Law The Supreme Court overturns ruling which allows people to own bump stocks

[My Spot]

So putting a brace on a Mossberg Shockwave is legal again?

Not in that configuration since adding a pistol grip would make it an SBS.

 

[Teppodama]

Gave you the like but at least 2 if not all 3 of TR7MP''s appointees were asked about Roe v Wade and they claimed they would not overturn it to get confirmed.

No different than believing any politicians campaign promises to be honest.

 

[LangfordBarrow]

No different than believing any politicians campaign promises to be honest.

Once a politician proves a liar can we stop voting for him? Surely someone else deserves our vote more than a corrupt sack of shit...

 

[Cuauhtemoc]

I think there's a lot of nuance involved in the discussion.
A very experienced shooter like Miculek? It makes no sense to use a bump stock.
For some POS trying to kill massed people?
It could be useful. Like that guy in Vegas
Do bump stocks convert civilian rifles into assault rifles(not machineguns)?
I wouldn't say so but it gives them some characteristics of full auto weapons.
Is a full auto or burst capable rifle that much better than a semi auto in a militia/military scenario?
For some situations but not for most.
Should the President be able to ban bump stocks?
Probably not.

All in all I think it was a good SCOTUS decision.

 

[Teppodama]

You're being disingenuous, and you know you are. I'm sure you think it's valid to say that the justices on the right give "reasons" for their decisions...despite everyone tacitly understanding that the public legal reasoning for those decisions made from the bench is always some contorted inconsistent view tailored to the topic at hand and has little to do with the actual "reasoning" behind those decisions.

There are multiple conservatives justices on the Supreme Court forming decisions based on the their religious beliefs with "legal opinions" contorted and massaged to fit preconceived opinions that in reality have nothing to do with the law. There's even one conservative just who is flat taking bribes and two conservative justices whose wives are open about their disdain for the law and democracy.

Saying I'm saying these things because I don't like the "legal opinions" is embarrassing for both of us...I make a statement, then you make a statement...then we both have to pretend you aren't fully aware that your argument strains credulity, on top of you suggesting I'm saying what I'm saying simply because I don't like the results while in reality, your opinion is simply a rationalization of the results you want.

I honestly do not trust the judgement of any of the SC or their predecessors. I do not believe our justice system is truly impartial.

I expect them to judge according to their ideologies, to fit their judgements within their world views rather than the absolute letter of the law.

If the court were all conservative you would likely hate every decision that came out of their sessions. If it were all progressive justices I would likely be in the same position.

I care little about abortion or gay marriage, you are welcome to keep it. I care very much about 2A, free speech and government encroachment on my privacy.

 

[HockeyBjj]

This doesn’t allow people to own machine guns. It ruled that the atf saying bump stocks turn semi auto weapons into full auto weapons is outside of their power

If lawmakers want to ban bump stocks they can pass a law to do so. ATF can’t just arbitrarily change the definition of automatic to ban whatever they want, even if President Trump pushed them to do it

 

[Andy Capp]

This is not a popularity contest. There is no provision in the U.S. Constitution to ban a bump stock or anything eluding to it. If we actually dig into the Federalist Papers and the 2nd Amendment, the intent is that Americans have access to the same standard issue firearms as the infantryman and we do not have that. When I hear a Left Cult Clown whine about it... I just see an ignorant and/or un-American fool.

Note... a bump stock gets you nowhere near the automatic capabilities of our military. I wouldn't recommend one, but I wouldn't dog someone that wanted one.

*alluding

 

[My Spot]

It was already legal for people to own machine guns and actual assault weapons but only if you can afford to spend like $30k on a single gun.

 

[djacobox372]

This doesn’t allow people to own machine guns. It ruled that the atf saying bump stocks turn semi auto weapons into full auto weapons is outside of their power

If lawmakers want to ban bump stocks they can pass a law to do so. ATF can’t just arbitrarily change the definition of automatic to ban whatever they want, even if President Trump pushed them to do it

Exactly this.. unfortunately none of the media is reporting the facts, and instead they are just sensationalizing things.

This was a ruling on the powers of the ATF, not bump stocks.

People should be more concerned about force-reset triggers being made legal again by this ruling--bumpstocks are horrible for accuracy.

 

[DoctorNick]

He almost reminds me of one of my uncles back home, and it's undeniably endearing. I'll be in the shop with him working on sprint cars and instigating shit for him to go off, sometimes having to turn around to hide my smirk. Shadow ain't backing down or taking anyone's bullshit, god bless him.

I will give him that, just like my 65 year old dad he is very consistent! I'm sure in 20 years I'll be the same

 

[djacobox372]

Full auto is overrated.. heck from the mid 1980s up and until around 2000, the standard military m16 (m16a2) didn't even have full auto.

 

[spamking]

Apparently, @Strychnine has banished our discussion to this thread . . .

Should "plenty" be the benchmark of "oh well" then? Why, exactly do you not want it to be 0% slipping through the net to keep us safer? In your perfect eye should there be a cooling off period and background check and how stringent would you suggest?

Again, there have been people who were approved by the current NICs BCG system and still went on to commit crimes. Nothing is ever going to be 100% successful. Why do you think there needs to be a cooling off period? Do you think everyone buying a gun is doing so in anger and/or needs it to go harm someone?

BGCs as we know them didn't exist before 1994. Things seem to be much worse now with them in place.

Ok. So then you can support some restrictions and still be a 2a supporter. Maybe a lot of these gun control arguments should be less about textualism and more about what is or isn’t reasonable.

There is a big difference between government-imposed restrictions and private property owner-imposed restrictions.

Background check and document the firearm to the purchaser. It's not difficult and it will allow tracking the culprit down and identifying if someone is buying large quantities of firearms to sell on the black market. I know people will still commit violent crimes even if they are currently free to roam around among us.

Applying the same requirements to a private seller that are in place for an FFL is pretty ridiculous . . . much like the whining about a bump stock in this thread.

 

[spamking]

 

[spamking]

 

[Deorum]

I fuckin' love the FPC, lol. It's a fiery little organization, and the aggressive hostility makes a lot of sense given that it's California based. It brings a much different dynamic and point of view to the table than the legacy gun rights groups. They're getting results.

 

[lilelvis]

Come on now—that is far from the only problem with this Court. And I’m just referring to issues with their rulings, not even their rampant corruption.

I think maybe you had a typo here—

—so I’m not totally sure what you meant to say, but their disregard for precedent is a serious issue actually. It’s not a minor thing.

Edit: Ah, I think Langford got it, it was supposed to be “eschew.”

Roe was legislating from the bench. Even the dems knew that. Congress needs to pass a law to nationalize a uniform set of rules, if they don’t want the states doing it.
As far as the bump stock ban goes, the ATF changed their own regulation to ban them. Legislating from the cubicle.

 

[BFoe]

Roe was legislating from the bench. Even the dems knew that. Congress needs to pass a law to nationalize a uniform set of rules, if they don’t want the states doing it.
As far as the bump stock ban goes, the ATF changed their own regulation to ban them. Legislating from the cubicle.

I already said that I agree with SCOTUS’s ruling on bump stocks not being included in the statute defining machine guns is the correct ruling. It’s unfortunate, but Congress needs to address it.

Roe protected an unenumerated right that the government has no business in.
The government has no right to force a woman to carry their rapist’s baby, or to force women to undergo miscarriages rather than receive medical treatment, or to force women to wait until they’re in imminent danger of dying before they receive needed medical treatment. They also have no right to deny the right to travel to a different state to receive care. All of this is a gross overreach of the governments power.
(All of these things I listed are actual things that have happened to women recently).

 

[Strychnine]

Apparently, @Strychnine has banished our discussion to this thread . . .



Again, there have been people who were approved by the current NICs BCG system and still went on to commit crimes. Nothing is ever going to be 100% successful. Why do you think there needs to be a cooling off period? Do you think everyone buying a gun is doing so in anger and/or needs it to go harm someone?

BGCs as we know them didn't exist before 1994. Things seem to be much worse now with them in place.



There is a big difference between government-imposed restrictions and private property owner-imposed restrictions.



Applying the same requirements to a private seller that are in place for an FFL is pretty ridiculous . . . much like the whining about a bump stock in this thread.

COME ON MAN!

 

[lilelvis]

I already said that I agree with SCOTUS’s ruling on bump stocks not being included in the statute defining machine guns is the correct ruling. It’s unfortunate, but Congress needs to address it.

Roe protected an unenumerated right that the government has no business in.
The government has no right to force a woman to carry their rapist’s baby, or to force women to undergo miscarriages rather than receive medical treatment, or to force women to wait until they’re in imminent danger of dying before they receive needed medical treatment. They also have no right to deny the right to travel to a different state to receive care. All of this is a gross overreach of the governments power.
(All of these things I listed are actual things that have happened to women recently).

Right. I agree.
However, since the situation is not directly addressed by the constitution, it falls to the states, per the tenth amendment.
Let’s face it, our government operates on gross overreach of power.
Change is needed.

 

[fingercuffs]

Apparently, @Strychnine has banished our discussion to this thread . . .



Again, there have been people who were approved by the current NICs BCG system and still went on to commit crimes. Nothing is ever going to be 100% successful. Why do you think there needs to be a cooling off period? Do you think everyone buying a gun is doing so in anger and/or needs it to go harm someone?

BGCs as we know them didn't exist before 1994. Things seem to be much worse now with them in place.



There is a big difference between government-imposed restrictions and private property owner-imposed restrictions.



Applying the same requirements to a private seller that are in place for an FFL is pretty ridiculous . . . much like the whining about a bump stock in this thread.

SOME checking is better than none, no? You're okay with someone with a history of domestic violence, drug issues or/and mental health issues buying a firearm?