Supreme Court overturns bump stock ban…

[tvc184]

5 hours ago, baddog said:

That was a Jason Aldean concert and we know he is conservative, so most of that crowd was probably conservative and pro Trump, so why would you care?

Let’s be more concerned about how many were killed and wounded instead of addressing the simple fact that he was an evil person. If evil people want you dead, they will find a way to do it. Like tvc said, if half as many were killed, that’s acceptable? I believe he could have killed more with a semi-automatic but that’s just me.

With a legal suppressor attached.

We can’t stop evil people, much less with those who have time to plan. 

[SmashMouth]

On 6/14/2024 at 3:22 PM, CardinalBacker said:

If the weapon bucking is the force applying pressure on the trigger, there’s no chance of aiming.

I personally don't care for a bump stock. It's kinda fun to shoot, but with the price of ammo, I almost never mess with it. I have nothing against them though. I am fairly accurate with one, but it takes a little practice.

[CardinalBacker]

On 6/14/2024 at 3:22 PM, CardinalBacker said:

Yeah… as a strong 2A supporter and AR owner, bump stocks shouldn’t be available. In a perfect world manufacturers would recognize that these parts serve no valuable purpose other than indiscriminately firing rounds into a general area and refuse to manufacture them. But as always, the gun lobby will skip right over the prudent thing and stand on an indefensible position, making the sane 2A supporters looking like slack-jawed morons, too. 
 

We shouldn’t need a bumpstock ban… we (gun owners) should demand that these things not be produced. 
 

 

17 hours ago, tvc184 said:

Not as fast but pretty darn quick but skip that as nearly meaningless. 

You continue to ignore the questions that you don’t like however. Deflection is admitting that you have no argument.

Should people go to jail for something that isn’t a crime?

Should the Supreme Court base its decisions on the Constitution and the law or emotions?

Does anyone believe there is a right to slaughter kids?

 If Congress passes a law banning bump stocks, so be it. Remember that in this decision the Supreme Court didn’t overturn machine gun laws, they only correctly and unemotionally ruled that a bump stock doesn’t fit the definition as provided by Congress.

 It comes down to the fact that the Congress didn’t pass a law that covered bump stocks. I understand that you are displeased.

You could have reduced your statements to, “I don’t like that law”. So much more simple. 

This is my point, made initially.

 

We, as gun owners, should demand accountability from those who manufacture and sell these things.  But instead we argue "but it's our RIGHT to own them," thereby insuring that another mass killing happens in the future.  At which point in time we'll wring our hands, offer thoughts and prayers, say how it's not a gun that kills, but rather a hard heart that kills.  

 

Gun manufacturers and sellers don't mind threats from people who were never going to buy from them anyways.  If actual gun owners were to threaten a boycott of businesses that produce/sell bump stocks, they'd disappear from the market.  But instead we take the losing side of an argument on philosophical grounds.

 

We don't need the feds with more regulations or congress to pass new legislation... we, as consumers control the market.  What's available, etc.   WE, as the actual customers of weapons should be using our voices to determine what is produced/sold by the gun industry.  

[thetragichippy]

6 minutes ago, CardinalBacker said:

We don't need the feds with more regulations or congress to pass new legislation...

If you want bump stocks banned, you are going to need Congress.

[baddog]

8 minutes ago, CardinalBacker said:

 

This is my point, made initially.

 

We, as gun owners, should demand accountability from those who manufacture and sell these things.  But instead we argue "but it's our RIGHT to own them," thereby insuring that another mass killing happens in the future.  At which point in time we'll wring our hands, offer thoughts and prayers, say how it's not a gun that kills, but rather a hard heart that kills.  

 

Gun manufacturers and sellers don't mind threats from people who were never going to buy from them anyways.  If actual gun owners were to threaten a boycott of businesses that produce/sell bump stocks, they'd disappear from the market.  But instead we take the losing side of an argument on philosophical grounds.

 

We don't need the feds with more regulations or congress to pass new legislation... we, as consumers control the market.  What's available, etc.   WE, as the actual customers of weapons should be using our voices to determine what is produced/sold by the gun industry.  

What you are failing to realize is this….. you act as if the only reason this person committed this heinous crime is because of bump stocks. My realization is that he would have done it anyway. Bump stocks did not create this crime, he did. You need to learn where that line really is. 

[tvc184]

1 hour ago, CardinalBacker said:

We don't need the feds with more regulations or congress to pass new legislation... we, as consumers control the market.  What's available, etc.   WE, as the actual customers of weapons should be using our voices to determine what is produced/sold by the gun industry.  

Okay.

 That is a good argument.

 There is no law prohibiting the stocks and the Supreme Court was correct by the letter of the law and Constitution but citizens should refuse to buy them.

If every person voluntarily turned theirs in and refused to buy any, I am okay with it. It won’t stop the willing from anything however. 

[Reagan]

On 6/16/2024 at 6:39 AM, CardinalBacker said:

So I guess your opinion on abortions is “if you don’t want one, don’t get one.”

“If you don’t like heroin, don’t inject it.”

The arguments are so hypocritical that it’s funny. A bump stock serves no purpose besides spraying down a crowd of unarmed people. But y’all will fight for the right to slaughter kids while simultaneously protesting out front of an abortion clinic.  
 

Right wingers are nuts, too. 

 

 

[CardinalBacker]

1 hour ago, Reagan said:

 

 

So you believe ex convicts should be allowed to own/carry weapons?

[tvc184]

2 hours ago, CardinalBacker said:

So you believe ex convicts should be allowed to own/carry weapons?

Non-violent, yes.

Scenario 1: Man assaulted his neighbor and gave him a black eye. He got probation. A year later he assaulted neighbor again and this time busted his nose. He got a month in the county jail for another misdemeanor assault. Two years later, he busted the neighbor’s lip. He got the maximum sentence of a year in jail for another misdemeanor assault.

Scenario 2: A 17 year old sneaks out his mama’s credit card and runs up $150 on the card. Mama is struggling and can’t pay restitution and the store filled charges for Credit Card Abuse.

 The 17 year old can never legally own or possess a firearm.

 The guy who terrorizes his neighborhood and on occasion beats up a neighbor, causing painful and visible injuries, has no such restrictions on ownership or possession of a firearm.

 With nothing else to go on, who is the threat to the neighborhood? Is it a 17-year-old kid living at home who basically stole his mother's money by way of a credit card or is the guy who terrorizes his neighborhood and occasionally assaults someone?

 The kid who used his mama’s credit card without permission is a felon and the guy who repeatedly assaults his neighbors is not.

[CardinalBacker]

8 hours ago, tvc184 said:

Non-violent, yes.

Scenario 1: Man assaulted his neighbor and gave him a black eye. He got probation. A year later he assaulted neighbor again and this time busted his nose. He got a month in the county jail for another misdemeanor assault. Two years later, he busted the neighbor’s lip. He got the maximum sentence of a year in jail for another misdemeanor assault.

Scenario 2: A 17 year old sneaks out his mama’s credit card and runs up $150 on the card. Mama is struggling and can’t pay restitution and the store filled charges for Credit Card Abuse.

 The 17 year old can never legally own or possess a firearm.

 The guy who terrorizes his neighborhood and on occasion beats up a neighbor, causing painful and visible injuries, has no such restrictions on ownership or possession of a firearm.

 With nothing else to go on, who is the threat to the neighborhood? Is it a 17-year-old kid living at home who basically stole his mother's money by way of a credit card or is the guy who terrorizes his neighborhood and occasionally assaults someone?

 The kid who used his mama’s credit card without permission is a felon and the guy who repeatedly assaults his neighbors is not.

Fair enough.  I like the distinction.

 

What about full auto weapons?  Current statues aside, do you think a 14 year old has/should have the constitutional right to purchase and carry a fully automatic weapon?

 

My point is this.... we can all post memes saying "what point of shall not be infringed confuses you," but at the end of the day, at some point, your ideology is going to conflict with what you're spouting.  You can be all for white dudes with beards and MAGA owning full autos and having the right to carry anywhere, but you really, really don't want 14 year old kids from the other side of town toting them to the mall.  So you're not so much in favor of "no restrictions," just restrictions on others.

 

And I'm not talking about you, specifically, but rather people who blindly support the 2A all of the way to some really dumb lengths.  

[baddog]

White dues with beards wearing MAGA hats is who the 2A for. Way to be close minded. It’s for everyone. 
I know this makes your skin crawl, talking about back in the day, but high school kids with trucks and gun racks in the back window, carried their rifles and/or shotguns to school…ON CAMPUS! No one was afraid. The police weren’t called. Why???! Because we didn’t have a warped left leaning society who screwed with everyone’s mind. There were no mass shootings because there was much more sanity in the world  

 

[baddog]

The mass murders I can recall back then are Charles Whitman, Charles Manson, and Richard Speck. Of course Speck stabbed the nurses, but still a mass murder. Manson’s followers used knives too.  See? One can mass murder with a knife and strangling. Speck killed 8. 

[tvc184]

4 hours ago, CardinalBacker said:

Fair enough.  I like the distinction.

 

What about full auto weapons?  Current statues aside, do you think a 14 year old has/should have the constitutional right to purchase and carry a fully automatic weapon?

 

My point is this.... we can all post memes saying "what point of shall not be infringed confuses you," but at the end of the day, at some point, your ideology is going to conflict with what you're spouting.  You can be all for white dudes with beards and MAGA owning full autos and having the right to carry anywhere, but you really, really don't want 14 year old kids from the other side of town toting them to the mall.  So you're not so much in favor of "no restrictions," just restrictions on others.

 

And I'm not talking about you, specifically, but rather people who blindly support the 2A all of the way to some really dumb lengths.  

The Supreme Court has never ruled to my knowledge that a child under 18 has all rights under the Constitution. A recent Fifth Circuit Court (our circuit in New Orleans) ruling said that an 18 year old is an adult and carries adult rights. That was in reference to the Texas law on issuing a license to carry a handgun in public for people 21 and older. So Texas has had to start issuing carry licenses to 18 year olds.

Like other rulings that I’m aware of, those rights do not extend to a person who is not an adult under United States law, under 18. While some rights such as free-speech are protected for children, others are not. As another example of this is that the Fourteenth Amendment requires equal protection and due process.  A 14 year old can be denied the right to sign a contract however so he isn’t included in all “equal protection”. Therefore the issue of a 14 year old carrying a machine gun or any firearm is not a constitutional issue in my opinion.

Even under federal law people often state that an 18-20 year old person cannot buy a handgun but that is incorrect. Under both state and federal law an 18-year-old can purchase a firearm in front of a police officer or ATF agent. The federal government, probably through the interstate commerce clause, doesn’t allow federal licensed gun dealers to sell a handgun to an 18 year old however such sales are not banned from a private person to person sale. So again an 18 year old is considered an adult and can purchase and possess handguns but a person under 18 is not included. The 18 year old adult simply can’t buy one from a federally licensed dealer.

So there are some restrictions under both state and federal law for some firearms laws which are constitutional. As the Supreme Court ruled in Heller, McDonald and most recently (2022) in Bruen, the Second Amendment protects the right of adults to obtain (keep) and carry (bear) arms but did not extend that right to minors or children.

 

[SmashMouth]

For the record, I have no use for a bump stock, as I stated before. If they were to amend whatever needs amended to outlaw them, I would be ok with that. On the other hand, legally possessing a suppressor (which is not a silencer, no matter what people call it) is not a problem in my opinion. The Tax Stamp they charge to own one, the need to put it in a multi-person trust so it doesn't have to be surrendered upon the death of the named owner and the other costs associated with that are BS. Hopefully, at least in Texas, that may get better.

[tvc184]

59 minutes ago, SmashMouth said:

For the record, I have no use for a bump stock, as I stated before. If they were to amend whatever needs amended to outlaw them, I would be ok with that. On the other hand, legally possessing a suppressor (which is not a silencer, no matter what people call it) is not a problem in my opinion. The Tax Stamp they charge to own one, the need to put it in a multi-person trust so it doesn't have to be surrendered upon the death of the named owner and the other costs associated with that are BS. Hopefully, at least in Texas, that may get better.

Hopefully Texas will win their case in court to simply make suppressors legal without the federal tax stamp.

I doubt it as the interstate commerce clause is far reaching.

For those who may not know, in Texas a firearms suppressor is legal but they are still against federal law without a federal tax stamp. Texas removed them from prohibited weapons a couple of years ago. Texas is currently fighting a case in court that if the suppressor is manufactured completely in Texas and never leaves Texas, it would not then fall under the interstate commerce clause. The ICC allows any commerce that crosses a state line to be controlled by the US Congress under the Constitution in Article I. 

[SmashMouth]

19 minutes ago, tvc184 said:

Hopefully Texas will win their case in court to simply make suppressors legal without the federal tax stamp.

I doubt it as the interstate commerce clause is far reaching.

For those who may not know, in Texas a firearms suppressor is legal but they are still against federal law without a federal tax stamp. Texas removed them from prohibited weapons a couple of years ago. Texas is currently fighting a case in court that if the suppressor is manufactured completely in Texas and never leaves Texas, it would not then fall under the interstate commerce clause. The ICC allows any commerce that crosses a state line to be controlled by the US Congress under the Constitution in Article I. 

Spot on. And I agree with your statement about the doubtfulness of the Federal Tax Stamp going away. A boy can dream though... Lol. It's nothing more than a money grab, and a way to suppress ownership.