I am in complete agreement with your statement! This sets an incredibly dangerous precedent and so far, the Supreme Court agrees with this precedent.
Bump Stock etc... "Banned"!
- Thread starter akdude
- Start date
- Status
I am in complete agreement with your statement! This sets an incredibly dangerous precedent and so far, the Supreme Court agrees with this precedent.
rednichols
Member
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2012
- Messages
- 2,745
- Reaction score
- 8,505
Good on 'em. And that's with more appointees by the current administration that I believe is making better choices than previous administrations, regarding the Constitutional matters.
Bump stocks didn't exist when I was living in USA and an active member of the gun industry and I only learned of them at the Vegas massacre. They're a bad idea that should've been tamped down at their very introduction, by NRA and by thinking individuals. If anyone doubted it then, the Vegas massacre puts paid to those doubts. Ditto silencers for the common man. Bad idea. Swaddling ourselves in the flag on these matters, is a blind-man's game. Not good for the country; any more than these first-person shooter games that I've been writing to politicians from Trump on down about. Someone on the ground should've been alert to that peril from '93 onwards.
Regardless of our personal opinions about bump stocks being either "good or bad", I have to agree that the process used to ban them did nothing more than add a dollop of grease to the slippery slope. If an attachment to a gun can be arbitrarily banned, what would stop an arbitrary ban of collapsible stocks? After all, being able to adjust a stock on the fly only makes them easier to shoot, thus easier to shoot more people. What would stop an arbitrary ban on the ownership of bayonets? How about banning rifle scopes, because, after all, they do allow you to get a much better aim on your target, making the gun far deadlier than one with iron sights? Oh, and let's not forget about banning night vision scopes. That makes it way too easy to kill a bunch of people in the dark.
The exact same argument can be made for banning "high capacity magazines", whatever the hell that is. It's all an arbitrary numbers game, with the goal to neuter every gun owner. Perhaps all firearms with a capacity of more than 1 should be banned. The antis would, at first, settle for that, until someone came along and murdered 12 people by calmly and quickly reloading his/her one-shooter one round at a time.
Why is a suppressor such a bad thing in the USA? Suppressors are in common use in much of Europe, where gun laws are much more repressive.
The not so funny part is that lawmakers have attempted, time after time, to ban all of the above (and more) for those very reasons. Once the slide down the slippery slope gains momentum, it is extremely difficult to stop.
Once upon a time, a man named "Old King George" sent an army to confiscate powder, ball and muskets from a rag tag bunch of subjects. The subjects would not hear of it, and kicked their butts down the road and out of town. Those same subjects went on to become CITIZENS of a country they fought to free themselves from government oppression. I choose to remain a CITIZEN, and will never allow myself to become a subject.
In the very recent Federal District Court case that overturned the ban on "high capacity magazines", Judge Roger Benitez made it very clear in his Conclusion:
"Magazines holding more than 10 rounds are "arms."...The statute hits at the center of the Second Amendment and its burden is severe. ... This decision is a freedom calculus decided long ago by Colonists who cherished individual freedom more than the subservient security of a British ruler. The freedom
they fought for was not free of cost then, and it is not free now."
rednichols
Member
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2012
- Messages
- 2,745
- Reaction score
- 8,505
I think you make some very good points here but they're all one-sided. I pointed out to several USA lawmakers -- Pelosi, et al -- in letters to them that guns are not new, so that's not the cause of these mass shootings. So why did you all ADD to the problem with silencers and bump stocks? Why didn't one or all of you say, 'Hey, wait a minute, these are not a good idea' -- for the safety of us citizens?' What made anyone think these kinds of devices could be ADDED without peril to USA folk?
I've lived in and out of USA all my life. And until 2017 I looked the overseas folk who queried me about guns in American, in the eye, and said, "you can travel to USA without danger". And now I can't. Bump stocks did that and never should have been allowed into a single gun show, NRA, SHOT, gun shop, gun room, any of 'em.
If you feel, and I expect you do, that government should butt the hell out, then you're going to have to self-regulate. That's how we keep government out of our business; we show the world that we can handle it. The holster industry, which I'm a teensie-tinsy part of and have been for 50 years, is self-regulating and there have been damned few dangerous ideas come out of it in the 150 years that gunleather has been commonplace.
Last edited:
My point...
Any successful ban will bring about a thousand proposals. I'm still wondering why my SKS with the 10 round fixed mag, wood furniture, no pistol or thumbhole stock, no forward grip, (They can take the bayonet off if it's that big of a deal) is BANNED from import. "Common sense gun laws" are an oxymoron.
Any successful ban will bring about a thousand proposals. I'm still wondering why my SKS with the 10 round fixed mag, wood furniture, no pistol or thumbhole stock, no forward grip, (They can take the bayonet off if it's that big of a deal) is BANNED from import. "Common sense gun laws" are an oxymoron.
Last edited:
riverrat38
US Veteran
How do you determine the "fair market value" of a commodity that can not be bought, sold or possessed? They are worthless, thus no compensation necessary.
Best,
Rick
No and there is no compensation for turning in contraband and if you think this is new or unconstitutional, I'd point you to the 18th amendment. There was no compensation for all the beer, wine, and liquor that was seized and destroyed.
The bigger issue with the bump stock ban is that it was not by an act of Congress, the legislative branch, but was by the President directing an agency to enact a law. The ATF, after previously determining it did not have the power to enact bans, reversed its decision and now has the justification to enact bans by reinterpreting and giving new meanings to existing laws. This is the very dangerous precedent and so far, the SCOTUS is in agreement with the ATF and the President. It is the defacto creation of a fourth branch of government.
Last edited:
You are absolutely wrong on this. This is a "taking" of an object made illegal by government fiat. As such, the people affected should be reimbursed for their loss.
On a general note, even though I think the bump stock is a silly toy, no gun owner should cheer the banning of an inanimate object as a "crime prevention" measure.
As others have noted, it's a steep and slippery slope.
On a general note, even though I think the bump stock is a silly toy, no gun owner should cheer the banning of an inanimate object as a "crime prevention" measure.
As others have noted, it's a steep and slippery slope.
Short sighted. Each one had a price tag on it, therefore a "fair market value." Much easier to determine than a house whose fair market value can change daily.
Watchdog
Member
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2013
- Messages
- 12,510
- Reaction score
- 32,351
If anyone wants to read the full and final ruling and everything related to the bump stock ban (all 157 pages of it), they may do so by clicking here. It's a lot of information to wade through, take my word for it.
It settles the question and should put an end to the endless arguing over the dictionary and legal meanings of the word "taken" or "taking", and it explains the government's reasons as to why bump stock owners are not due any compensation. Bump stock owners aren't going to get any money, no matter how many lawsuits are filed and no matter how many Constitutional amendments are used as a basis for arguing compensation.
The highest court in the land refused to block this ban. That should tell folks something, right there. It's a done deal. Bump stocks were doomed as soon as Stephen Paddock pulled the trigger in Las Vegas. The president wanted a ban on them. The attorney general and BATFE do what they're told to do.
Maybe it's time to move on to some fights we have a better chance of winning.
It settles the question and should put an end to the endless arguing over the dictionary and legal meanings of the word "taken" or "taking", and it explains the government's reasons as to why bump stock owners are not due any compensation. Bump stock owners aren't going to get any money, no matter how many lawsuits are filed and no matter how many Constitutional amendments are used as a basis for arguing compensation.
The highest court in the land refused to block this ban. That should tell folks something, right there. It's a done deal. Bump stocks were doomed as soon as Stephen Paddock pulled the trigger in Las Vegas. The president wanted a ban on them. The attorney general and BATFE do what they're told to do.
Maybe it's time to move on to some fights we have a better chance of winning.
That is the final RULE by the ATF, not a RULING by a court. All that SCOTUS did was deny a petition for a temporary stay prohibiting the ATF from issuing the rule.
There is still likely to be litigation on this issue, which may well end up back a SCOTUS.
In the mean time, people who own bump stocks (I'm not one) will likely just hide them as they are not registered and there is unlikely to be a list of buyers that can easily be found.
There is still likely to be litigation on this issue, which may well end up back a SCOTUS.
In the mean time, people who own bump stocks (I'm not one) will likely just hide them as they are not registered and there is unlikely to be a list of buyers that can easily be found.
Just as many people did with their wine and liquor when prohibition was enacted.
Watchdog
Member
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2013
- Messages
- 12,510
- Reaction score
- 32,351
Okay, I accidentally used the wrong word. I said "ruling" instead of "rule". Can we stop playing with semantics and definitions now? Anyone who takes time to read the final rule will see it's called a rule on the first page.
Saying "likely to be" and "may well" is like saying "what if", "maybe", or "possibly". It's speculation that doesn't affect a thing right now. By denying gun rights groups petitions and requests, the Supreme Court has effectively upheld the current ban on bump stocks, and they've agreed the process used to achieve the ban is proper.
Although there will be no federal buy back type program, individual states may initiate one at their discretion. I believe Washington state has such a program.
Bottom line for me is I don't see any point in more crying over spilt milk here. Bump stocks have no practical use. I don't see bump stocks as some sort of Second Amendment sacred cow that's worth thousands or millions of dollars fighting over in court. Those are my opinions, by the way, not statements of facts. Folks want to keep going over and over the same ground on this, that's their right.
daglockman
Member
You are missing the point completely.
It was a item approved for sales by the federal government that arbitrarily turned illegal and thus worthless, with ABSOLUTLY NO EVIDENCE that any of the projectiles were fired from any of the bumpstock equipped weapons, or any of the weapons from the hotel room that Paddock was supposedly firing from.
As pointed out before, what is to stop the government from determining that Honda cars (or any other auto maker) are no longer efficient enough to be driven in the USA, and they must be turned in with absolutely no compensation.
This is how legitimate gunowners lose mainstream support - by embracing fringe equipment and silly conspiracy theories.
I'd mildly suggest that unless one has a copy of the police report of the matter they are engaging in speculation about whether or not bumpstocks were used by the sicko murderer in Vegas. I'd also mention the only folks I've personally met who owned and used bumpstocks were gangbangers and their thug associates near Roswell, NM.
I'd mildly suggest that unless one has a copy of the police report of the matter they are engaging in speculation about whether or not bumpstocks were used by the sicko murderer in Vegas. I'd also mention the only folks I've personally met who owned and used bumpstocks were gangbangers and their thug associates near Roswell, NM.
BigBill
Absent Comrade
They didnt review all the bumpfire shooters on you tube who don't use a bumpfire stock?
Is it still ok to bump fire without a bumpfire stock?
I don't bump fire anyway not to waste ammo.
Is it still ok to bump fire without a bumpfire stock?
I don't bump fire anyway not to waste ammo.
The range where I shoot says not on their range, but there is no law prohibiting bump firing a firearm so long as you are not using a prohibited device. I see this as the next basis for banning all semi-automatic firearms. What did I say about a slippery slope?
This shows your logic is seriously flawed. There has been violent crime before bump stocks and the number of bump stocks used in violent crime is very minimal. True the Vegas deal was horrific, but to blame crime in America on bump stocks is ridiculous.
The number of crimes committed with legally possessed suppressors is non existent.
Please stay in Australia.
Last edited:
OLDSTER
Member
Reference my earlier post. I'm still waiting for any forum member to give me one plausible excuse why they think they need a bump stock. And please not the lame "infringement on my 2nd amendment right" excuse. C'mon; just one good reason is all I ask.
- Status
