45Doll 5,842 Posted August 11, 2022 Bump stock ban upheld by federal court - TheBlaze 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EdF 323 Posted August 11, 2022 I have to admit that I'm torn a little on this one . . . I abhor any new restrictions but I find it difficult to support something as crappy as a bump stock . . . You could do the same thing with a padded jacket or sweater. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
YankeeSC 1,204 Posted August 11, 2022 35 minutes ago, EdF said: I have to admit that I'm torn a little on this one . . . I abhor any new restrictions but I find it difficult to support something ... This is precisely how our rights get further eroded. "I support the second amendment, but ..." 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
maintenanceguy 508 Posted August 11, 2022 Not finding bump stocks useful and thinking it's acceptable to make them Illegal to own are two different things. 2 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Grima Squeakersen 472 Posted August 11, 2022 ***DELETED*** Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bellasdaddy 31 Posted August 11, 2022 16 minutes ago, samiam said: Exactly. Conflating one's enthusiasm for one's own use of a particular firearm, or firearms feature, with the degree of one's opposition to an unconstitutional ban on it, is dangerous and self-defeating, and not just for the person holding that view. There was a guy in my qualification session yesterday who told me thathe thought that constitutional carry, and the ease of obtaining a carry permit for New Hampshire (as I described to him), is "nuts". In my opinion, that particular guy is an elitist. I have very little patience for the stance of supporting a constitutional right only as, and to the extent, that the supporter is prepared to enjoy it. I also regard the guy as a potential "enemy within" (that would depend on whether he could be reasoned out of his opinions, which I did not have the opportunity to do). Good point but the concentration of the effort should be place on something more directly related to the erosion of the right and the de-valuing of the property such as magazine capacity limits Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
1LtCAP 4,258 Posted August 11, 2022 4 hours ago, EdF said: I have to admit that I'm torn a little on this one . . . I abhor any new restrictions but I find it difficult to support something as crappy as a bump stock . . . You could do the same thing with a padded jacket or sweater. or a belt loop or a rubber band. but...there is no "being torn" on this one. as crappy as they are.....it's still a new infringement. never acccept an infringment no matter how meaningless it seems. 2 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Grima Squeakersen 472 Posted August 11, 2022 ***DELETED*** Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EdF 323 Posted August 11, 2022 4 hours ago, YankeeSC said: "I support the second amendment, but ..." That's not what I said . . . I specifically said, "I abhor any new restrictions . . . ' My point with the bump stocks is that they are so ineffective that it's hard to give a crap. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MartyZ 691 Posted August 12, 2022 15 hours ago, EdF said: That's not what I said . . . I specifically said, "I abhor any new restrictions . . . ' My point with the bump stocks is that they are so ineffective that it's hard to give a crap. This is why I try to avoid posting on political threads. Because no matter what you say, it will be taken out of context and selectively scrutinized. 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GlennS87 65 Posted August 12, 2022 I personally don't have an interest in bump stocks but any gun regulation is an infringement. Personally I believe we should be able to own a full auto rifle/machine gun if we want one (not that many could afford it). 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
YankeeSC 1,204 Posted August 12, 2022 "shall not be infringed" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EdF 323 Posted August 12, 2022 By the way . . . This was the DC Appeals Court, and I just barely give a shit how they rule. Almost every one of these cases is going to have to go to SCOTUS for the time being. That MAY change in the future but, for now, it just one more reason to work toward turning the votes of your friends and families. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RadioGunner 218 Posted August 15, 2022 On 8/11/2022 at 11:45 AM, EdF said: I have to admit that I'm torn a little on this one . . . I abhor any new restrictions but I find it difficult to support something as crappy as a bump stock . . . You could do the same thing with a padded jacket or sweater. I don't like hunting but I support the right of hunters to hunt. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Grima Squeakersen 472 Posted August 19, 2022 ***DELETED*** Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CMJeepster 2,765 Posted October 3, 2022 SCOTUS punts: U.S. Supreme Court rejects challenge to ban on gun 'bump stocks' (msn.com) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
father-of-three 235 Posted October 4, 2022 The fox news article.... https://www.foxnews.com/politics/supreme-court-wont-hear-case-opposing-trump-era-bump-stock-ban Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MartyZ 691 Posted October 4, 2022 This is very interesting 1 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DirtyDigz 1,793 Posted January 6, 2023 Adios Bump Stock Ban!: BREAKING: Cargill v. Garland (5th Circuit): En banc Fifth Circuit strikes down the federal bump stock ban, saying it violates the Administrative Procedure Act. "The definition of 'machinegun' as set forth in the National Firearms Act and Gun Control Act does not apply to bump stocks. And if there were any doubt as to this conclusion, we conclude that the statutory definition is ambiguous, at the very least." https://assets.nationbuilder.com/firearmspolicyfoundation/pages/3970/attachments/original/1673045236/Cargill_v_Garland_En_Banc_Opinion.pdf 2 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Displaced Texan 11,647 Posted January 7, 2023 1 hour ago, DirtyDigz said: Adios Bump Stock Ban!: BREAKING: Cargill v. Garland (5th Circuit): En banc Fifth Circuit strikes down the federal bump stock ban, saying it violates the Administrative Procedure Act. "The definition of 'machinegun' as set forth in the National Firearms Act and Gun Control Act does not apply to bump stocks. And if there were any doubt as to this conclusion, we conclude that the statutory definition is ambiguous, at the very least." https://assets.nationbuilder.com/firearmspolicyfoundation/pages/3970/attachments/original/1673045236/Cargill_v_Garland_En_Banc_Opinion.pdf Not that I’m a fan of bump stocks, but this is a great day for 2A freedoms! 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
b47356 21 Posted January 7, 2023 3 hours ago, DirtyDigz said: Adios Bump Stock Ban!: (Only in the 5th Circuit) (LA, MS, TX) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
silverado427 10,552 Posted January 7, 2023 https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2023/01/06/appeals-court-strikes-down-bump-stock-ban-13-3-decision/ 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
charleslee 44 Posted January 8, 2023 I’m sure it makes no diff in NJ. They’ll turn their noses up & ignore, just like w/ Bruen. 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
raz-0 1,256 Posted January 9, 2023 21 hours ago, charleslee said: I’m sure it makes no diff in NJ. They’ll turn their noses up & ignore, just like w/ Bruen. I mean it was the 5th circuit. So they have to address it, but they are not bound by it as precedent. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Displaced Texan 11,647 Posted January 9, 2023 I’m not a fan of bump stocks but might buy one just because.. 1 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites