at 18, you'll get no disagreement from me on that. I bought my first shotgun at 18.

Here's a quandry; A suspect under the age of eighteen has rights under the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution, yet (before becoming a suspect) does not have rights under the 2nd. Why?

 

[ford8nr]

Did I say that was my position?

Ahhh, yes you did ...

Rights are not privileges, and I say being able to exercise all of your rights when you reach the age at which you are responsible as an adult for all of your actions

THAT is NOT what you said in your original post.

This is

because adulthood is not a prerequisite for exercise of constitutional rights, including the right to keep and bear arms.

Second comment about my kids - SARCASM
Lighten up a little