Bump stock ban upheld by federal court - TheBlaze

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.

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 ..."

Not finding bump stocks useful and thinking it's acceptable to make them Illegal to own are two different things. 

***DELETED***

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

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.

***DELETED***

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.

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.

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).

"shall not be infringed"

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.

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. 

***DELETED***

SCOTUS punts:  U.S. Supreme Court rejects challenge to ban on gun 'bump stocks' (msn.com)

The fox news article....

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/supreme-court-wont-hear-case-opposing-trump-era-bump-stock-ban

This is very interesting 

 

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

 

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! 

3 hours ago, DirtyDigz said:

Adios Bump Stock Ban!:

(Only in the 5th Circuit) (LA, MS, TX)

 

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2023/01/06/appeals-court-strikes-down-bump-stock-ban-13-3-decision/

I’m sure it makes no diff in NJ. They’ll turn their noses up & ignore, just like w/ Bruen.

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. 

I’m not a fan of bump stocks but might buy one just because..