Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 19 of 19

Thread: NRA-ILA throws down the legal gauntlet on proposed “bumpstock” ban.

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,234
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by PatrioticDisorder View Post
    I’m just getting into the machine gun game, but if the registry opens, every gun I own (except for most handguns) will be registered as a machine gun. A 90 day period would likely yield MILLIONS of new machine guns into the registry, essentially making them “common use.” It would be cool as hell to see new firearms made into machine guns like the B&T. APC9, CZ Scorpions, SCARs... possibilities are endless!
    922(o) prevents the adding of transferable machine guns. How ironic the folks responsible for 922(o) are now asking for an amnesty to a ban they supported.

    Quote Originally Posted by PatrioticDisorder View Post
    I won’t hold my breathe, only time will tell, but just maybe, one can certainly hope!
    No gun rights were ever secured with "hope".

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    SWFL
    Posts
    3,112
    Feedback Score
    6 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Renegade View Post
    922(o) prevents the adding of transferable machine guns. How ironic the folks responsible for 922(o) are now asking for an amnesty to a ban they supported.
    At this point in the Republic, who gives a shit what the actual letter of the (possibly ill passed on a voice vote) law states? We have immigration law too, Dems wipe their ass with it. BATFE doesn’t seem to mind pulling new “regulations” out of their ass, so why not new machine guns?.... SCOTUS seems to have the “common use”metric, with even a 90 day period to make new machine guns, there will be millions making them “common use.” We can even call them “dreamer” machine guns that are in need of “permanent legal status.”

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,234
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by PatrioticDisorder View Post
    At this point in the Republic, who gives a shit what the actual letter of the (possibly ill passed on a voice vote) law states?
    Apparently the NRA and anyone who has not made an illegal machine gun.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    SWFL
    Posts
    3,112
    Feedback Score
    6 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Renegade View Post
    Apparently the NRA and anyone who has not made an illegal machine gun.
    Or simply put, hard working honest people that don’t break the law, but when push comes to shove many of whom will refuse to let their country become Cuba or Venezuela.

    I keep thinking this over, it probably won’t happen, but if it did imagine how many new applications the BATFE would have to process? I believe I read something recently that with the next budget there is supposed to be a ton of new examiners hired, which has me thinking maybe someone or someones’ has been setting this up all along...

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    33,892
    Feedback Score
    3 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Renegade View Post
    922(o) prevents the adding of transferable machine guns. How ironic the folks responsible for 922(o) are now asking for an amnesty to a ban they supported.
    If only Reagan had a line item veto at the time. Do you realize how far down the rabbit hole we'd be today were it not for FOPA 86? We haven't had one single President since Reagan who would have signed it, let alone a version that closed the registry.

    More importantly, you seem to forget that we were up against a bill from Hughes that not only closed the registry for ALL NFA weapons, but also didn't allow additional transfers of the ones that existed. So it passed the current owners in 1986 would have been the last people to lawfully own machine guns and other NFA items.

    Not saying I'm happy about the Hughes Amendment to FOPA, but it could have been LOTS worse. I just wish we could get the "sporter clause" struck from the '68 GCA because that would fix a LOT of things.
    It's hard to be a ACLU hating, philosophically Libertarian, socially liberal, fiscally conservative, scientifically grounded, agnostic, porn admiring gun owner who believes in self determination.

    Chuck, we miss ya man.

    كافر

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    SWFL
    Posts
    3,112
    Feedback Score
    6 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by SteyrAUG View Post
    Not saying I'm happy about the Hughes Amendment to FOPA, but it could have been LOTS worse. I just wish we could get the "sporter clause" struck from the '68 GCA because that would fix a LOT of things.
    Wouldn’t that fix basically everything? Wasn’t NFA 1934 ruled unconstitutional and considered unenforceable and “fixed” with GCA 1968 which apparently amended NFA 1934?

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    33,892
    Feedback Score
    3 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by PatrioticDisorder View Post
    Wouldn’t that fix basically everything? Wasn’t NFA 1934 ruled unconstitutional and considered unenforceable and “fixed” with GCA 1968 which apparently amended NFA 1934?
    It would fix most things, firearms would not need to pass a "suitable for civilian (sporter) applications" test for importation or manufacture. As a result there would be no foundation for import or manufacturer bans or restrictions.

    The NFA would remain in place, but it would reopen the registry. And honestly we wouldn't want to try and undo the NFA because it could have unintended consequences such as changing the registration fee from $200 to $2000 or something like that.

    And honestly $1,200 for a NIB factory Colt M4 or M16A4 would still be quite a bargain. It would leave the legal registration of machine guns in place which allows politicians to honestly say "These items are already regulated by law" and that satisfies most people.

    The GCA would still prevent having firearms shipped directly to your home, would keep in place a system or regulated firearms dealers (FFLs) and things that amount to "common sense" gun control in the minds of most people.

    And honestly, while I'm a borderline rights absolutist, the fact that we are so negligent in removing the most violent and criminal elements of society I'd be fine with leaving things in place even with the knowledge that criminals can easily circumvent them because they are criminals.
    It's hard to be a ACLU hating, philosophically Libertarian, socially liberal, fiscally conservative, scientifically grounded, agnostic, porn admiring gun owner who believes in self determination.

    Chuck, we miss ya man.

    كافر

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    SWFL
    Posts
    3,112
    Feedback Score
    6 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by SteyrAUG View Post
    It would fix most things, firearms would not need to pass a "suitable for civilian (sporter) applications" test for importation or manufacture. As a result there would be no foundation for import or manufacturer bans or restrictions.

    The NFA would remain in place, but it would reopen the registry. And honestly we wouldn't want to try and undo the NFA because it could have unintended consequences such as changing the registration fee from $200 to $2000 or something like that.

    And honestly $1,200 for a NIB factory Colt M4 or M16A4 would still be quite a bargain. It would leave the legal registration of machine guns in place which allows politicians to honestly say "These items are already regulated by law" and that satisfies most people.

    The GCA would still prevent having firearms shipped directly to your home, would keep in place a system or regulated firearms dealers (FFLs) and things that amount to "common sense" gun control in the minds of most people.

    And honestly, while I'm a borderline rights absolutist, the fact that we are so negligent in removing the most violent and criminal elements of society I'd be fine with leaving things in place even with the knowledge that criminals can easily circumvent them because they are criminals.
    Has the Sporter Clause never been challenged and if not why? Seems like a no brainer and goes against the precedent of United States V. Miller.

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    33,892
    Feedback Score
    3 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by PatrioticDisorder View Post
    Has the Sporter Clause never been challenged and if not why? Seems like a no brainer and goes against the precedent of United States V. Miller.
    Not that I'm aware of and I don't know why. Should be issue number one for the NRA.
    It's hard to be a ACLU hating, philosophically Libertarian, socially liberal, fiscally conservative, scientifically grounded, agnostic, porn admiring gun owner who believes in self determination.

    Chuck, we miss ya man.

    كافر

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •