Supreme Court will rule on ban on rapid-fire gun bump stocks, used in the Las Vegas mass shooting

[The Heretic]

You get the picture. I know it means changing White House occupants, but it's worth the expense. It will bring some 2A security.

I doubt it, and Trump says he will do other stuff that makes me super nervous. I know there are a lot of people on the right that worship him for what he says he will do, but I see really bad stuff in our future if he gets back in the WH.

As it is, I have zero confidence in Biden, and I see bad things happening in the future in Europe (worse if Trump is elected) but he is basically being run by his regime and I think outside the 2A, that regime mostly has their heads on straight. Trump on the other hand has a bunch of sycophants around him that want to kiss his ring and will do whatever pops into his head.

For people on the left coast, it is academic who they vote for POTUS; all of our electoral votes will go to Biden. So I will vote Libertarian.

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

I doubt it, and Trump says he will do other stuff that makes me super nervous. I know there are a lot of people on the right that worship him for what he says he will do, but I see really bad stuff in our future if he gets back in the WH.

As it is, I have zero confidence in Biden, and I see bad things happening in the future in Europe (worse if Trump is elected) but he is basically being run by his regime and I think outside the 2A, that regime mostly has their heads on straight. Trump on the other hand has a bunch of sycophants around him that want to kiss his ring and will do whatever pops into his head.

For people on the left coast, it is academic who they vote for POTUS; all of our electoral votes will go to Biden. So I will vote Libertarian.

I would rather have an enemy that I trust is telling me the truth of his intentions over a "friend" that I have good reason to fear is lying to me

 

[The Heretic]

I would rather have an enemy that I trust is telling me the truth of his intentions over a "friend" that I have good reason to fear is lying to me

Biden is predictable. Trump is not, and some of the stuff he says he wants to do is cringe.

 

[wired]

Or, and just a thought, but maybe we could find a candidate that actually supports 2a and get them in office?

I doubt it, and Trump says he will do other stuff that makes me super nervous. I know there are a lot of people on the right that worship him for what he says he will do, but I see really bad stuff in our future if he gets back in the WH.

As it is, I have zero confidence in Biden, and I see bad things happening in the future in Europe (worse if Trump is elected) but he is basically being run by his regime and I think outside the 2A, that regime mostly has their heads on straight. Trump on the other hand has a bunch of sycophants around him that want to kiss his ring and will do whatever pops into his head.

For people on the left coast, it is academic who they vote for POTUS; all of our electoral votes will go to Biden. So I will vote Libertarian.

Yep. I wouldn't vote for Trump for dog catcher . Hes a Liberal Democrat acting like a liberal democrat and calling himself a Republican . Its all about him. He's well into destroying the party but I have the luxury of living in a state that is 100% positive to throw all our electoral votes to the Republican candidate no matter what I do so I dont have to give him the satisfaction of getting my vote. I dont think he'll win. Bidens incompetent and senile and nothing he has tried to do has worked so far so Im not sure his bite is as bad as his bark.

 

[The Heretic]

Yep. I wouldn't vote for Trump for dog catcher . Hes a Liberal Democrat acting like a liberal democrat and calling himself a Republican . Its all about him. He's well into destroying the party but I have the luxury of living in a state that is 100% positive to throw all our electoral votes to the Republican candidate no matter what I do so I dont have to give him the satisfaction of getting my vote. I dont think he'll win. Bidens incompetent and senile and nothing he has tried to do has worked so far so Im not sure his bite is as bad as his bark.

The nice thing about Biden is we get FPC/et. al. suing the gov in order to rollback rules/laws/etc.

Granted, one of those was the bump stock ruling, but the other was the braces ruling. Also granted is that the SCOTUS is now leaning in our favor, but that was not Trump's idea, that was the Federalist Society telling him what to do, and he did it (also, granted, Biden's regime would never have listened to them).

I am just sitting back and watching the SHTF - my vote for POTUS doesn't count due to the electoral college and Oregon voters being primarily blue.

 

[fstdraw]

There is no doubt that the last eight years politically have been an absolute psychedelic crap fest. Meaning these guys are all over the place and it makes me long for the days of healthy, sane candidates. I support Trump because I wanted the change. I still want a change. I do not want Donald Trump or anyone else messing with our Constitution /Bill of Rights. I trust former President Trump because I believe I have a good read on him, I have no read on the Biden/Obama current presidency. I do believe Donald Trump brings with him a lot of garbage. Garbage that is going to erode my second and my children's second amendment rights the least. Just my opinion.

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

Any educated guesses as to how this ruling will effect Forced Reset Triggers?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the case was about how laws get passed and not the particulars of the law and how it affects any particular product or its function.

 

[CamoDeafie]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the case was about how laws get passed and not the particulars of the law and how it affects any particular product or its function.

Indeed. Fed Agencies have no Constitutional authority to enact laws. They are authorized only to enforce laws passed by Congress

 

[CLT65]

The problem isn't me, or anyone else letting our light shine, the problem is when another member tries to put a bushel over that light because they don't share the same point of view, and oftentimes they will use someones ad hominin's as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream. For example, "You're a vegetarian, what would you know about hunting?" or "You a liberal, what would you know about guns?"

Although, it is pretty progressive of me saying that everyone should be allowed to let their light shine . . .

I'm confused, do you want a single issue community, where we talk 2A only and wouldn't necessarily know each other's political leanings, or one where everyone "lets their light shine" and argues politics? I don't particularly care, as I've backed off on politics to focus on living my life, but you do seem to want it both ways. I'm not trying to be a jerk, just trying to clarify what appears to be an inconsistency.

I've seen enough of your posts over the years to know that you always have an answer and are always right. I recognize that because I used to try to be that guy. I wasn't very good at it; I've been wrong and changed my perspective on many occasions. It's exhausting, trying to be right all the time, but human nature is such that most of us think we are. Either that, or many of us just really like to argue. I'm just burned out on politics completely. This thread is depressing, makes me really worry about the future for my kids.

And no, I wouldn't call it "progressive" to want everyone to have their say. Old school liberals favored free speech, but the modern "progressive" left has made it abundantly clear that they do not, any more than the far right does. The extreme polarization in this country scares me. I have no interest in forcing my views on anyone else, and I know full well that I won't change your mind in any way. I'm just saying my piece for whatever reason, or no reason at all, whatever...

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

I'm confused, do you want a single issue community, where we talk 2A only and wouldn't necessarily know each other's political leanings, or one where everyone "lets their light shine" and argues politics? I don't particularly care, as I've backed off on politics to focus on living my life, but you do seem to want it both ways. I'm not trying to be a jerk, just trying to clarify what appears to be an inconsistency.

Our rules say the first but I would be happy were we could express views and NOT have it turn into a big argument and i cause for division and the polarization you dislike.

And no, I wouldn't call it "progressive"

lolz, I would really call it a joke, but ok

 

[The Heretic]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the case was about how laws get passed and not the particulars of the law and how it affects any particular product or its function.

I would say that specifically, it was about the fact that the executive branch cannot just makeup new interpretations of the law that go against the facts of the law - i.e., no "Chevron defense".

The law ( https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/5845 ) stated one very specific requirement and the ATF, on the direction of the POTUS (Trump - and I am sure the Biden admin wanted the ATF to continue) changed their previous interpretation to one that satisfied the POTUS (for political purposes, not logical ones) - but it was an interpretation that was logically inconsistent with the law.

The law specifically states what is a "machinegun" and if the legislative branch wants to change the law definition - it can. Until such time, the executive branch cannot makeup their own conflicting definition to suit their political whims of the time.

The ATF has not changed their website yet: https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regulations/bump-stocks

 

[The Heretic]

Indeed. Fed Agencies have no Constitutional authority to enact or change laws. They are authorized only to enforce laws AS passed by Congress

FIFY

 

[PiratePast40]

Nothing exists in a vacuum and there is no such thing as a single issue anything. I'm glad the mods allow political discussions that affect our second amendment rights. Having these discussions helps bring out the intricacies of the different laws, regulations, and the politicians that bring them to us. The information in the totality is what helps us to make informed decisions.

For those that want to bow out and not contribute by supporting a party or candidates in any way, that's your decision, but it also takes away your legitimacy. It's hard to trust someone who sits by and watches as his neighbors work hard and then just complains about everything he refused to do anything about. Just keep in mind that politics is what determines the quality of your life, the value of your labor, and the freedoms you enjoy. Everything is politics and all politics start local.

I believe it was Reagan that said that if you disagree with someone on 20% of his views, he's not a 20% traitor, he's an ally.

 

[The Heretic]

I believe it was Reagan that said that if you disagree with someone on 20% of his views, he's not a 20% traitor, he's an ally.

I disagree with Trump on 80-90% of what he says, probably more if I bothered to dive in. Like I said (and agreed with), the one good thing he did was stack SCOTUS, another was taxes. That's about it for me. I think he is dangerous when it comes to NATO/Russia and is very dangerous in his desire to be a "dictator".

 

[Alexx1401]

I disagree with Trump on 80-90% of what he says, probably more if I bothered to dive in. Like I said (and agreed with), the one good thing he did was stack SCOTUS, another was taxes. That's about it for me. I think he is dangerous when it comes to NATO/Russia and is very dangerous in his desire to be a "dictator".

Join with me, send a few bucks to get Joe again. We will be far better off

 

[The Heretic]

Join with me, send a few bucks to get Joe again. We will be far better off

I spend my $ and my votes on the Libertarian Party.

 

[CamoDeafie]

A few years ago, I went for the Constitution Party.. now.. they have gone so far "right" that they're practically support theocracy their current candidate, wants to ban abortion nationally, ban secular charity groups, set up Christianity as State religion, and remove the separation of church and State

 

[The Heretic]

A few years ago, I went for the Constitution Party.. now.. they have gone so far "right" that they're practically support theocracy their current candidate, wants to ban abortion nationally, ban secular charity groups, set up Christianity as State religion, and remove the separation of church and State

 

[CamoDeafie]

View attachment 1901211

At the time back during the 2016 elections to 2020 elections, the Constitution Party was pretty much another version of the Libertarian party, with 1 big platform thing of "return America to the Constitution's principles", although there were signs of going to fundamentalist Christian extremism with another platform of pro-life/anti-abortion... but since then.... it looks like its been hijacked by the religious extremists

We (wife and I) are registered as "independent" voters; so we'll see come November. Likely going to vote straight R ticket for everything.



As for NFA/bumpstock legislation...


I do believe the Senate Committee on Taxation has a majority of D/pro-tax-everything and tax some more politicians, including the Chair being the NYer "Oregon" Ron Wyden so its very likely should the House pass a bill to change or amend the NFA to include semiauto "assault weapons" or even "accessories"; the Senate version would get out of that one committee to go on floor for votes, whereas any Senate bill(s) to remove items from NFA tax laws or even to repeal whole of NFA will not make it out of that one Senate committee

 

[bradsteen]

I would say that specifically, it was about the fact that the executive branch cannot just makeup new interpretations of the law that go against the facts of the law - i.e., no "Chevron defense".

The law ( https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/5845 ) stated one very specific requirement and the ATF, on the direction of the POTUS (Trump - and I am sure the Biden admin wanted the ATF to continue) changed their previous interpretation to one that satisfied the POTUS (for political purposes, not logical ones) - but it was an interpretation that was logically inconsistent with the law.

The law specifically states what is a "machinegun" and if the legislative branch wants to change the law definition - it can. Until such time, the executive branch cannot makeup their own conflicting definition to suit their political whims of the time.

The ATF has not changed their website yet: https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regulations/bump-stocks

This ruling sets a precedent that will be applicable to FRTs and similar devices, but the challenge was on administrative procedures, not constitutionality. In other words, the lawsuits for those will still have to filter their way through the courts and up to SCOTUS for ruling.