- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: If you possess a bump stock after March 2019, you will be breaking the law.
Posted on 12/18/18 at 3:57 pm to ILeaveAtHalftime
Posted on 12/18/18 at 3:57 pm to ILeaveAtHalftime
quote:
They have explained as nauseum that the baseline for evaluating accessories is whether it allows the weapon to fire automatically.
The reason for banning it is that the organization with the authority over such decisions (DoJ via ATF) has made the determination that bump stocks allow the weapon to be fired ostensibly automatically in subversion of already existing restrictions. And for essentially no other purpose.
How is that “no reason”?
Shall not be infringed upon!
1
Posted on 12/18/18 at 4:00 pm to DarthRebel
quote:
Bump stocks are not the hill to die on.
Give up one inch at a time saying that.
Posted on 12/18/18 at 4:01 pm to i am dan
quote:
If breaking immigration laws isn't illegal, why is this?
Posted on 12/18/18 at 4:07 pm to GetCocky11
They're stupid anyhow. You don't need to waste money to bumpfire.
Posted on 12/18/18 at 4:14 pm to The Easter Bunny
This is so stupid yet I can still go buy 50 gallons of tannerite and do god knows what with it.
Posted on 12/18/18 at 4:52 pm to GetCocky11
I lost mine. If I knew where it was I would turn it in.
Honest
Honest
Posted on 12/18/18 at 4:54 pm to LSUbest
quote:
Shall not be infringed upon!
A bump stock isn’t a firearm.
There is no constitutional protection against infringement on your right to accessorize your gun.
Posted on 12/18/18 at 4:58 pm to ILeaveAtHalftime
quote:
A bump stock isn’t a firearm.
There is no constitutional protection against infringement on your right to accessorize your gun.
Federal circuit court has already ruled these devices are protected under the PLCAA when it dismissed a class-action suit against a bump-stock manufacturer. Your uneducated opinion is precisely the same as the one used by the plaintiffs.
Posted on 12/18/18 at 5:04 pm to Clames
quote:
Federal circuit court has already ruled these devices are protected under the PLCAA when it dismissed a class-action suit against a bump-stock manufacturer. Your uneducated opinion is precisely the same as the one used by the plaintiffs.
Not uneducated baw, I’ve read that opinion. You don’t think that case changes now that the ATF and DoJ changed their minds?
ETA: besides, I was only addressing the people who keep quoting “shall not be infringed”, as if the second amendment protects this type of thing. It doesn’t. Congress did.
This post was edited on 12/18/18 at 5:06 pm
Posted on 12/18/18 at 5:50 pm to ILeaveAtHalftime
Its a big play by POTUS. Dems and crazy left see he tried to ban the bump stocks, he can parade it around. Someone will challenge, end up in SC and get shot down as unconstitutional. The dems and left will cry, but ya know the constitution states... and the SC ruled... Conservatives WIN!
Posted on 12/18/18 at 6:09 pm to GetCocky11
Come and get em
Posted on 12/18/18 at 6:10 pm to GetCocky11
Glad to see Trump's focus on the important stuff.
Posted on 12/18/18 at 6:12 pm to ILeaveAtHalftime
quote:
You don’t think that case changes now that the ATF and DoJ changed their minds?
No it doesn't, and a Federal judge can halt the ATF. I mean, that should be blatantly obvious in light of Federal judges halting branches of the Federal gov't on any number of issues recently.
quote:
ETA: besides, I was only addressing the people who keep quoting “shall not be infringed”, as if the second amendment protects this type of thing. It doesn’t. Congress did.
Go ahead and cite the SCOTUS ruling that says such things are not protected by the 2nd Amendment. No such case exists yet so upon what authority are you citing?
This post was edited on 12/18/18 at 6:15 pm
Posted on 12/18/18 at 6:12 pm to GetCocky11
THIS IS IMPOSSIBLE BECAUSE I'VE BEEN TOLD THAT THE PRESIDENT NEEDS CONGRESSIONAL APPROVAL TO ACT
They will frick you so hard, you will wonder why they can't do the same to the thousands of illegals that live within a 30 minute drive of your house. Priorities tho.
quote:
Investigators expect most owners will comply with the new rule and ATF will take action against those who don't, the official said. But there's no surefire way to know whether owners are complying. The official briefed reporters on condition of anonymity.
They will frick you so hard, you will wonder why they can't do the same to the thousands of illegals that live within a 30 minute drive of your house. Priorities tho.
Posted on 12/18/18 at 6:13 pm to Clames
quote:
No it doesn't, and a Federal judge can halt the ATF. I mean, that should be blatantly obvious in light of Federal judges halting branches of the Federal gov't on any number of issues recently.
False. Judges cannot stop anything. The only thing stopping the executive agencies is the president. Judges can share opinions. That's it.
Posted on 12/18/18 at 6:15 pm to ILeaveAtHalftime
quote:
A bump stock isn’t a firearm.
There is no constitutional protection against infringement on your right to accessorize your gun.
^^^^^^
NPC
Posted on 12/18/18 at 6:16 pm to ILeaveAtHalftime
quote:
Politically speaking, this is an awful hill to die on
lol....what does this really solve? Just opens the door for the next "small" restriction on the 2nd ammendment.
Posted on 12/18/18 at 6:18 pm to MrCarton
quote:
False. Judges cannot stop anything.
We've seen the executive branch halted by the 9th Circuit how many times in the last 2 years? You must not know that appellate courts can in fact rule on the actions of federal agencies.
Posted on 12/18/18 at 6:26 pm to Clames
quote:
We've seen the executive branch halted by the 9th Circuit how many times in the last 2 years? You must not know that appellate courts can in fact rule on the actions of federal agencies
We've seen the executive branch halt itself. We've seen judges issue opinions. The courts have no power to do anything at all to the executive branch.
Posted on 12/18/18 at 6:48 pm to Clames
quote:
Go ahead and cite the SCOTUS ruling that says such things are not protected by the 2nd Amendment. No such case exists yet so upon what authority are you citing?
You sound like an angsty law student.
Page 4 of 11
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News