I am a gun owner, I have a concealed carry permit, and I carry much of the time. I own an AR-15, and I enjoy shooting it at the range.
Removing the ban on bump stocks is bullshit. I could modify my AR-15 to be fully automatic (the know how is available online), but that would be breaking the law. The bump stock is just a legal workaround to converting a semi-auto to full auto.
If the normal Joe has access to the tools and accessories of war that means our law enforcement also needs these tools. It creates an arms race which creates a law enforcement that looks like our military. These tools along with semi-automatic weapons are enabling the very problem the 2nd amendment was created to solve to begin with. Heck, even my small towns and at least one around me now have a MRAP.I find this case for something like night vision, which is never? misused in the USA, pretty perplexing. Hell, even here in Canada I’ve never seen anyone want night vision banned. It has legitimate uses and very, very niche cases for misuse.
Body armor is just safety equipment. Protecting yourself from criminals or other dangers shouldn’t be illegal.
Even the heavy caliber rifles, almost never misused.
Assuming you’re American it seems bizarre to expend any effort on banning things that are almost never misused when there are so many actual problems occurring. Even this concentration on full automatics is weird when the number of crimes committed with legal ones may as well be zero.
For the average person flir should be banned for weapon mounting and for locating people (monoculars, binoculars and googles). Flir for phones to find leaks would be ok I would think. Flir should only be available to certain parties (HVAC, rescue, SWAT, etc.). I would be ok with rentals to find leaks. I'm totally for tools that help the environment, climate and save energy and money.What about FLIR? Can I keep my infrared camera or do I have to give that up too?
At any rate if we aren’t banning bump stocks I suggest LGBTQ folks, Jews, atheists, women, African Americans, Latinos and other minorities consider buying them. Good for… “self defense” and / or it will force the ban again.
B/C of course they did.And today the Supreme Court voted 6-3 to make bump stocks legal again. One step forward, two steps back.
And from justices who claim in other contexts that we should use the 'ordinary meaning' of words when interpreting laws.And today the Supreme Court voted 6-3 to make bump stocks legal again. One step forward, two steps back.
“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,” Sotomayor wrote in her dissent.
It's a semantics game to get around the plainly obvious intent of the law. Conservative judges play this sort of game all the time. When it comes to laws/regulations they don't like all of a sudden you need hyper-precise language covering every possible contingency. When it comes to laws/regulations they do like 'ordinary meaning' suffices.I haven't read the ruling, but apparently it leans heavily on "it still requires forward pressure on the stock as an overt action" to maintain the rate of fire.
How is that different than "it still requires rearward pressure on the trigger" in a full auto weapon?
I haven't read the ruling, but apparently it leans heavily on "it still requires forward pressure on the stock as an overt action" to maintain the rate of fire.
How is that different than "it still requires rearward pressure on the trigger" in a full auto weapon?
Welp my virtually non-existent desire to go to crowded outdoor venues is now in negative territory.
Wonder how long before we get a Las Vegas copycat?
I like Sotomayor's dissent. Plain and straightforward.It's a semantics game to get around the plainly obvious intent of the law. Conservative judges play this sort of game all the time. When it comes to laws/regulations they don't like all of a sudden you need hyper-precise language covering every possible contingency. When it comes to laws/regulations they do like 'ordinary meaning' suffices.
Yes. Based on their argument the only thing that's a full auto weapon is one where you press a button and it fires until empty.I haven't read the ruling, but apparently it leans heavily on "it still requires forward pressure on the stock as an overt action" to maintain the rate of fire.
How is that different than "it still requires rearward pressure on the trigger" in a full auto weapon?
Welp my virtually non-existent desire to go to crowded outdoor venues is now in negative territory.
Wonder how long before we get a Las Vegas copycat?
lol bump stocks for all of seal team 6!!!And they haven't even got to the most significant cases pending, especially those designed to protect Trump.
In the legislative world, "assault weapon" specifically is a made-up term, but yes newly manufactured machine guns are banned for civilian sale and existing ones are heavily, heavily regulated (a legal, fully automatic firearm will cost like $20k or more).I assume assault weapons are banned due to their rate of fire and ease of said rate of fire. I don't see how a bump stock is any different. Achieves the same result in a slightly different way.