Bump stock Bye Bye!

[Glenn E. Meyer]

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2018/11/29/report-president-trump-signing-bump-stock-ban-citizens-have-90-days-to-turn-them-in/

Must be the Socialist mind control rays influenced the Donald. Not that I have use for the item but the implications are interesting.

Let the flames rise!

Going to eat breakfast and lift weights! Later!

[Peally]

And 7 people will be dopey enough to throw their stuff away in the name of progress.

[blues]

And 7 people will be dopey enough to throw their stuff away in the name of progress.

https://s17-us2.startpage.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=http%3A%2F%2Ft0.gstatic.com%2Fimage s%3Fq%3Dtbn%3AANd9GcSwL5vp1BoEkhFDv4v2IhOsFW0NzxME 95OBYpeeSeUnOcqkZPeT&sp=dad4b5b66d06473b0795218cc2864091&anticache=598640

"We may be short, Peally, but we're not mental dwarves!"

[Totem Polar]

https://s17-us2.startpage.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=http%3A%2F%2Ft0.gstatic.com%2Fimage s%3Fq%3Dtbn%3AANd9GcSwL5vp1BoEkhFDv4v2IhOsFW0NzxME 95OBYpeeSeUnOcqkZPeT&sp=dad4b5b66d06473b0795218cc2864091&anticache=598640

"We may be short, Peally, but we're not mental dwarves!"

Dopey, sneezy, bumpy and pewpewsie

[Zincwarrior]

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2018/11/29/report-president-trump-signing-bump-stock-ban-citizens-have-90-days-to-turn-them-in/

Must be the Socialist mind control rays influenced the Donald. Not that I have use for the item but the implications are interesting.

Let the flames rise!

Going to eat breakfast and lift weights! Later!

Wait, did you think he was a conservative, or even better, a Libertarian? Hahahah!

[blues]

Dopey, sneezy, bumpy and pewpewsie


https://s17-us2.startpage.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=http%3A%2F%2Ft0.gstatic.com%2Fimage s%3Fq%3Dtbn%3AANd9GcQPHzgZxPbX-O7TjWFi5075ZAToHexp0rBlgEnqgzVtMpSGO2SG&sp=ed2bc844a26f174022d518b179f27f2d&anticache=639702

"Does no one honor trademarks anymore? Where is my attorney?"



On topic: Never owned a bump stock, never intended to...but surely no one is surprised by this.

It's all well and good to draw a hard line and promise to die supporting it, but as others have mentioned, is this the hill we want to die on? Perhaps better to win the war and concede a battle here and there. Each side has its merits.

[Darth_Uno]

That attack marked the first time that bump stocks were known to have been used in a crime.

So yes, surely this calls for sweeping and permanent legislation.

Bumpstocks are completely useless and the only people who like them are hillbillies who think Applebee's is a fancy restaurant. I don't like 'em, but I like stupid rules even less.

Dammit Trump, I thought we were bros.

[BillSWPA]

Bump stocks were illegal under the generally pro-gun Bush administration. They then became legal under the Obama administration, which used Fast and Furious to drive up gun deaths and calls for more gun control. Hmmmm, why would an anti-gun administration responsible for Fast & Furious legalize bump stocks? Perhaps hoping something like the Las Vegas shooting would happen so that support for gun control would increase? Perhaps Bush knew the same thing, which is why his administration banned them?

Too many gun owners reflexively stand on the position that no ground can be given, ever. The vast majority of the time, this is correct. Here, they are walking right into a trap.

If we are going to keep and expand concealed carry, standard capacity magazines, modern sporting rifles, and perhaps make sound suppressors easier to obtain and/or do away with the sporting purposes test, we need credible arguments in favor of our positions. Most here could make credible, sensible arguments for all of the above. NO ONE can do so for a bump stock.

I have challenged bump stock supporters multiple times in multiple threads to come up with a credible argument that they serve a legitimate purpose. NO ONE has even attempted to do so. Any takers here?

The problem then becomes persuading the narrow population in the middle - the ones who truly decide elections - of the validity of our positions when we have lost significant credibility defending something for which there is no defense. We then lose our ability to persuade them that concealed carry or AR-15’s really serve good purposes. THAT IS HOW WE LOSE EVERYTHING THAT REALLY IS IMPORTANT.

My prediction is that some responses to this post will say “second amendment” or “what part of shall not be infringed do you not understand”. It isn’t that simple.

The judges who will decide the second amendment cases know it is not that simple. They will look not only at the intent and meaning of the language, but the consequences of the decision. They don’t want to issue a ruling which would someday allow someone to buy a nuclear submarine, which would actually be easier to defend under the second amendment than a bump stock.

The problem with the oversimplistic “what part of shall not be infringed” argument is that it creates a slippery slope that leads places the judges do not want to go. To win the argument, a way off the slippery slope must be provided. That is how Heller was won.

If you want a favorable ruling, for example, that making concealed carry across state lines difficult or impossible is a second amendment violation, you need a way off the slippery slope, and that way off had better occur before you get to bump stocks. Otherwise, you lose what should have been a winnable case.

I predict that some will accuse me of trying to appease the other side. I agree that appeasement never works, and encourage those people to reread my post.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Rex G]

When the bumbling backwards backwoods folk are bump-firing along Caney Creek, in Montgomery County, Texas, which runs behind my wife’s family’s property, well within range of the home site, I am completely ready to throw those idiots under under any bus which happens to be rolling along. Appeasement of the leftistas has nothing to do with it.

[JRB]

Bump stocks were illegal under the generally pro-gun Bush administration. They then became legal under the Obama administration, which used Fast and Furious to drive up gun deaths and calls for more gun control. Hmmmm, why would an anti-gun administration responsible for Fast & Furious legalize bump stocks? Perhaps hoping something like the Las Vegas shooting would happen so that support for gun control would increase? Perhaps Bush knew the same thing, which is why his administration banned them?

Too many gun owners reflexively stand on the position that no ground can be given, ever. The vast majority of the time, this is correct. Here, they are walking right into a trap.

If we are going to keep and expand concealed carry, standard capacity magazines, modern sporting rifles, and perhaps make sound suppressors easier to obtain and/or do away with the sporting purposes test, we need credible arguments in favor of our positions. Most here could make credible, sensible arguments for all of the above. NO ONE can do so for a bump stock.

I have challenged bump stock supporters multiple times in multiple threads to come up with a credible argument that they serve a legitimate purpose. NO ONE has even attempted to do so. Any takers here?

The problem then becomes persuading the narrow population in the middle - the ones who truly decide elections - of the validity of our positions when we have lost significant credibility defending something for which there is no defense. We then lose our ability to persuade them that concealed carry or AR-15’s really serve good purposes. THAT IS HOW WE LOSE EVERYTHING THAT REALLY IS IMPORTANT.

My prediction is that some responses to this post will say “second amendment” or “what part of shall not be infringed do you not understand”. It isn’t that simple.

The judges who will decide the second amendment cases know it is not that simple. They will look not only at the intent and meaning of the language, but the consequences of the decision. They don’t want to issue a ruling which would someday allow someone to buy a nuclear submarine, which would actually be easier to defend under the second amendment than a bump stock.

The problem with the oversimplistic “what part of shall not be infringed” argument is that it creates a slippery slope that leads places the judges do not want to go. To win the argument, a way off the slippery slope must be provided. That is how Heller was won.

If you want a favorable ruling, for example, that making concealed carry across state lines difficult or impossible is a second amendment violation, you need a way off the slippery slope, and that way off had better occur before you get to bump stocks. Otherwise, you lose what should have been a winnable case.

I predict that some will accuse me of trying to appease the other side. I agree that appeasement never works, and encourage those people to reread my post.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

We'll be haunted by this, because the opposition in play is not interested in being reasonable or rational about this, and they'll take a mile from the inch provided by this ban. This SHOULD have been an opportunity to re-write the NFA to include bumpstocks and de-stupify the rest. But we're just rolling over and taking the ban instead because that's 'not the hill we want to die on'. What's the next 'hill we don't want to die on'? Pistol braces? 30 round magazines?

Because they're banning an accessory outright, it sets the precedence that banning accessories based on one terrible use of them in one major crime is justifiable. How much farther of a reach is it to suggest that the actual weapon they were installed upon should also be banned, when it's been used in several of those rare, terrible, high profile crimes?
When we're appealing to the middle, we need to make the argument that policy should not be dictated by profoundly rare uses in crime, but instead be dictated by what can be substantiated as a repeated, common risk to society that otherwise is not used lawfully by lawful citizens. Not what got used once to absolutely terrible effect.

Yes, it's a stupid redneck range toy. But rednecks wasting ammo and simulating full-auto fire isn't a crime nor is it a common injury/murder/suicide vector. Full auto fire does have a very applicable 2A use for 'militia' purposes in modern warfighting, and thus should be protected by the 2A just the same. The compromise, if there was one to make, should be to streamline the NFA process, add the bumpstocks to the NFA, and get rid of SBR's, Suppressors, and the Hughes amendment, but we're not doing that.
The bottom line is that neither bumpstocks nor registered legal MG's are commonly seen in drive bys or other so-called 'gun' crime. So banning them is a politically visible victory for the antis based on nothing substantially useful beyond the optics of banning evil gun stuff.

By the measure of what's commonly used in 'gun' crime, such as handguns, we all know the number of handguns being used for criminal activity are such an infinitesimal minority compared to the numbers of lawfully owned and safely carried/used handguns every day that banning handguns is an idiotic measure and doesn't solve the problem - in addition to completely disregarding the nature of criminality and that no ban makes these items just turn into dust.

So yes, as stupid as this is, it is a hill we should be ready to fight on. Supporting stupid policy is supporting stupid policy. If they want a compromise, it should give us something we don't have that we want. Giving up bump stocks without getting something in return is a full loss. Period.

[BillSWPA]

We'll be haunted by this, because the opposition in play is not interested in being reasonable or rational about this, and they'll take a mile from the inch provided by this ban. This SHOULD have been an opportunity to re-write the NFA to include bumpstocks and de-stupify the rest. But we're just rolling over and taking the ban instead because that's 'not the hill we want to die on'. What's the next 'hill we don't want to die on'? Pistol braces? 30 round magazines?

Because they're banning an accessory outright, it sets the precedence that banning accessories based on one terrible use of them in one major crime is justifiable. How much farther of a reach is it to suggest that the actual weapon they were installed upon should also be banned, when it's been used in several of those rare, terrible, high profile crimes?
When we're appealing to the middle, we need to make the argument that policy should not be dictated by profoundly rare uses in crime, but instead be dictated by what can be substantiated as a repeated, common risk to society that otherwise is not used lawfully by lawful citizens. Not what got used once to absolutely terrible effect.

Yes, it's a stupid redneck range toy. But rednecks wasting ammo and simulating full-auto fire isn't a crime nor is it a common injury/murder/suicide vector. Full auto fire does have a very applicable 2A use for 'militia' purposes in modern warfighting, and thus should be protected by the 2A just the same. The compromise, if there was one to make, should be to streamline the NFA process, add the bumpstocks to the NFA, and get rid of SBR's, Suppressors, and the Hughes amendment, but we're not doing that.
The bottom line is that neither bumpstocks nor registered legal MG's are commonly seen in drive bys or other so-called 'gun' crime. So banning them is a politically visible victory for the antis based on nothing substantially useful beyond the optics of banning evil gun stuff.

By the measure of what's commonly used in 'gun' crime, such as handguns, we all know the number of handguns being used for criminal activity are such an infinitesimal minority compared to the numbers of lawfully owned and safely carried/used handguns every day that banning handguns is an idiotic measure and doesn't solve the problem - in addition to completely disregarding the nature of criminality and that no ban makes these items just turn into dust.

So yes, as stupid as this is, it is a hill we should be ready to fight on. Supporting stupid policy is supporting stupid policy. If they want a compromise, it should give us something we don't have that we want. Giving up bump stocks without getting something in return is a full loss. Period.

Whether the opposition is interested in being reasonable or rational should not be of concern to us. The less reasonable and rational they are or they appear, the better off we are.

I am much more interested in making sure we appear rational and reasonable when we are talking to people who may or may not own a gun, don't have strong feelings on principle, the second amendment, etc., but do have strong feelings about their kids coming home safely at the end of the school day.

Cars "kill" tens of thousands of people every year. We know better: bad/stupid/drunk drivers kill tens of thousands of people every year, with cars as the instrument. Yet, we do not ban cars because they are useful. The same can be said of handguns, AR-15's etc. The same argument could even be made for true full auto. The same cannot be said of a bump stock.

Taking a mile from the inch given makes a nice cliche, but exactly how? One victory does not automatically lead to another. In fact, it often leads to elections that make the next victory more difficult. Precedent does not have the same value in the legislative process that it does in court.

Yes, I know: as soon as the next tragedy hits, the other side will demand more, as they always do. That will always be the case, regardless of how much or little they get. Demanding and getting are very different things.

I completely agree that we should have insisted on something in return, and in fact made the same point in other threads. Even so, the only "victory" the other side can claim is the loss of the ability to paint us as extremists who do not care about the safety of their children. That ability, not any "precedent" is what would enable them to successfully push for more.

[JAD]

Interested in the opinion of joshs

[NH Shooter]

Good and thoughtful debate here.

I do wish that there was greater effort to push for changes that would be beneficial to us, such as removal of SBRs, SBSs and suppressors from NSA, as well as some kind of national CCW licensing system.

While I have zero use or interest in bump stocks, I do wish we had the foresight to use that useless accessory as a bargaining chip for something in our favor.

[Duke]

Wonder what 2 federal regulations they’ll remove to add this into law.

Isn’t that trumps deal.

Any new law require the removal of 2 others?


Also I didn’t read the details....but part of me wonders what the “dispose of in some other manner” means and if anyone’s going to care to check.

And next - turn it in to whom? What will be the chain of custody or proof you’ve turned in legally to some place like the honorable sheriffs of broward county etc?

Like everyone else, bumpstocks are a useles piece of plastic to me. But that’s this issue....it’s an external piece of plastic that does not change the mechanical function of the item.

In my opinion it doesnt really mimic full auto fire, Sort of like your 4x4 bumper doesn’t let you “mimic” a bulldozer...

[Mike C]

BillSWPA, I'm not a fan but the bump stock and would agree it's nothing more than a silly range toy. What really bothers me is outright ban with no compensation and the slippery slope this will setup for future arguments. Get a heavy left leaning president what's next? Look at how executive privilege/orders have been overused and abused. This just goes to show, (along with other behavior of the Trump administration) that Trump is nothing more than an Authoritarian and has no respect for our constitution or laws if it is of no benefit. Personally it sickens me. He could outlaw kittens tomorrow and I would still be upset.

[BillSWPA]

BillSWPA, I'm not a fan but the bump stock and would agree it's nothing more than a silly range toy. What really bothers me is outright ban with no compensation and the slippery slope this will setup for future arguments. Get a heavy left leaning president what's next? Look at how executive privilege/orders have been overused and abused.

Where is the slippery slope here?

A "slippery slope" as known in the law is a court ruling that leads to far more than what was intended. For example, a ruling that the second amendment protects private ownership of "arms" without a definition of "arms" could potentially lead to a right to walk down the street with a hand grenade.

Agreeing to one ban does not create any binding precedent requiring another ban.

I do agree re: confiscating property without compensation.

[Mike C]

Where is the slippery slope here?

A "slippery slope" as known in the law is a court ruling that leads to far more than what was intended. For example, a ruling that the second amendment protects private ownership of "arms" without a definition of "arms" could potentially lead to a right to walk down the street with a hand grenade.

Agreeing to one ban does not create any binding precedent requiring another ban.

I do agree re: confiscating property without compensation.

I don't necessarily believe one ban leads to another but it does give precedent and leave room for argument later. The huge alarm for me is out right confiscation without compensation of an "accessory." My slippery slope argument is this: what stops them from going after or relabeling other items later as accessories? After market stock, if your gun didn't come from the factory that's an accessory, grip, sights, hand-guards where does it stop? I can see the argument of the bumpstock not being and integral part of the firearm being labeled as an accessory and therefore be used to reclassify other parts and be labeled as such so they can be struck down with the stroke of a pen. Death by a thousand cuts. That is what scares the shit out of me.

[BillSWPA]

I don't necessarily believe one ban leads to another but it does give precedent and leave room for argument later. The huge alarm for me is out right confiscation without compensation of a "accessory." My slippery slope argument is this: what stops them from going after or relabeling other items later as accessories? After market stock, if your gun didn't come from the factory that's an accessory, grip, sights, hand-guards where does it stop? I can see the argument of the bumpstock not being and integral part of the firearm being labeled as an accessory and therefore be used to reclassify other parts and be labeled as such so they can be struck down with the stroke of a pen. Death by a thousand cuts. That is what scares the shit out of me.

The issue then becomes determining the most effective tactic to avoid those cuts.

[Peally]

Kneejerk reaction and every other twat is right behind it because it's for the children and nobody needs ___.

One more good excuse reason to buy a 3D printer. World is too childish to rely on for products.

[Mike C]

BillSWPA I completely agree. But the conversation has to be had and it has to start with 1. we will justly compensate you for what you paid for the item in question, 2. We can pass a law through proper channels to prohibit ownership, sale, grandfather ownership of existing or not, or add them to the ATF racket and require blood money tax or not. All of the above is fine with me but issuing a decree is freaking BS and I am sick of our elect bypassing our constitution whenever they freaking feel like it suits them, and that goes for both of the shitty parties.

[BillSWPA]

BillSWPA The issue then becomes determining the most effective tactic to avoid those cuts.

I completely agree. But the conversation has to be had and it has to start with 1. we will justly compensate you for what you paid for the item in question, 2. We can pass a law to prohibit ownership, sale, grandfather ownership of existing or not, or add them to the ATF racket and require blood money tax or not. All of the above is fine with me but issuing a decree is fucking bullshit and I am sick of our elect bypassing our constitution whenever they freaking feel like it suits them, and that goes for both of the shitty parties.

This definitely could have been done better through legislation rather than regulation. Legislation would have provided more opportunities to negotiate something in return, which, before or after the recent elections, we would still be doing from a position of strength.

Part of what concerns me about this thread is the apparent willingness of some posters to throw Trump, who has so far been our friend, under the bus for an action that, when the entire chess board is viewed properly, helps us more than it hurts us. The only recent president who thought bump stocks shoulb be legal was the one trying to drum up support for more gun control. Let's not alienate our friends.

[WobblyPossum]

I don’t like bump stocks. I like new regulations with attached criminal penalties passed by executive fiat and the “interpretations” of government agencies even less. I would have much preferred to have Congress pass a law adding bump stocks to the NFA with a grace period for anyone who had one and wanted to register it. If everyone hated bump stocks so much that they want them banned there are appropriate ways to do it that don’t circumvent common sense and the established constitutional channels for making things illegal.

[JRB]

Whether the opposition is interested in being reasonable or rational should not be of concern to us. The less reasonable and rational they are or they appear, the better off we are.

I disagree. The more unreasonable and baseless they become on all things the more validated that MO becomes. Whenever they achieve political victories with that thinking, we lose, because stupidity will always bring us down to that level and beat us with experience.



I am much more interested in making sure we appear rational and reasonable when we are talking to people who may or may not own a gun, don't have strong feelings on principle, the second amendment, etc., but do have strong feelings about their kids coming home safely at the end of the school day.

I don't think you're speaking to as big of a population with that approach as you think. Between media, social media, and pop culture what was 'centrist' 10 years ago is now right-leaning, and 'hard left' is getting further and further left. The only answer to make a centrist/neutral approach worthwhile at this point means pushing further right.
People vote on a hierarchy of what matters to them and it distills into fairly digital responses when all's said and done, and very few people can be swayed from a political bias with one or two concessions in policy whether it's bump stocks or whatever. I do not see a ban on bump stocks generating new pro-gun votes nor do I see allowing bump stocks generating new anti-gun votes.



Cars "kill" tens of thousands of people every year. We know better: bad/stupid/drunk drivers kill tens of thousands of people every year, with cars as the instrument. Yet, we do not ban cars because they are useful. The same can be said of handguns, AR-15's etc. The same argument could even be made for true full auto. The same cannot be said of a bump stock.

The 'useful' argument is a non-starter and one we should avoid entirely in gun policy. Because once we validate ignorant (if not blindingly stupid) *opinions* on what is 'useful' then that opens the door against everything you just listed. Many antis think that *no* guns are useful. Then we have the fudds and Zumbos that are in denial about useful technological improvements on modern firearms, and then we have folks who want to home-build full auto 20mm Hispano Suiza cannons in their basement.
In matters of policy, the 'useful' argument shouldn't matter because it is an arbitrary opinion. That's how we ended up with all the 'sporting purpose' bullshit in the GCA of '68 and continue to deal with 'sporting purpose' issues in policy to include pistol grips, stocks, etc being banned on visual appearances based on pure fucking ignorance. Allowing your opinion to dictate your position on bumpstocks is one thing - conflating your opinion on the usefulness of a bumpstock as if it were scientific fact is where this goes pear-shaped and feeds the exact fire we're trying to put out.

The only answer we should have on this should be 'Rifle murders are very rare in the US and they are spectacularly rare compared to the number of legally owned modern rifles, nobody is made safer by this legislation and the suggestion that it does make people safer is blatantly false and politically motivated by opinion not established data-based facts. Furthermore, making policy based on emotional and ignorant understanding of a technical subject never leads to good policy regardless of the subject matter.'

The fact that *I* think bumpstocks are stupid and useless is irrelevant on this. It sets a terrible precedent to let ignorant fuckheads win a victory like this based on nothing more than biased appearances and perceptions that cannot be supported by fact. They will take this precedent and run with it against adjustable stocks (CAN BE EASILY CONVERTED TO A BUMPSTOCK!!!!) standard cap magazines, etc etc it goes downhill fast.

And again, it wins us exactly fucking nothing on furthering 2A rights in other areas, or generating pro-gun votes. Nobody is going to say 'I was going to vote anti gun, but since gun people were so reasonable about bumpstocks, I'll vote pro-gun instead' Everyone on that topic has already made up their mind and the tiny percentage that might just fall into that category are not worth the damaging precedent we leave from baseless emotional bullshit being made into law.

[GuanoLoco]

The master of the deal failed to make any deal at all and just did exactly what everybody complained about Obama doing with Executive Orders. Who is our friend again?

[BillSWPA]

I disagree. The more unreasonable and baseless they become on all things the more validated that MO becomes. Whenever they achieve political victories with that thinking, we lose, because stupidity will always bring us down to that level and beat us with experience.

Completely incorrect. I see this time and again in adversary proceedings before administrative agencies and courts. The way to win is to appear reasonable, and to point to the other side as being unreasonable. If you are not concerned with appearing to be the reasonable party, you have zero chance of winning.


I don't think you're speaking to as big of a population with that approach as you think. Between media, social media, and pop culture what was 'centrist' 10 years ago is now right-leaning, and 'hard left' is getting further and further left. The only answer to make a centrist/neutral approach worthwhile at this point means pushing further right.
People vote on a hierarchy of what matters to them and it distills into fairly digital responses when all's said and done, and very few people can be swayed from a political bias with one or two concessions in policy whether it's bump stocks or whatever. I do not see a ban on bump stocks generating new pro-gun votes nor do I see allowing bump stocks generating new anti-gun votes.

I don't need to be speaking to a big part of the population. The last several elections were won by a small percentage of votes.

I talk to a lot of people on this issue, and have persuaded some to come to our side. There are a lot of persuadable anti-gun people out there - at least until you start defending bump stocks.


The 'useful' argument is a non-starter and one we should avoid entirely in gun policy.

If you do not learn what is important to the decision makers, and address those issues, you will lose. Arguing only the issues you think is important, without studying and addressing what matters to the decision makers, is a sure way to lose.

The attorney who won Heller spoke at the NRA CLE years ago. He studied Justice Kennedy in particular - the swing vote - and tailored his arguments accordingly.


Because once we validate ignorant (if not blindingly stupid) *opinions* on what is 'useful' then that opens the door against everything you just listed. Many antis think that *no* guns are useful. Then we have the fudds and Zumbos that are in denial about useful technological improvements on modern firearms, and then we have folks who want to home-build full auto 20mm Hispano Suiza cannons in their basement.
In matters of policy, the 'useful' argument shouldn't matter because it is an arbitrary opinion. That's how we ended up with all the 'sporting purpose' bullshit in the GCA of '68 and continue to deal with 'sporting purpose' issues in policy to include pistol grips, stocks, etc being banned on visual appearances based on pure fucking ignorance. Allowing your opinion to dictate your position on bumpstocks is one thing - conflating your opinion on the usefulness of a bumpstock as if it were scientific fact is where this goes pear-shaped and feeds the exact fire we're trying to put out.

Re-read my original post in this thread.

EVERY SINGLE concern you mention here is one that you can counter with your won rational argument. That is not the case with bump stocks.


The only answer we should have on this should be 'Rifle murders are very rare in the US and they are spectacularly rare compared to the number of legally owned modern rifles, nobody is made safer by this legislation and the suggestion that it does make people safer is blatantly false and politically motivated by opinion not established data-based facts. Furthermore, making policy based on emotional and ignorant understanding of a technical subject never leads to good policy regardless of the subject matter.'

Again, you are proposing to win an argument by completely ignoring what is important to those you are trying to persuade.


The fact that *I* think bumpstocks are stupid and useless is irrelevant on this. It sets a terrible precedent to let ignorant fuckheads win a victory like this based on nothing more than biased appearances and perceptions that cannot be supported by fact. They will take this precedent and run with it against adjustable stocks (CAN BE EASILY CONVERTED TO A BUMPSTOCK!!!!) standard cap magazines, etc etc it goes downhill fast.

And again, it wins us exactly fucking nothing on furthering 2A rights in other areas, or generating pro-gun votes. Nobody is going to say 'I was going to vote anti gun, but since gun people were so reasonable about bumpstocks, I'll vote pro-gun instead' Everyone on that topic has already made up their mind and the tiny percentage that might just fall into that category are not worth the damaging precedent we leave from baseless emotional bullshit being made into law.

The whole point of my original post was that we lose credibility when we argue for positions we cannot support with rational argument. When we lose credibility, we lose the ability to win the many winnable fights.

We are not going to lose our second amendment rights as a result of anything the anti-gunners do. We will lose them by failing to carefully consider our positions and being our own worse enemy.

[GyroF-16]

I have no interest in owning a bump stock. But I’m deeply concerned that the president thinks that he has the authority to direct an executive agency to BAN an item that was previously legal.
If he can direct the ATF to ban bump stocks, could he (or some future president) do other things... like direct the FCC to ban cell phones, or short-wave radios?
This strikes me as gross executive overreach, and something that needs to be promptly and vigorously challenged.

[BillSWPA]

I have no interest in owning a bump stock. But I’m deeply concerned that the president thinks that he has the authority to direct an executive agency to BAN an item that was previously legal.
If he can direct the ATF to ban bump stocks, could he (or some future president) do other things... like direct the FCC to ban cell phones, or short-wave radios?
This strikes me as gross executive overreach, and something that needs to be promptly and vigorously challenged.

Administrative law is not that simple.

It requires a grant of authority from Congress, defining the scope of that authority. Proper procedures must be followed. Although courts defer to agencies operating within their area of expertise (using that term very loosely in the case of BATFE), regulations are subject to review by the courts.

[Mike C]

BillSWPA, I’m with GuanoLoco on this. Trump sure as hell isn’t our friend.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[willie]

On MSN I saw mention of a soon to be released regulation banning bump stocks. I cast a critical eye on the part that said that existing bump stocks would have to be surrendered or destroyed. Note that the regulation's narrative has not been released so my statement may not be accurate. But, we will have a precedent for surrendering or destroying possessions like high capacity magazines.

[BillSWPA]

BillSWPA, I’m with GuanoLoco on this. Trump sure as hell isn’t our friend.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So Trump, who resisted all kinds of calls for all kinds of gun control after multiple mass shootings, but banned something EVERYONE ADMITS IS ESSENTIALLY USELESS, isn't our friend?

Does this make Obama our friend since it was his administration that made bump stocks legal?

What, then, is the standard for being our friend? Complete agreement on every single issue? Good luck.

Ronald Reagan's standard was agreeing 80% of the time. Trump has exceeded that by a significant amount.

[BehindBlueI's]

Ronald Reagan's standard was agreeing 80% of the time. Trump has exceeded that by a significant amount.

Apt, as Reagan presided over the '86 ban of new transferable machine guns and was part of the bi-partisan campaign for Clinton's AWB in '94, along with Ford and Carter. He also pushed for the Brady Bill, wanted a 7 day nation wide waiting period on handguns and signed a 15 day waiting period law as governor of California. Yet, now he's a conservative demigod for some reason. So Trump can be our "friend" as long as he just bans stuff nobody wants anyway, unless they do, then screw them. Because Trump.

[RevolverRob]

You know, about 40 minutes ago, I referenced the Third Amendment in another thread. The Amendment reads:


No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

If you look at the Wikipedia Entry for Amendment III - "In the words of Encyclopædia Britannica, "as the history of the country progressed with little conflict on American soil, the amendment has had little occasion to be invoked." To date, no major Supreme Court decision has used the amendment as its primary basis."

Seems awfully useless to me. I think we should just get rid of it. We'll let Trump issue an Executive Order declaring the Third Amendment, by virtue of its uselessness, null and void.

When we require purpose to protect anything, person, property, or rights - we are on the slippery slope. A slope that leads to the eventual revocation of broad rights as "usless".

"Use" has no use as a legal construction. Just because I don't view, read, or use midget pornography, does not mean it should be illegal. The same is true for bumpstocks. If "X" has been deemed legal by those agents who have been given authority by Congress to determine and regulate "X", then X is legal, pending judicial review of the granted authority to the regulators who regulate X, not the object itself.

I think Trump is a buffoon. I do not support a ban on bumpstocks. I hope this executive order is judicially reviewed.

[Kyle Reese]

Wait, did you think he was a conservative, or even better, a Libertarian? Hahahah!Libertarian, you say?32833

Sent from my VS995 using Tapatalk

[Mike C]

So Trump, who resisted all kinds of calls for all kinds of gun control after multiple mass shootings, but banned something EVERYONE ADMITS IS ESSENTIALLY USELESS, isn't our friend?

Does this make Obama our friend since it was his administration that made bump stocks legal?

What, then, is the standard for being our friend? Complete agreement on every single issue? Good luck.

Ronald Reagan's standard was agreeing 80% of the time. Trump has exceeded that by a significant amount.

Everything you stated doesn't make him our friend or our enemy. It makes him calculated IMHO. I don't think he is pro or anti gun and could probably be persuaded either way. Trump could have merely been trying not to piss off his voter base other wise everyone could just get aboard the impeach the POTUS gravy train. I don't know what his motivations were or are and I won't presume to guess or assume just because a few times his interests might have been in line with mine. As you've stated Trumps exceeded Reagan's standard of agreeing. If you think that any politician is your friend or, "our friend" you need your head examined. Politicians are nothing more than narcissistic pathological liars that will change direction with the wind if it benefits them or their ilk. I could trust one as far as I could throw one. Outside of this BBI pretty much crushed it here:


So Trump can be our "friend" as long as he just bans stuff nobody wants anyway, unless they do, then screw them. Because Trump.

[blues]

^^^^ And don't forget they need to ban all those "leppos" too. A leppo, what's a leppo?

https://s15-us2.startpage.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia3.s-nbcnews.com%2Fi%2FMSNBC%2FComponents%2FVideo%2F201 609%2Ftdy_highs_lows_160911.jpg&sp=164c8b35915144f96810811e36765540

At least he knows what "a reefer" is.

[GardoneVT]

According to the social consensus , Trump would be the second coming of the 2nd Amendment. Instead of national reciprocity of state issued carry permits and lawful automatic weapons, we have another gun control executive order.


Anyone care to explain why Trumps nickname isn’t “President Hypocrite” ?

[willie]

As someone from the past said, "The main difference between Democrats and Republicans is that Democrats will take your guns faster than will Republicans. We haven't seen the last of mass shootings. As they occur, our political support will shrink. So get ready.

[blues]

According to the social consensus , Trump would be the second coming of the 2nd Amendment. Instead of national reciprocity of state issued carry permits and lawful automatic weapons, we have another gun control executive order.


Anyone care to explain why Trumps nickname isn’t “President Hypocrite” ?


Well for one thing, he couldn't spell it.

[ralph]

Read some of the comments after following the link to Brietbart..One person there made an interesting comment..Trump could've done this with the idea that it'd end up in the Supreme Court, if it does, it'll likely be overturned, and, well, that's that.. That will be the end of it.. I don't know if this is what Trump's thinking, but it's an interesting idea..

[Totem Polar]

The way to win is to appear reasonable, and to point to the other side as being unreasonable. If you are not concerned with appearing to be the reasonable party, you have zero chance of winning.


I don’t think this is as absolute as you indicate here. From Academia to Alexandria O-C, the path to winning looks a lot more like a high school popularity contest to me, and a lot less like an informed debate. I mean, OMMV, and all that, but my life experience thus far is not really aligning with this whole idea of "the most reasonable argument wins."




We are not going to lose our second amendment rights as a result of anything the anti-gunners do. We will lose them by failing to carefully consider our positions and being our own worse enemy.

That’s not how it’s currently playing out in WA state, IMHO. In this corner of the US, the anti-gunners outspend the pro 2A folks by something like 25:1, including using Bloomberg money from out of state, on soundbite arguments that learn way more on emotion than fact. The antis have been doing plenty, to no minor effect. JMO. I know you’ve seen this, too.

[JRB]

Completely incorrect. I see this time and again in adversary proceedings before administrative agencies and courts. The way to win is to appear reasonable, and to point to the other side as being unreasonable. If you are not concerned with appearing to be the reasonable party, you have zero chance of winning.

Debating it in court and debating it to laymen/voters are two different audiences that need two different things. All of my posts in this thread thus far have been discussing the latter.



I don't need to be speaking to a big part of the population. The last several elections were won by a small percentage of votes.
That is a damn fair point.



I talk to a lot of people on this issue, and have persuaded some to come to our side. There are a lot of persuadable anti-gun people out there - at least until you start defending bump stocks.

I also talk to a lot of people on the topic of guns. My girlfriend has a lot of surprisingly left-leaning friends and none of them would follow the distinction you're espousing here. Virtually all of them are rabidly anti and see no differentiation in their perceived uselessness of any firearms or accessories that aren't for hunting, and even then they're wary of it because they don't believe in shooting Bambi.
The few that are somewhere in the middle mostly draw the line between target/hunting firearms and 'military style' weapons and handguns. Again, the line is much further left than the line between bumpstocks and otherwise normal AR's as you're asserting. Once the rational discourse leads them to the conclusion that yes, AR15's are simply modern rifles that should be legal for anyone that can own a firearm already - the bumpstock is seen as a silly gimmick as it should be. I've 'converted' around 5 people since the LV massacre and bumpstocks always came up in that conversation, and it was never the hard line you make it out to be. But that is my data sample of 5 individuals in my AO. Otherwise, the previously mentioned left-leaning anti-gun types made no differentiation about bumpstocks vs normal AR/AK pattern rifles - they're all evil and should be banned.



If you do not learn what is important to the decision makers, and address those issues, you will lose. Arguing only the issues you think is important, without studying and addressing what matters to the decision makers, is a sure way to lose.
Absolutely - speaking of the debate within a courtroom. But that's adjusting your argument to suit the overall goal of forwarding one's position, agenda, or case - not an excuse to roll the fuck over and accept a fiat ban on something with no recourse and no other gain for our goals.



The attorney who won Heller spoke at the NRA CLE years ago. He studied Justice Kennedy in particular - the swing vote - and tailored his arguments accordingly.

Yes, and while he did that job excellently, the Heller decision laid a lot of landmines for the future and wasn't the clear victory most folks take it to be. Particularly, the 'firearms in common use' part chilling tech development further and the assertion that the 2A can be "reasonably" regulated outside the home.



Re-read my original post in this thread.

I did, before I posted.



EVERY SINGLE concern you mention here is one that you can counter with your won rational argument. That is not the case with bump stocks.


Yes it is. There was one documented but absolutely terrible crime committed with them, when the tens of thousands of them produced otherwise had no issues. By that logic, we should ban Boeing 737's because they were used in the 9/11 attacks. Again, policy should be dictated by what can be supported with hard data from multiple data points over a scientifically sound period of time, and should account for all of the lawful uses (no matter how silly) and lawful owners of the same device/accessory/whatever. Policy SHOULD NOT be an emotional or ignorant decision based on flawed perception, which by rolling over on bump stocks, you are conceding that a baseless emotional argument on perceived uselessness to someone totally ignorant of the subject matter is a VALID REASON to ban something. While I don't give a shit about banning bump stocks, I DO give a shit about how that ban is implemented and this implementation is scary, with some very scary precedents for future bans on shit I WILL care about.



Again, you are proposing to win an argument by completely ignoring what is important to those you are trying to persuade.

Are we speaking in the context of a courtroom or the context of a (un)friendly debate with an anti-gun individual? Playing to the audience is important, I agree, but if we concede something it should be for a gain somewhere else, and if we're trying to appear reasonable, we should be using hard data and truths - e.g. "I don't want one, but they're flagrantly rare in crime, so I don't see banning them as productive because it'd be like banning cars with more than 600hp because 'they're useless' or 'nobody needs that much hp' or similarly baseless and arbitrary arguments."

If we're speaking in a courtroom environ, then sure, whatever appeals to the judge is best - but a half-win like Heller vs. DC is not a clear victory either.



The whole point of my original post was that we lose credibility when we argue for positions we cannot support with rational argument. When we lose credibility, we lose the ability to win the many winnable fights.

We've already lost credibility with most of them because they're inherently unable to see the reason why ANYONE NEEDS A GUN. I've had people screaming in my face closer than my Drill Sergeants ever did because I dared to be a white male with a military hair cut in the vicinity of a Trump rally in 2016. Reason is long the fuck gone, the only thing left is resolve and an unwillingness to lose. We can be civil, rational, and very reasonable in defense of pretty much anything that is fantastically rare in crime despite how those crimes were televised. But most of our opponents are completely irrational so there's no winning them over with rational discourse. Similarly, the handful that can be won with reason are coming toward our side not because we're rational but largely because of how irrational the left have become about everything, not just guns. Similarly, I would assert that the majority of the 'converts' to gun ownership and 2A rights come to that conclusion by way of escalating violence in their areas and the frequent inability of local governments to properly empower their LE to handle it.

The only recent national-level 'victories' for the 2A have come from NFA workarounds gimmicks like pistol braces and yes these stupid bumpstocks. The HPA getting shelved pretty much called it and we're back on the defensive. From the beginning of the 1994 AWB we've tried to be reasonable and tried to be rational and it at best was a holding action. They keep winning with chicken pecks like the bumpstock ban, or the barrel ban on imported parts kits, or the 7N6 ban, any of the numerous new laws hitting various states like WA, Cali, etc. Being reasonable hasn't won us a fucking thing, as far as I can see.

So I'm done being reasonable when it comes to accepting a loss. I don't give a fuck how useless a bumpstock is to me - not one more fucking inch unless we get an inch back somewhere it matters more. They keep throwing around words like 'compromise' but we get nothing in return and I'm done. YMMV and that's fine. Zumbo thought the same and look at where it got him.



We are not going to lose our second amendment rights as a result of anything the anti-gunners do. We will lose them by failing to carefully consider our positions and being our own worse enemy.

The laws that exist and the 2A are no longer congruent, so by that measure we've already lost our innate 2A rights - we're just innately lawful people and decent and thus do not break the law despite it being inherently unjust. I for one am tired of seeing so many folks like yourself willing to lose something simply because you don't personally care about it, and you continue to employ whatever mental gymnastics are required to justify it to yourselves as 'reasonable'.

I just hope that 50 years from now, whatever gun enthusiasts left won't be saying the same things about being 'reasonable' because 'nobody NEEDS a semiauto'. If we keep losing something without winning back something else, that's exactly what is going to happen. Giving up bumpstocks like this is just opening the door for that exact outcome.

[TheRoland]

The fundamental issue here is that we no longer have real representation. The Republicans have betrayed us. The NRA is controlled by people who think Oliver North is going to be an effective national leader.

Republicans controlled, for years, the Presidency and both houses of congress. Did we get Federal CCW? 50 State reciprocity? Anything to preempt regulation in ban states? Even import changes? Maybe just an incremental roll-back of machine gun or silencer regulation? No, we got an executive order banning bump stocks.


If we want our children to be able to own an AR15 and carry a gun for self defense, we need to start looking for people who actually care about that, not people who want to fleece the american people.

[mtnbkr]

Trump could've done this with the idea that it'd end up in the Supreme Court, if it does, it'll likely be overturned, and, well, that's that.. That will be the end of it.

So...more of the 3d Chess we keep hearing about with regards to Trump's political skills?

Chris

[blues]

So...more of the 3d Chess we keep hearing about with regards to Trump's political skills?

Chris

Ya beat me to it, brother. LOL!

[Grey]

Read some of the comments after following the link to Brietbart..One person there made an interesting comment..Trump could've done this with the idea that it'd end up in the Supreme Court, if it does, it'll likely be overturned, and, well, that's that.. That will be the end of it.. I don't know if this is what Trump's thinking, but it's an interesting idea..I got some nice beach front property in rhe Mojave I'd like to sell you...

Sent from my SM-G950U1 using Tapatalk

[fly out]

Sure, it won't surprise me if this happens, but, has anyone seen anything "official" in the last two days? If so, please post a link.

Every single mention of this I've seen that names a source names CNN as the source. Those that don't name a source say "reports say."

No leaked order, no person on the record. If it comes down exactly as CNN says it will, I'll be disappointed, but I'm going to wait until I see something more than "CNN reports..."

[ralph]

So...more of the 3d Chess we keep hearing about with regards to Trump's political skills?

Chris

Hey, I'm just making an observation is all..no 3d chess, or anything like that..just a simple observation. A question for all you brainiacs, exactly how is this going to be enforced? Suppose someone buys one at a gun show, pays with cash, exactly how are you going to track those down? The ATF can't be everywhere, Another question..in the article this ban is coming from the ATF, Since when does the ATF make law? If I remember right, that's congress's job.. So, unless I missed something, and,IF this truely is coming from the ATF, and not congress, I fail to see how it's valid at all.

[ralph]

I got some nice beach front property in rhe Mojave I'd like to sell you...

Sent from my SM-G950U1 using Tapatalk
Last time I looked, only congress can make laws, not the ATF, nor the president...

[jrm]

Hey, I'm just making an observation is all..no 3d chess, or anything like that..just a simple observation. A question for all you brainiacs, exactly how is this going to be enforced? Suppose someone buys one at a gun show, pays with cash, exactly how are you going to track those down? The ATF can't be everywhere, Another question..in the article this ban is coming from the ATF, Since when does the ATF make law? If I remember right, that's congress's job.. So, unless I missed something, and,IF this truely is coming from the ATF, and not congress, I fail to see how it's valid at all.

Wild speculation is not observation. And I don’t know how do they enforce drug laws they can’t be everywhere at once. Administrative law is a thing maybe it shouldn’t be such a thing but that is the world we live in. The legislative branch has been cedeing power to the executive branch a long time and the judicial branch is pretty cool with it.

[mtnbkr]

Hey, I'm just making an observation is all..no 3d chess, or anything like that..just a simple observation.
I know. I wasn't accusing you of that line of thought.


Suppose someone buys one at a gun show, pays with cash, exactly how are you going to track those down? The ATF can't be everywhere
Suppose someone gets an unregistered full auto rifle from their grandfather's attic? How exactly are you going to track that down?

Oh, you don't need to track it down because merely using it will out you? You'll "own" it, but won't be able to use it? What's the point?


Another question..in the article this ban is coming from the ATF, Since when does the ATF make law? If I remember right, that's congress's job.. So, unless I missed something, and,IF this truely is coming from the ATF, and not congress, I fail to see how it's valid at all.

They make enough "rules" via creative interpretations as it is. What's one more?

Chris

[Grey]

Last time I looked, only congress can make laws, not the ATF, nor the president...

Alright dude, keep beating that drum...

[ralph]

Alright dude, keep beating that drum...

Well,we're either a country of laws or we're not..it's just that simple..if you're happy with the status quo, then drive on..

[blues]

Alright dude, keep beating that drum...

C'mon, lighten up and give him a break. It's good to get a variety of perspectives whether they agree with our own or not.

[Grey]

Well,we're either a country of laws or we're not..it's just that simple..if you're happy with the status quo, then drive on..Has nothing to do with being happy with the status quo. It has everything to do with the fact that the way power and rule making in this country occurs is not so cut and dry.

Sent from my SM-G950U1 using Tapatalk

[Grey]

C'mon, lighten up and give him a break. It's good to get a variety of perspectives whether they agree with our own or not.Sorry blues, and ralph. Im a cranky dude that is totally jaded about our country right now. Ill go sit in the corner and drink a beer.

Sent from my SM-G950U1 using Tapatalk

[ralph]

Sorry blues, and ralph. Im a cranky dude that is totally jaded about our country right now. Ill go sit in the corner and drink a beer.

Sent from my SM-G950U1 using Tapatalk

I understand how you feel, beleive me, The U.S. I grew up in dosen't exist anymore..But, I'm not ready to give up on this country just yet, especially over something like this.. I don't like it, it's not right, but, it's not the hill I wanna die on..Besides, where else are we gonna go?

[blues]

Sorry blues, and ralph. Im a cranky dude that is totally jaded about our country right now. Ill go sit in the corner and drink a beer.

Sent from my SM-G950U1 using Tapatalk

Believe me, I walk around muttering and cursing under my breath a lot more than I used to. Have one for me, I'm about to have some coffee. (But I did have some Zin with dinner.)

[GardoneVT]

Let us put aside talk of the symptoms, and discuss the root cause of the problem.

This is our fault. As gun owners, the collective drumbeats always been “NO COMPROMISE!” “NO NEGOTIATION!” “NO HIPsTER CommIeS!!”

We see where that plan leads us. In an ideal world every American would know and love every syllable of the US Constitution. We don’t live there, and the reality on the ground is when no one can be bothered to reach out to the other side you’ve sentenced your movement to irrelevance. Why do we have single mothers opposing gun rights when a gun is exactly what single mothers need in a world full of violent criminals and underfunded LE? Why can’t hipsters and Democrats and Subaru driving lefties like guns too?

It’s a failure of outreach, pure and simple. I’m of the opinion we should collectively put aside letters and colors and just focus on advancing gun rights and ownership . If owning guns was a third rail political issue regardless of party affiliation, this thread wouldn’t exist- and neither would a lot of bad gun laws. That goal starts with ditching partisanship and welcoming everyone to the gun rights fold.

[HCountyGuy]

Let us put aside talk of the symptoms, and discuss the root cause of the problem.

This is our fault. As gun owners, the collective drumbeats always been “NO COMPROMISE!” “NO NEGOTIATION!” “NO HIPsTER CommIeS!!”

We see where that plan leads us. In an ideal world every American would know and love every syllable of the US Constitution. We don’t live there, and the reality on the ground is when no one can be bothered to reach out to the other side you’ve sentenced your movement to irrelevance. Why do we have single mothers opposing gun rights when a gun is exactly what single mothers need in a world full of violent criminals and underfunded LE? Why can’t hipsters and Democrats and Subaru driving lefties like guns too?

It’s a failure of outreach, pure and simple. I’m of the opinion we should collectively put aside letters and colors and just focus on advancing gun rights and ownership . If owning guns was a third rail political issue regardless of party affiliation, this thread wouldn’t exist- and neither would a lot of bad gun laws. That goal starts with ditching partisanship and welcoming everyone to the gun rights fold.

This, this right here.

In every facet of the things we see threatened, we need to get better at conveying WHY these things are (or should be) important to everyone.

Gun rights becoming a partisan issue really screwed things up. As noted, the very people who are railing against gun rights are the sorts who should have perhaps the greatest appreciator for the self-sufficiency they can provide. The fact they don’t believe that means we (gun owners) have fucked up immensely in getting out the gospel.

Our tactics thus far aren’t working and we’re getting closer to being backed in to a corner. We need to revamp our approach so others will have a profound appreciation for firearms, not simply as being instruments of violence, but for the liberty they provide individually.

[BehindBlueI's]

...in the article this ban is coming from the ATF, Since when does the ATF make law? If I remember right, that's congress's job.. So, unless I missed something, and,IF this truely is coming from the ATF, and not congress, I fail to see how it's valid at all.


Basically, Congress can delegate. Set a high level "goal" via law, let regulations fill in details to achieve that goal. Lawmakers realize nobody is an expert in all things. I don't know how to evaluate if a given medicine is safe for humans, best practices for air traffic control, etc. We recognize the need for technical expertise to regulate that sort of thing. Congress creates a FDA and FAA and makes a law that their regulations in their wheel house are enforceable.

[TAZ]

So before I get my feathers ruffled, has he actually signed a document? Or are we just speculating upon CNN’s speculations?

Is there precedent on confiscations out there?

[olstyn]

The whole point of my original post was that we lose credibility when we argue for positions we cannot support with rational argument. When we lose credibility, we lose the ability to win the many winnable fights.

We are not going to lose our second amendment rights as a result of anything the anti-gunners do. We will lose them by failing to carefully consider our positions and being our own worse enemy.

I don't think anyone here is debating the idea that bump stocks are dumb, useless toys.

However, there *is* a rational argument against banning them, and it's fairly simple and straightforward: Banning any item needs to be done on a rational basis; there must be a demonstrable harm done by failing to ban it. Basically, it's not up to the person who wants a bump stock to justify why they need it, or why it's useful. It's up to the person who wants to ban it to articulate the harm done by not banning it. Since bump stocks have only been criminally misused by one individual to commit one crime, it does not seem rational to me to ban them. As others have said, tens of thousands produced and sold, one (admittedly horrific) criminal act committed. That math does not add up to a ban, at least not in my head.

Further, that criminal act could have been committed, possibly more effectively, by converting the rifles in question to true full auto, which, as far as I understand, is not terribly difficult to do if one has access to the appropriate machine tools and is inclined to violate the law. Given that the Las Vegas shooter was willing to shoot hundreds of his fellow humans who had done him no harm, I think it's fairly safe to say that he wouldn't have had any qualms about illegally converting rifles to full auto; bump stocks were likely just an easier path than finding a machinist who was willing to do the job.

[Zincwarrior]

BillSWPA, I'm not a fan but the bump stock and would agree it's nothing more than a silly range toy. What really bothers me is outright ban with no compensation and the slippery slope this will setup for future arguments. Get a heavy left leaning president what's next? Look at how executive privilege/orders have been overused and abused. This just goes to show, (along with other behavior of the Trump administration) that Trump is nothing more than an Authoritarian and has no respect for our constitution or laws if it is of no benefit. Personally it sickens me. He could outlaw kittens tomorrow and I would still be upset.

I imagine the average Joe doesn't care about any of that. They just saw a terrorist open up with a machine gun in Vegas and shoot up an entire concert, and they are sick of this shit happening every month.

[Casual Friday]

All this talk of compromise and negotiations with the gun grabbers from a few PF members, what exactly is the other side going to bring to the negotiation? What are they proposing to give in exchange for banning bump stocks?

*SPOILER ALERT*- Absolutely nothing. You're a fool if you believe any different.

[HCountyGuy]

So we’re okay giving this up because it’s “a useless/stupid device”?

While most of us can agree on that we’d never own one because it’s a gimmick with no real benefit, that should not be the basis for giving it up. It should be a pretty straightforward understanding of how that argument against necessity/practicality will come back to bite us in the ass long-term.

Is this the hill to die on? Not in my book, or in the eyes of others here from what I’ve read. But once we concede on something because it’s needless, that argument can be carried forward on other items.

We’re essentially telling people who might shoot firearms as a hobby that their enjoyment is forfeitable.

Don’t go looking for the chance to shoot off an automatic weapon at any organized event because needless/impractical. Are you going to look me in the eye and tell me if somebody gave you the opportunity to flip the giggle switch on an MP5 and dump a mag at a berm for shits and giggles you wouldn’t just because there’s no practicality to it?

[Screwball]

I think bump stocks are useless... and would never buy one. That being said, I’d still fight for them.

It isn’t that I want bump stocks around, but don’t like that road... calling a stock with a spring on it a “machine gun.” Gun still fires with one pull of the trigger (which is part of the Federal definition). What is next? Binary triggers (own one in PA, and will buy a second when I move to ME; a lot cheaper than full-auto)? Lighter triggers? Then... it leads back to magazine capacities and semi-autos (NJ just went to 10 rounds, and while it likely wasn’t too shocking, it sucks to invest so much into something, and be said it is illegal in about a week and a half).

The NRA spouting their mouth how they should be reviewed... [emoji867] Way to sell out our rights. Why not ask for more money so you can fight for them back?

[GuanoLoco]

All this talk of compromise and negotiations with the gun grabbers from a few PF members, what exactly is the other side going to bring to the negotiation? What are they proposing to give in exchange for banning bump stocks?

*SPOILER ALERT*- Absolutely nothing. You're a fool if you believe any different.

The ‘other side’ brought a ban to the table . It is our side’s responsibility to put a balancing item on the table. How about we take suppressors off the NFA list.

[Grey]

The NRA is probably a bigger hinderance to the 2A right now than if they werent around. We need new 2A advocacy groups that arent in bed with a political party which in turns makes this a partisan issue. Not to mention all they seem to do is ask for money, send junk mail, and do fuck all.

Sent from my SM-G950U1 using Tapatalk

[Casual Friday]

The ‘other side’ brought a ban to the table . It is our side’s responsibility to put a balancing item on the table. How about we take suppressors off the NFA list.

They're not seeking negotiations. "We" have never received anything in return for further gun control being passed.

[BehindBlueI's]

All this talk of compromise and negotiations with the gun grabbers from a few PF members, what exactly is the other side going to bring to the negotiation? What are they proposing to give in exchange for banning bump stocks?

*SPOILER ALERT*- Absolutely nothing. You're a fool if you believe any different.

Why would they offer something when nothing is demanded? There's little political will behind saving them.

[Grey]

Why would they offer something when nothing is demanded? There's little political will behind saving them.It takes two to screw over the American people. The fact that this shit is even happening is not only the gun grabbers fault but the fault of those with an A+ rating that arent willing to spend political capital on the issue. The bitching needs to be directed at all of them.

Sent from my SM-G950U1 using Tapatalk

Edit: if it wasnt obvious I 100% with Bbl.

[CCT125US]

Just a ploy to increase value to shareholders. Industry is lagging, inject some panic, watch portfolios rise, have order come under judicial review, nothing changes in the end.

[BehindBlueI's]

It takes two to screw over the American people. The fact that this shit is even happening is not only the gun grabbers fault but the fault of those with an A+ rating that arent willing to spend political capital on the issue. The bitching needs to be directed at all of them.

Sent from my SM-G950U1 using Tapatalk

Why would they spend any capital? The message from voters has been clear that the lesser evil is good enough. Even gun owners don't seem particularly upset for the most part, and those who are riled up aren't going to jump ship from a B+ to an F.

I called this before the elections were done. If Hillary had won and was proposing this, there'd be weeping and gnashing of teeth. The Republicans would make a huge deal about it, because then it's an issue they can rally the troops with. But it's being done from "inside" and who are you rallying? The marginalized "Never Trump" Republicans? That's certainly been a winning strategy. So Not Hillary can ban bump stocks or nip at any other margins with zero repercussions and opposing him has no gain.

[Grey]

Why would they spend any capital? The message from voters has been clear that the lesser evil is good enough. Even gun owners don't seem particularly upset for the most part, and those who are riled up aren't going to jump ship from a B+ to an F.

I called this before the elections were done. If Hillary had won and was proposing this, there'd be weeping and gnashing of teeth. The Republicans would make a huge deal about it, because then it's an issue they can rally the troops with. But it's being done from "inside" and who are you rallying? The marginalized "Never Trump" Republicans? That's certainly been a winning strategy. So Not Hillary can ban bump stocks or nip at any other margins with zero repercussions and opposing him has no gain.Totally agree with you.

Sent from my SM-G950U1 using Tapatalk

[Zincwarrior]

The master of the deal failed to make any deal at all and just did exactly what everybody complained about Obama doing with Executive Orders. Who is our friend again?

There is only so many hours in the day, and those tweets are not going to write themselves.

[GardoneVT]

All this talk of compromise and negotiations with the gun grabbers from a few PF members, what exactly is the other side going to bring to the negotiation? What are they proposing to give in exchange for banning bump stocks?

*SPOILER ALERT*- Absolutely nothing. You're a fool if you believe any different.

Why is it a negotiation in the first place? Gun rights should be like voting rights- an inviolate issue separate from politics. The only reason a ban is considered to begin with is it has popular support. Why does gun control have popular support?

Because we have totally failed to market the concept.

Instead gun owners would rather bicker about 9mm vs .45 and trash talk liberals. That plan gets us gun control signed by NRA endorsed politicians.

[Zincwarrior]

Why is it a negotiation in the first place? Gun rights should be like voting rights- an inviolate issue separate from politics. The only reason a ban is considered to begin with is it has popular support. Why does gun control have popular support?

Because we have totally failed to market the concept.

Instead gun owners would rather bicker about 9mm vs .45 and trash talk liberals. That plan gets us gun control signed by NRA endorsed politicians.

Gun control gets support because there is a mass shooting every month now.

[Casual Friday]

Why would they offer something when nothing is demanded? There's little political will behind saving them.

Hearing protection act, removing suppressors from the NFA, nationwide concealed carry reciprocity, removing the NFA entirely. All things that we the people have been asking for for years. What have we got? Nothing. The NRA is more worried about a cop having to remove a thin blue line sticker from his patrol car than they are about fighting for gun rights.


Why is it a negotiation in the first place? Gun rights should be like voting rights- an inviolate issue separate from politics. The only reason a ban is considered to begin with is it has popular support. Why does gun control have popular support?

Because we have totally failed to market the concept.

Instead gun owners would rather bicker about 9mm vs .45 and trash talk liberals. That plan gets us gun control signed by NRA endorsed politicians.

I'm not looking for a negotiation.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I think I said somewhere that there comes a time in an cause driven organization when it becomes less interested in the cause and more interested in preserving the organization. The implications are clear.

I agree that bump stocks are toys for DBs. The problem with this decision is that it continues in the vein of banning items for their inherently more dangerous nature beyond the use in simple self-defense of the home. While some might disagree, Heller's intro emphasis:


Held:
1.
The Second Amendment protects
an individual right to possess a
firearm unconnected with service in
a militia, and to use that arm for
traditionally lawful purposes, such
as self-defense within the home.
Pp. 2–53.

sets a tone that argues against the higher capacity weapons. Lower court decisions have supported the view that home defense doesn't protect higher cap weaponery. They have explicitly stated so and not bought into gun advocate arguments that they are needed for home defense.

Certainly, the 5 is enough debate is clearly view held by some gun folks, when they denounce someone who carries a G19 and an extra mag as a nut. Zumbo and the guy from Guns and Ammo Metcalf on the terrorist nature of assault rifles are cases in point.

So who cares if bump stocks are banned> I could even support that on the grounds of they are stupid. However, I worry about the following what if. If the Las Vegas killer opened up with one of those circular 100 round mags or just opened up by switching out 30 rounders, would the Orange Overlord happily go along with banning them and probably the gun? I think so.

He is not a friend to anyone but himself and mercurial in beliefs. Hofman, in the SWAT article I mentioned elsewhere spoke of a standard of military small arms in use at the current time as protected. The intrinsic reason for this is clear beyond home defense but defense against tyranny.

We know the NRA won't play that note as 'marketing' speaks against. Also defense against tyranny would bring in gun rights supporters who views on tyranny are antithetical to the NRA's current political and marketing orientation.

The Justices get lost in the weeds of their own compromises and belief in their own intellectual brilliance which is really a cover for their personal beliefs. That's why we see ambiguous terms that have clear RKBA risks thrown about. Kavanaugh was not crystal clear. He bought into machine gun bans and common usage is a Rorschach test and thus a stupid way to proceed. Hofman's view was sensible.

Trump gets booted, Thomas leaves (he is old), Alito and Roberts are weak and they take a case on a state ban or there is another national ban after a moral panic - guess what. Now that will be good for panic gun sales (assuming grandfathering is allow) and waves of fund raising appeals.

The Orange One should have said this is a legislative issue but he can't think that deeply.

Folks say silly things that have no use this debate:

1. They are tools
2. They are sporting toys like MSRs
3. Draino and cars kill more
4. 5 is enough
5. Rational arguments will convince antigunners. Well, we know decision making is mostly emotional.
6. Well, we won't turn them in if banned and confiscation ordered


On the #5, if they are banned and you bury them (as Bubba is going to do with his bump stock), here's the outcome:

a. You can't compete with them
b. You can't hunt with them
c. If you use them in self-defense, that is giant negative in court
d. Your ex turns you in
e. Your kid tells the neighbors kid
f. They are only useful to be dug out for the 'Revolution' - which will be when you decide to fight Medicare for All and College for Free? Damn Socialists!

7. No compromise - stamp your feet! Legislation that enabled national reciprocity, voided all state bans, mandated easy concealed carry, HPA in trade for no Bump stocks - to propose a trade? Would you go for that?

As long as more proposed gun bans are good for business and election campaigning scare tactics, don't expect folks to really make progress on resolving positive RKBA issues. It's the same for other issues too. The elites want to keep the social issues in play on both sides. That's why you start to see grass root revolts on both sides.

[Mike C]

I have a question, has anyone bothered to write their representatives?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BCG]

I think I said somewhere that there comes a time in an cause driven organization when it becomes less interested in the cause and more interested in preserving the organization.

Also known as Jerry Pournelle's Iron Law of Bureaucracy (https://www.jerrypournelle.com/reports/jerryp/iron.html). But it's such an obvious observation that I'm sure many people have independently come up with some variation, both before and after Jerry did.


Pournelle's Iron Law of Bureaucracy states that in any bureaucratic organization there will be two kinds of people:


First, there will be those who are devoted to the goals of the organization. Examples are dedicated classroom teachers in an educational bureaucracy, many of the engineers and launch technicians and scientists at NASA, even some agricultural scientists and advisors in the former Soviet Union collective farming administration.

Secondly, there will be those dedicated to the organization itself. Examples are many of the administrators in the education system, many professors of education, many teachers union officials, much of the NASA headquarters staff, etc.


The Iron Law states that in every case the second group will gain and keep control of the organization. It will write the rules, and control promotions within the organization.

This has been stated in many places. Here is an early one.

It has been quoted many times.

[GardoneVT]

Gun control gets support because there is a mass shooting every month now.

There were mass shootings in the ‘20s and 30’s. It was still nonetheless legal to ship a weapon to one’s door.

The difference between then and now is guns are now a partisan political subject. They weren’t in the past, and intelligent minds should wonder why that is.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I have a question, has anyone bothered to write their representatives?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Every time I wrote Cornyn or Rafael Cruz, I got the same canned letter about supporting the 2nd Amend. There was no indication that the actual subject matter of the letter was addressed beyond an Intern saying send out the gun nut response.

They won't cross the Orange Overlord. Cruz called him all kinds of fighting words names and then kissed the ring when Beto was looking credible.

Going to clean my EBR while I still can own it.

[GardoneVT]

I have a question, has anyone bothered to write their representatives?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Pointless. A modern politician will have a very data driven idea of who their constituents are and what they like. So one letter from an outlier will change nothing, except make their aides laugh before dumping it in the rubbish.

Protesting, writing letters, that’s patching the pothole in January. You want to fix the hole for good? You need to get the backhoe, close the road and do it right.

For guns this starts with the NRA exiting DC politics, shaking up their management and decoupling gun rights promotion from the GOP. This is the jackhammer phase of the project; all the old pavement of bad political decisions and good ol boy management must be dug up and carted away.

Then the NRA needs a name change. After which it will then be free to contribute and advocate for the people who need guns the most; single moms at risk of assault, working people in bad neighborhoods, etcetera and so forth. This is the pavement laying process ; if the NRA is reformatted into a true gun advocacy group instead of a GOP advertising agency we may yet stem the tide. Keep throwing asphalt on the pothole, and no one’s gonna use the road anymore.

[Guinnessman]

Every time I wrote Cornyn or Rafael Cruz, I got the same canned letter about supporting the 2nd Amend. There was no indication that the actual subject matter of the letter was addressed beyond an Intern saying send out the gun nut response.

They won't cross the Orange Overlord. Cruz called him all kinds of fighting words names and then kissed the ring when Beto was looking credible.

Going to clean my EBR Before it disappears in a boating accident .

FIFY:p

[BCG]

I have a question, has anyone bothered to write their representatives?


Every time I wrote Cornyn or Rafael Cruz, I got the same canned letter about supporting the 2nd Amend. There was no indication that the actual subject matter of the letter was addressed beyond an Intern saying send out the gun nut response.


Pointless.

I used to write to my elected representatives regarding gun-owner control back in the 1990s. My experiences mirror the above.

PS - and when, more recently, I started meeting my elected representatives and other officials in person regarding another issue - one that should have been a no-brainer for self-described "Progressive" Democrats to support - the responses were even worse. But that's another story.

[BCG]

if the NRA is reformatted into a true gun advocacy group

I would use the phrase "gun-owner advocacy group" instead.

I'm not a PR person nor political consultant, so I'm probably wrong and have no idea what I'm talking about. But it seems that we should be speaking about "gun-owners rights" instead of "gun rights", or "gun-owner control" instead of "gun control".

For example, proponents of legalized abortion don't talk about "abortion". They talk about "pro-choice" and "women's health". And -- for better or worse, depending on your opinion -- it's been very effective at influencing the debate. Tell a Leftist that they are "pro-abortion", and they will get angry at you in your face; trust me on this one.

Meanwhile, a lot of gun owners keep mocking people who use words like "clip" and "assault weapon", as though such demonstrations of their intellectual superiority are persuasive.

Just a thought.

[LittleLebowski]

I have a question, has anyone bothered to write their representatives?



Dear Mr. Lebowski,

Thank you for contacting me on the important matter of gun violence. I am a gun owner and a strong supporter of the Second Amendment right of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms. As the same time, it is important to acknowledge the deadly consequences that can follow if dangerous weapons land in the wrong hands. Each year, more than 30,000 Americans lose their lives through the use of firearms. For this reason, I believe we must take concrete steps to reduce gun violence in order to keep our communities safe.

I have listened to the views of Virginians across the Commonwealth – from law enforcement officials to gun owners to mental health experts to gun safety advocates. I recognize that many fear that their Second Amendment rights could come under attack, while others passionately call for stricter gun laws. I understand the concerns on both sides of the issue and I am committed to protecting Second Amendment rights while vigilantly working to make sure that criminals, terrorists, and the dangerously mentally ill do not get their hands on weapons capable of inflicting massive casualties in a very short period of time.

In the Senate, I am working with my colleagues from both parties to advance common sense legislation to curb gun violence. I believe that it is critical to strengthen our background-check system and I support the ban on the sale, transfer, manufacture, and importation of military-style assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines.

We have witnessed far too many tragedies in our communities across the nation that are the result of gun violence and we must take steps to prevent future tragedies. I am committed to making sure guns are out of the hands of those who pose a danger to themselves and others, while respecting the rights of law-abiding gun owners.

Again, thank you for contacting me. If there’s another issue that’s important to you or a question you’d like to ask, I invite you to send me a message through my website and follow my work in the Senate on Facebook and Twitter. You can also sign up for email updates here to get the latest on my work in the Senate. I look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,
MARK R. WARNER
United States Senator

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Meanwhile, a lot of gun owners keep mocking people who use words like "clip" and "assault weapon", as though such demonstrations of their intellectual superiority are persuasive.

That's a good point. When someone wants to ban assault bangbangs, somebody says that is not an assault bangbang as a real assault bangbang is fully auto, blah, blah. That is used to convince the person not to want to ban the gun in question. If you pay attention, savvy folks have picked that up and now say military style semiautomatic rifles. The industry modern sporting rifle sounds rather lame in contrast.

As far as clip vs. mag, I've seen some reproductions of Army documents about the 1911 that mention clips.

I grant you that criticizing a thing that goes up might be useful.

[Mike C]

For those of you without the defeatist attitude, (it doesn't matter) when you contact your representatives are you laying out facts for them? I have seen a lot of blanket templates going to senators and congressmen and blanket letters back. I don't think they have the same effect as a genuine letter filled with facts and a coherent argument followed up by a phone call, voting, contributing money in the right place, etc. I know when I got some bullshit letter back I called and bitched, I also sent more letters and am sure to tell everyone I know or who will listen about their lack of effort. Whether or not some lackey shit-bird got a laugh or not doesn't matter but it does matter that I do what I can about it. I do think we have to use proper channels for starters then be active to effect change. I'm not saying one letter or e-mail is going to fix it but I am surprised at the general attitude in this topic. I would figure despite the bump stocks being stupid the manner in which this whole process is being undertaken is fucked up and there would/should be more upset. I'm not saying anyone needs to be in the streets torching cars but WTF?

GardoneVT, dude you make some solid ass points about how fucked up the NRA is and there needs to be complete separation from the GOP and politics in general and you're damn straight about being all inclusive no doubt about that. I'd also love to see the NRA get a face lift because I don't want to contribute to them in current form. I'm sick of the constant whining for money and letters and e-mail to create panic to drive donations. At the same time man I don't agree at all that it is a waste of time.

[GardoneVT]

For those of you without the defeatist attitude, (it doesn't matter) when you contact your representatives are you laying out facts for them? I have seen a lot of blanket templates going to senators and congressmen and blanket letters back. I don't think they have the same effect as a genuine letter filled with facts and a coherent argument followed up by a phone call, voting, contributing money in the right place, etc. I know when I got some bullshit letter back I called and bitched, I also sent more letters and am sure to tell everyone I know or who will listen about their lack of effort. Whether or not some lackey shit-bird got a laugh or not doesn't matter but it does matter that I do what I can about it. I do think we have to use proper channels for starters then be active to effect change. I'm not saying one letter or e-mail is going to fix it but I am surprised at the general attitude in this topic. I would figure despite the bump stocks being stupid the manner in which this whole process is being undertaken is fucked up and there would/should be more upset. I'm not saying anyone needs to be in the streets torching cars but WTF?


The idea a politician will change their stance over a letter or series thereof is obsolete. Today , intelligent politicians have access to data which shows a precise percentage of where their constituents stand on any given issue .Subdivided by demographics and headcount. Before a politician says yea or nay to any proposal they’ll have a fairly good idea how their voters will react, which means sending letters is just fulfilling a reaction they’re expecting. No one’s mind is going to be changed from a letter they already expect to get.

The way forward isn’t letters, civic action, lawsuits or GOP endorsements. It’s making a grassroots appeal to ordinary Americans about the value of gun ownership. Do that, and the polls will follow. When the polls follow that public will so in turn will the representatives, and thereafter the judiciary.

[blues]

The way forward isn’t letters, civic action, lawsuits or GOP endorsements. It’s making a grassroots appeal to ordinary Americans about the value of gun ownership.

Can't get much more "grass roots" than this:

https://s14-eu5.startpage.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.ytimg.com%2Fvi%2FZc IIQyENrWY%2Fmaxresdefault.jpg&sp=96c03d310d2c6e35efbb56720e353c6b

For want of a gun...a life was lost.

(You can't always hold out until the cavalry arrives.)

[joshs]

The idea a politician will change their stance over a letter or series thereof is obsolete. Today, intelligent politicians have access to data which shows a precise percentage of where their constituents stand on any given issue .Subdivided by demographics and headcount. Before a politician says yea or nay to any proposal they’ll have a fairly good idea how their voters will react, which means sending letters is just fulfilling a reaction they’re expecting. No one’s mind is going to be changed from a letter they already expect to get.

The way forward isn’t letters, civic action, lawsuits or GOP endorsements. It’s making a grassroots appeal to ordinary Americans about the value of gun ownership. Do that, and the polls will follow. When the polls follow that public will so in turn will the representatives, and thereafter the judiciary.

How many federal or state legislative offices have you worked in to make such a sweeping statement? I've literally never seen an office with a large enough research budget to do the modeling and polling that it would take to develop what you are describing. Also, a ton of the issue modeling done in the most recent cycle was wrong. Many offices still use the basic for/against tally for particular pieces of legislation/policies. However, there is a growing trend of using filters for form letters, but most organizations using form letters have already figured out how to defeat those filters. Contacting your representatives is still an extremely important way to get the policies you want. There is a reason that every major issue advocacy organization spends substantial capital trying to connect voters with their representatives.

If you think that we're somehow going to get better results by having giving up on lobbying and litigation, we'll have to agree to disagree. That's how things are done in the US. We may not like it, but just pretending the world doesn't work that way won't make it so.

On the R/D grading/endorsement issue. I've worked in ILA for 9 years and I've never seen the letter next to a candidate's name have an impact on their grade or endorsement. Those decisions are made purely on their questionnaire answers, voting record, and public statements.

[GardoneVT]

If you think that we're somehow going to get better results by having giving up on lobbying and litigation, we'll have to agree to disagree. That's how things are done in the US. We may not like it, but just pretending the world doesn't work that way won't make it so.

Why is the NRA in the lobbying & litigation business in the first place?
Is it really to help gun owners? Or is it to help the organization and it’s managers?



On the R/D grading/endorsement issue. I've worked in ILA for 9 years and I've never seen the letter next to a candidate's name have an impact on their grade or endorsement. Those decisions are made purely on their questionnaire answers, voting record, and public statements.

This is Trumps NRA Endorsement press release for 2016:
https://www.ammoland.com/2016/10/nra-releases-final-donald-trump-rating-endorsement-2016/#axzz5YOiqTC7h

Today, in 2018 we see the same politician has banned bumpstocks and is considering expanding the NICS background check law , in direct opposition to the NRAs 2016 endorsement.

I’ve little doubt the NRA is quite talented at playing the DC lobbying machine. A lot of money got spent by the NRA supporting Trump , and it’s gotten us another gun control bill for a reward. Don’t tell me it was an impartial decision made purely on the fact Trumps been a lifelong backer of gun rights.

We will have to disagree on many things. One of them is that the NRAs lobbying and legislative efforts are primarily for the benefit of anyone but the NRA.

[joshs]

Why is the NRA in the lobbying & litigation business in the first place?
Is it really to help gun owners? Or is it to help the organization and it’s managers?

In 1934, when the movement to pass the NFA began, the NRA established the federal affairs division to attempt to prevent passage of the act and, at a minimum, to stop the effective banning of all handguns. (Remember that the $200 tax was the equivalent of about $3700 in 2018 dollars). The NRA still did not directly lobby except in limited circumstances

After passage of the GCA in 1968, the NRA formed the Institute for Legislative Action to better address the growing political threats to the exercise of Second Amendment rights. ILA was set up to directly lobby and support litigation efforts across the country. In my experience, the people who work in ILA, especially long term, could likely make more money elsewhere, but stay because they care about the issue and improving the treatment of gun owners in the United States. I'm not sure of another legal job I could have where dry firing in my office would be completely acceptable.

You seem to think that we should go back to the pre-ILA NRA. Pre-ILA there were less than a handful of right to carry states, now there are 42 and every state has some form of carry. Pre-ILA there were very few states with effective firearm preemption, now almost every state is protected from having a complete patchwork of gun laws statewide. Pre-ILA, over 60% of the American people supported a complete ban on handguns, now 70-80% oppose such a ban. Most importantly, pre-ILA there were zero votes for the individual right to keep and bear arms on the Supreme Court, let alone the votes to strike down restrictive carry laws or AW bans. According to former Justice Stevens there are now reasons for gun owners to be optimistic regarding 2A cases at the high court. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/26/us/politics/john-paul-stevens-memoir.html


This is Trumps NRA Endorsement press release for 2016:
https://www.ammoland.com/2016/10/nra-releases-final-donald-trump-rating-endorsement-2016/#axzz5YOiqTC7h

Today, in 2018 we see the same politician has banned bumpstocks and is considering expanding the NICS background check law , in direct opposition to the NRAs 2016 endorsement.

I’ve little doubt the NRA is quite talented at playing the DC lobbying machine. A lot of money got spent by the NRA supporting Trump , and it’s gotten us another gun control bill for a reward. Don’t tell me it was an impartial decision made purely on the fact Trumps been a lifelong backer of gun rights.

We will have to disagree on many things. One of them is that the NRAs lobbying and legislative efforts are primarily for the benefit of anyone but the NRA.

The problem with bump stocks, as you yourself has admitted, is that they are difficult to defend to the American people. For this reason, if the existing Curbelo/Feinstein language (which would do a lot more than just ban bump stocks) were tacked on to another bill, it would likely get enough votes for passage. The same will be even more true in the next Congress. For my thoughts on what DoJ could have done, here's an article that summarizes our comments (with a link to the comments): https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2018/07/luis-valdes/nra-ila-bump-stock-stance-amnesty-for-owners-and-open-the-registry/

The Trump administration also clarified that it is legal to shoulder pistol brace equipped pistols, is moving forward with a rule to move export control of firearms from the State Department to the Commerce Department (while this might seem to primarily benefit industry, many gun owners know the headache of dealing with anything regulated under ITAR and this rule will fix all of those problems more here: https://www.nraila.org/articles/20180801/trump-s-export-reforms-will-benefit-industry-security-and-gun-owners), and it's possible that we will see more beneficial regulations now that legislative movement will be less likely in the next Congress.

As for your comments about NRA's goals, I find them very disrespectful to our staff who are the most hardworking and motivated people I've ever had the pleasure to work with.

[JAD]

Thanks for your comments, Josh; I expected a reasoned response and got one. I think there is a lot of dissonance among a minority of nominal supporters of the 2A (or at least their right to bear arms) who are eager to disassociate themselves from conservative attitudes that their tribe associates with the 2A. They therefore reflexively attack whatever position the NRA takes on an issue as a means of virtue signaling to their imagined cohort.

I recognize that the NRA and specifically the ILA are the only consistently effective means by which the 2A cause has been advanced over the past several decades and particularly in this century under what is still the general leadership.

[wsr]

This a a definite disappointment and pisses me off, but to call Trump a anti, enemy, hypocrite is going a little far...how many of those that are labeling him as such support other anti 2A laws?
support the NFA...hypocrite
support felons losing thier 2A for life...traitor
support background checks...enemy
against constitutional carry...hypocrite

very few are absolutists with regards to the 2A, but are ready to label others for the same type offense

[GardoneVT]

In 1934, when the movement to pass the NFA began, the NRA established the federal affairs division to attempt to prevent passage of the act and, at a minimum, to stop the effective banning of all handguns. (Remember that the $200 tax was the equivalent of about $3700 in 2018 dollars). The NRA still did not directly lobby except in limited circumstances

After passage of the GCA in 1968, the NRA formed the Institute for Legislative Action to better address the growing political threats to the exercise of Second Amendment rights. ILA was set up to directly lobby and support litigation efforts across the country. In my experience, the people who work in ILA, especially long term, could likely make more money elsewhere, but stay because they care about the issue and improving the treatment of gun owners in the United States. I'm not sure of another legal job I could have where dry firing in my office would be completely acceptable.

You seem to think that we should go back to the pre-ILA NRA. Pre-ILA there were less than a handful of right to carry states, now there are 42 and every state has some form of carry. Pre-ILA there were very few states with effective firearm preemption, now almost every state is protected from having a complete patchwork of gun laws statewide. Pre-ILA, over 60% of the American people supported a complete ban on handguns, now 70-80% oppose such a ban. Most importantly, pre-ILA there were zero votes for the individual right to keep and bear arms on the Supreme Court, let alone the votes to strike down restrictive carry laws or AW bans. According to former Justice Stevens there are now reasons for gun owners to be optimistic regarding 2A cases at the high court. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/26/us/politics/john-paul-stevens-memoir.html


This mindset is precisely the problem I’m pointing out.

It’s all defensive thinking, going all the way back to the 1930s . Laws are proposed, then the NRA acts.
Gun control rules get passed, then the fight begins. My simple point is the NRA -or a successor organization thereof- should act before a rule gets proposed. Preferably without the GOP slant.

If ordinary Americans valued gun rights at the voting level we wouldn’t need lawsuits and reactionary infrastructure; any more then we need an advocacy group to fight laws to ban female voting rights.




The problem with bump stocks, as you yourself has admitted, is that they are difficult to defend to the American people. For this reason, if the existing Curbelo/Feinstein language (which would do a lot more than just ban bump stocks) were tacked on to another bill, it would likely get enough votes for passage. The same will be even more true in the next Congress. For my thoughts on what DoJ could have done, here's an article that summarizes our comments (with a link to the comments): https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2018/07/luis-valdes/nra-ila-bump-stock-stance-amnesty-for-owners-and-open-the-registry/

The Trump administration also clarified that it is legal to shoulder pistol brace equipped pistols, is moving forward with a rule to move export control of firearms from the State Department to the Commerce Department (while this might seem to primarily benefit industry, many gun owners know the headache of dealing with anything regulated under ITAR and this rule will fix all of those problems more here: https://www.nraila.org/articles/20180801/trump-s-export-reforms-will-benefit-industry-security-and-gun-owners), and it's possible that we will see more beneficial regulations now that legislative movement will be less likely in the next Congress.

As for your comments about NRA's goals, I find them very disrespectful to our staff who are the most hardworking and motivated people I've ever had the pleasure to work with.

All of which is a far cry from the commitments outlined in the 2016 endorsement release I quoted earlier. When an employee is hired on to achieve X number of targets and only one of them are met, they’re held accountable for this non-performance. Especially when hiring said employee costs millions of dollars. Trump so far hasn’t delivered on his campaign commitments to enhance gun rights, and the NRA spent millions of member dollars promoting him on those points.

Which brings me to your last point; one can and should criticize an organizations decisions and motivation when appropriate, without disrespecting the individual contributions of its members. If you stated the Air Force Officer corps is suffering from rampant careerism I wouldn’t feel offended , or that you’ve somehow disrespected the sacrifices of my wingmen. Declaring Enron a fraud doesn’t change the fact lots of ethical and hardworking people worked there too. I stand by my statement regarding the motives of NRAs management working for themselves first ,and gun owners second.

[TheRoland]

I stand by my statement regarding the motives of NRAs management working for themselves first ,and gun owners second.

I don't think this is the problem, honestly. I think they don't have a coherent strategy for the situation we're in, where the party they've been backing is no longer reliable, and where generational changes to the culture are catching up with them.

Blaming mass shootings on video games, thus alienating every millennial on either side of the issue, isn't about serving themselves. It's about being stupid.

Or at least not understanding things have changed since the 90s.

[BCG]

Blaming mass shootings on video games, thus alienating every millennial on either side of the issue, isn't about serving themselves. It's about being stupid.

So was giving Ajit Pai the "Charlton Heston Courage Under Fire Award" (https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?30108) for repealing the FCC's internet neutrality rules.

It did nothing to promote gun-owner rights, but did alienate folks who favor net neutrality (and don't trust Internet Service Providers, or the telecom industry in general).

[olstyn]

So was giving Ajit Pai the "Charlton Heston Courage Under Fire Award" (https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?30108) for repealing the FCC's internet neutrality rules.

It did nothing to promote gun-owner rights, but did alienate folks who favor net neutrality (and don't trust Internet Service Providers, or the telecom industry in general).

I'm not even a millenial (40 years old makes me late gen X), and both the video game/movie/TV blaming and the net neutrality thing annoy me. I REALLY wish the NRA would stay on point instead of running off into the weeds on issues and concepts which are not related to their mission.

As I've stated previously on this forum, as a pro-gun, pro-choice, pro LGBTQ+ rights atheist who tends to be financially conservative, I often feel like I have nowhere to belong politically. I agree with the Democrats on some issues, but 99% of them are batshit when it comes to guns, and I hate the situation that has resulted from Obamacare, and that is 100% their fault. On the other hand, by aligning strongly with the Republican party and wandering outside its lane, the NRA positions itself on the opposite side of several of those issues from me, which makes it hard for me to want to donate to them or join. I'm still glad that they exist and fight for gun owner rights, but I'm not quite ready to be directly associated with them either.

I voted for Republicans almost exclusively in 2016 and 2018, but that's largely because the Democrats seem to have a stronger potential to do harm, not because I think the Republicans are going to be in any way effective at doing good. :(

[joshs]

I'm not even a millenial (40 years old makes me late gen X), and both the video game/movie/TV blaming and the net neutrality thing annoy me. I REALLY wish the NRA would stay on point instead of running off into the weeds on issues and concepts which are not related to their mission.

As I've stated previously on this forum, as a pro-gun, pro-choice, pro LGBTQ+ rights atheist who tends to be financially conservative, I often feel like I have nowhere to belong politically. I agree with the Democrats on some issues, but 99% of them are batshit when it comes to guns, and I hate the situation that has resulted from Obamacare, and that is 100% their fault. On the other hand, by aligning strongly with the Republican party and wandering outside its lane, the NRA positions itself on the opposite side of several of those issues from me, which makes it hard for me to want to donate to them or join. I'm still glad that they exist and fight for gun owner rights, but I'm not quite ready to be directly associated with them either.

I voted for Republicans almost exclusively in 2016 and 2018, but that's largely because the Democrats seem to have a stronger potential to do harm, not because I think the Republicans are going to be in any way effective at doing good. :(

Other than occasionally criticizing the field of paleontology (that's an inside joke with RevolverRob) I think ILA generally does a pretty good job of staying on message. As someone whose childhood introduction to firearms was through video games (I'm not from a pro-gun family), I certainly understand that firearms in video games are bringing young people to our side.

[olstyn]

Other than occasionally criticizing the field of paleontology (that's an inside joke with RevolverRob) I think ILA generally does a pretty good job of staying on message. As someone whose childhood introduction to firearms was through video games (I'm not from a pro-gun family), I certainly understand that firearms in video games are bringing young people to our side.

I'm not so much criticizing ILA as the NRA as a whole. There has been a lot of off topic/off message stuff put out by the other "branches" of the organization, including but not limited to statements by its president. The work you do is the part of the NRA that I value most highly.

[JRB]

Other than occasionally criticizing the field of paleontology (that's an inside joke with RevolverRob) I think ILA generally does a pretty good job of staying on message. As someone whose childhood introduction to firearms was through video games (I'm not from a pro-gun family), I certainly understand that firearms in video games are bringing young people to our side.

In the lexicon of common discussion, there is no NRA-ILA, only the NRA. So the ILA's focus is lost completely under the "NRA" banner and very, very optically terrible moves like giving that slimeball Ajit Pai an award that did nothing good for the reputation of either the NRA or the ILA. It alienated the hell out of a lot of gun owners and even NRA members, including myself. I damn near cut up my card to send it back to the NRA and renounce my membership after that - after all the anti-video game and wild political ramblings of Mr. LaPierre it was the damn near the straw that broke the camel's back.

The NRA should avoid any commentary or discussion on anything unless it's for 2A goals and ONLY 2A goals.

I've been in the Army for 10 years, and I'm also an NRA life member. There are dozens of Soldiers I know under 25 years of age that are gun owning, 2A loving enthusiasts. But their perception of the NRA is overwhelmingly negative due to the anti-video-game narrative that the NRA regularly pushes. Many have openly advocated for other pro-2A organizations but none are NRA members because of the (R) party line, non-2A politics the NRA mixes in with everything.

The ILA would do well to further separate itself from the NRA, and the NRA as a whole would do well to stop speaking on or otherwise involving itself in anything but advocacy of gun rights and safe ownership for EVERYONE.

[LOKNLOD]

On the one hand, I agree that the NRA tying itself to the GOP and non-gun-related issues ('socialist wave!') is bad for inclusion. But there's no denying it is a very strongly partisan issue at the national level, even if the people who like guns cover a broad spectrum of opinions on other issues. The Democrats have made being rabidly anti-gun a party plank. That's a fact. Every Democrat in office, every bit of power they have, is a threat to the 2nd Amendment right now. Patrick Henry himself could rise from the dead and run for Senate on an entirely pro-gun campaign, but if he gets confused and slaps the 51st (D) behind his name when he shows up, he would be empowering Warren's and Schumer's agenda. Effectively any work the NRA does in the political forum is going to be in the vein of helping select the most pro-gun and/or most general-election-likely-to-win Republican, and weeding out anti-gun ones. That's just how it is now, and I don't see it changing much.

They need to not alienate folks over non-political issues (games) but anyone is delusional if they don't see that supporting NRA = supporting GOP for the time being.

[Savage Hands]

Let us put aside talk of the symptoms, and discuss the root cause of the problem.

This is our fault. As gun owners, the collective drumbeats always been “NO COMPROMISE!” “NO NEGOTIATION!” “NO HIPsTER CommIeS!!”

We see where that plan leads us. In an ideal world every American would know and love every syllable of the US Constitution. We don’t live there, and the reality on the ground is when no one can be bothered to reach out to the other side you’ve sentenced your movement to irrelevance. Why do we have single mothers opposing gun rights when a gun is exactly what single mothers need in a world full of violent criminals and underfunded LE? Why can’t hipsters and Democrats and Subaru driving lefties like guns too?

It’s a failure of outreach, pure and simple. I’m of the opinion we should collectively put aside letters and colors and just focus on advancing gun rights and ownership . If owning guns was a third rail political issue regardless of party affiliation, this thread wouldn’t exist- and neither would a lot of bad gun laws. That goal starts with ditching partisanship and welcoming everyone to the gun rights fold.


I work part time for a gun shop in California, I’m not Caucasian and help educate people on firearms, their history, safety, pros and cons of each etc... Our customer base is extremely diverse and serve almost anyone that comes through those doors that doesn’t reak like marijuana or mention possible illegal activities. When possible I do try to explain that the 2nd Amendment should be looked at as a civil right, explain why AR’s shouldn’t be banned and their purpose in the modern world among other things. All I can do is try opening people’s minds and perspectives one customer at a time.

[BehindBlueI's]

I think Grossman's book helped give some "legitimacy" to the video games narrative, although it's complete bullshit. I think the NRA latched on to it as a way to divert attention. See, it's not the GUNS fault, it's these VIDEO GAMES that need to be regulated. Look at the tap dancing bear! sort of stunt.

[TheRoland]

I think Grossman's book helped give some "legitimacy" to the video games narrative, although it's complete bullshit. I think the NRA latched on to it as a way to divert attention. See, it's not the GUNS fault, it's these VIDEO GAMES that need to be regulated. Look at the tap dancing bear! sort of stunt.

Yes. On Killing was 1995.

And recall that regulating video game violence was something even liberals like Clinton were concerned about. Emphasizing "were". It's a talking point for 1995.

I think we're all violently agreeing with each other. What's a millennial gun owner supposed to do about it? I've let my NRA membership lapse, and my funding had gone instead to local organizations and to legal challenges. But it'd be nice to not have the 600 pound elephant stomping around with no stragetgy.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

There is a tendency in the gun world to look for excuses for owning guns given the violence due to them. The tool, MSR metaphors to make them toy like. The AR isn't really an assault rifle. Things like that. They are really nice guns. Draino is a killer.

Another is to find a different causal agent. The gun world has toyed with:

1. Mental Illness - which is ill defined in such polemics, doesn't really predict except in certain very defined circumstances, has the risk of given anti-gun folks wide diagnostic ability to take guns away from many foks (now some may be good candidates for such, but fear overreach).
2. Some organizations toyed with Autism as the magic causal agent, so ban guns from the spectrum. Not based on fact and just a diversion.
3. Video Games - sort of an expert on this so my take:

a. The video game professional peer reviewed literature is very iffy. Many of the studies don't replicate, show null effects or show effect in the lab that dissipate very, very quickly, use dependent variables that have not been shown to transfer or give insight into real behaviors.

b. The idea of the game is that it primes aggressive ideation and behavior. So if we get rid of them, folks will not pick up their 'tools' or sporting toys and do bad things. Sorry, folks and NRA folks who might push that. Read the literature. The same experimental paradigms that suggest video games prime aggression have used weapons (guns, bang, bang) to show that guns (tools, toys?) prime the same sort of aggressive behavior. So to think that if a game primes violence, having real guns, shooting real guns, studying real guns wouldn't do the same thing is idiotic.

You cannot use games as an excuse for violence priming when (if the research holds up), real guns and images of such do the same thing.

But the literature is weak for both the game and gun violence priming claim.

It is a mistake for the NRA or anybody to try to make the connection for the most violent instances we see. The gun crime increase was in major part driven by economic circumstances, the drug trade and the need for the folks involved in such blighted areas to protect themselves or use them for their business.

The rampages cannot be tied to games - the correlation from anecdotes doesn't show causality. It might be argued that the games do give a template for the behavior if one is going down that path. However, it doesn't drive you down that path.

Grossman argued that the games might remove some of the inhibition against interpersonal violence and teach techniques. However, that isn't causal to starting the violence.

The NRA or NRA-ILA or whomever, will never win over the public with excuses or diversion. Unless, positive reasons can be given for gun ownership, the excuse whine fest won't work.

Finally, I'm in the camp that the obsequious hook-up of the NRA to conservatism is not productive for the gun rights cause over the long run, even if it has short term economic benefit.

[TheRoland]

Your analysis is good, Glenn, but to turn it around, even if every scientist on the face of the earth agreed violent video games directly caused people to shoot up schools, it still wouldn't be a good PR strategy. The only thing more likely to alienate every person under 30 would be to blame it on avocado toast.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I do like avocados. You made me think of a point. Let's say games cause you to shoot up stuff. Well, if there are no readily available guns you can't do that. So look at Japan, massive violent video game usage. No guns - no recent massacres with tools or sporting rifles. Conclusion - take away all the guns.

Hard to inflict damage on 500 or so people with a katana from a Vegas hotel window. Excuses won't work, Wayne.

[olstyn]

I do like avocados. You made me think of a point. Let's say games cause you to shoot up stuff. Well, if there are no readily available guns you can't do that. So look at Japan, massive violent video game usage. No guns - no recent massacres with tools or sporting rifles. Conclusion - take away all the guns. Hard to inflict damage on 500 or so people with a katana from a Vegas hotel window. Excuses won't work, Wayne.

This is going to sound cold, but on some level, is the distinction between 10 or 20 people with non-survivable sword wounds and 100+ people dead from gunfire really statistically significant? Either is a mass casualty event perpetrated by an evil actor, and neither seems particularly preventable outside of a draconian surveillance state where people have no individual rights. They would also both cause a media frenzy and its attendant public outcry. Ultimately, I feel like the debate isn't even really about guns, per se; it's about whether or not individuals are allowed to have access to weapons at all. Guns are simply the most efficient commonly-available weapons, that's all.

For a contemporary example of that, one only has to look to Britain, where ~120 years ago, gun rights were basically unrestricted, and now carrying a knife in public "without a good reason" is a crime.

[BCG]

This is going to sound cold, but on some level, is the distinction between 10 or 20 people with non-survivable sword wounds and 100+ people dead from gunfire really statistically significant?

Statistically, no. I like to point out that the number of mass shootings (including school shootings) per year is about 0. In absolute numbers, it isn't. But given that there are 320 million people in the United States, some small number divided by 320 million is about zero.

But from a public relations and political and persuasion standpoint, the difference absolutely is important.

3,000 Americans died on Sept. 11, 2001 from an attack by Muslim terrorists. The U.S. population at the time was 285 million. So in the grand scheme of things, 9/11 wasn't really a big deal; at least statistically. Right?

[Dan_S]

Guns are simply the most efficient commonly-available weapons, that's all.


Not to take away from your argument, but I think this mindset is why we’re at the point we’re at.

If people in general we’re only slightly more mentally cognizant than bacteria, guns wouldn’t factor into these mass-casualty events.

In fact, in Europe we’re seeing the beginnings of what I’m referencing - with all these truck attacks. Common, everyday items are far more deadly than commonly thought of.

I think the greater issue isn’t ‘guns’ but rather, a mindset issue that we’ve put guns on a pedestal. whether for good or bad.

[olstyn]

3,000 Americans died on Sept. 11, 2001 from an attack by Muslim terrorists. The U.S. population at the time was 285 million. So in the grand scheme of things, 9/11 wasn't really a big deal; at least statistically. Right?

Your point is well taken. However, there's also the political component to look at; 9/11 was an attack on our country by a politically/ideologically motivated team of foreign attackers. I don't think it's unreasonable to argue that it's different based on that factor.

[LittleLebowski]

So was giving Ajit Pai the "Charlton Heston Courage Under Fire Award" (https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?30108) for repealing the FCC's internet neutrality rules.

It did nothing to promote gun-owner rights, but did alienate folks who favor net neutrality (and don't trust Internet Service Providers, or the telecom industry in general).

BCG I’d respond to you on net neutrality but someone else already explained it better, pay attention to ninth and tenth paragraphs:


First you need to understand how this is all connected. In general, there are 2 types of ISPs. "Last mile carriers" and "Backhaul carriers" This gets a bit muddy because some last mile carriers have backhaul networks, and some backhaul carriers have last mile networks, but for the sake of this discussion we'll keep them in two separate groups.

Last mile carriers are the ISPs that bring the cables (phone line, coax, fiber, wireless, whatever) from their core network to your house. This is the ISP that invoices you and you pay every month for your internet service. This Last mile carrier has something that's referred to as a "border" where they connect their core network with a backhaul carrier.

The backhaul carriers are the BIG companies that built this whole "Internet" thing. They did that by investing trillions of dollars running and continuing to run fiber optic cables EVERYWHERE. These backhaul carriers all got together and realized that they needed to come up with a fair and equitable method and price structure for freely and openly exchanging the information on their networks. Thus the Symmetric Peering Arrangement was born.

The Symmetric Peering Arrangement was basically this. "You have lots of data, and I have lots of data. Let us exchange this data equally, however much data you send me I will send you an equal amount of data and we'll all just agree to not charge each other any money for that exchange." But wait? What if they exchange an unequal amount of data? This is the Asymmetric Peering Arrangement, typically it's the same thing as the Symmetric Peering Arrangement except that the both parties agree to pay for the non-symmetric amounts of data. This is what lead to the internet. Basically all these carriers put all their interconnecting and cross connecting points in free and open spaces, called Internet Exchanges. Anyone who showed up and put a "point of presence" in the Exchange had the ability to talk to anyone else in the Exchange and negotiate peering arrangements or even just ask nicely to exchange traffic or whatever. Here's a guy who setup a peering point in an Internet Exchange and essentially became is own ISP for no other reason that he thought it would be fun.

Now comes Netflix. Remember ANYONE can have a presence at an Internet Exchange including hosting companies, data center providers, whoever the fuck wants to. So that's exactly what Netflix did, they set up POPs at various Internet Exchanges over dark fiber from their data centers (dark fiber is a service where you buy a fiber strand from point A to point B with no actual "service" on it, it's just the fiber and you put your own optical gear on either end."

Basically when they did this, they talked to everyone there and explained what they were about, that they provide a streaming movie service that's legit and legal and made the case that the carriers downstream last mile ISPs and assorted home subscribers would probably love to have access to their content. They made a good case, and the carriers agreed that peering that content to their downstream customers was probably a good move. So they gave Netflix some 10Gbps and 40Gbps cross connects told them "hey this is on us, no charge" and called it a day. (This is extremely common, so common that there's an entire automated system in place run by the volunteers that operate the Exchanges to facilitate it)

Well, you can probably guess what happened, Netflix grew and became crazy popular and their traffic eventually started beating those cross connects like red headed stepchildren. We're talking 100% full ALL the time. As others have touched on, when a link is 100% full, bad shit happens as one poster described as "a bunch of drunk guys screaming at each other in a bar." The end result of this would be the rest of the Internet works just fine, but Netflix runs like TOTAL SHIT. Stuttering, jitter, buffering, garbled frames, all that stuff. When this happened, Netflix was like "OMG can we please get some additional cross connects?" The carriers (or in the first case of it happening, Verizon) responded with statements to the affect of "Wow, yeah you need some more cross connects, but that's a lot of asymmetric traffic, we're going to have to work out an asymmetric peering arrangement where you pay for the difference in traffic, just like we've done for decades with everyone else we do this with."

Now, you see what happened next was...Netflix didn't respond by saying "Oh ok, sure we'll sit down and work out the details" they responded by being pissed off and demanding that peering for FREE because having to pay for it like EVERYONE else had to do so up to that point was tantamount to an unfair business practice. Now the stories I've heard talking to people over at Verizon was that the business managers were kinda shocked and confused at the response, while the engineering teams nearly herniated themselves from laughing.

Now, looking at the situation, Verizon didn't "throttle" Netflix, they didn't demand payment for a "fast lane", they didn't stroke their bad guy mustache and say "Muhahahaha, we're going to use this situation give our own content delivery platform a market advantage!" It was literally just a standard negotiation for an asymmetric peering agreement with some minor middle manager's assistant in the sub-division handling administrative and sales tasks for that region that the Internet Exchange was in. All it was, was a pretty basic business arrangement between two companies, as Netflix' traffic utilization scaled up, so would the amount they paid to deliver it and the necessary upgrades needed would be funded.

Netflix wasn't having it. Not long after that, the CEO of Netflix did an interview with some trendy tech publication in Silicon Valley (I think it was Gizmodo, but I can't remember for sure) talking about how the big evil Verizon was "throttling" them and how we needed "Net Neutrality" to stop this.

Yes, that was their argument, that them saturating their free interconnects and being required to pay for more capacity was "throttling" and it needed to be "stopped" by the FCC (that's code for using the federal government to force Verizon to give them that capacity for free).

So the conclusion is that the carriers HAVE FIGURED IT OUT. They charged Netflix, and Netflix eventually paid. The Last mile carriers wound doing something similar by instituting data caps and charging extra to those who had high utilization. Then everyone started implementing traffic shaping and management methods and technology to get the Netflix utilization under control at the last mile.

Problem is now solved.

Here's where Net Neutrality comes back in. Netflix and Google and Facebook and whoever all still want it because they want to force peering arrangements beneficial to them. But the end result of Net Neutrality would be to remove the carriers solution of dealing with this problem, namely charging Netflix and Google for their upstream consumption at the peering level, and using traffic shaping and management technologies at the last mile level.

Let me state that again, NET NEUTRALITY WOULD REMOVE THE ALREADY EXITING SOLUTION. It would cut the revenue stream at the peering level, and it would remove the traffic shaping and management at the last mile level. This would INCREASE the strain on the carrier networks, AND reduce the spending on upgrading the carrier networks. It will LITERALLY make EVERYTHING worse.

THAT is why the carriers are against Net Neutrality.

[olstyn]

I’d respond to you on net neutrality but someone else already explained it better, pay attention to ninth and tenth paragraphs:

I personally have no problem with the idea of Netflix having to pay for their traffic, especially since any data Netflix sends upstream represents revenue coming in for them in the form of monthly subscription payments, but it's off mission for the NRA to even comment on net neutrality, let alone give out awards based on it.

[BCG]

Blaming mass shootings on video games, thus alienating every millennial on either side of the issue, isn't about serving themselves. It's about being stupid.


So was giving Ajit Pai the "Charlton Heston Courage Under Fire Award" (https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?30108) for repealing the FCC's internet neutrality rules.

It did nothing to promote gun-owner rights, but did alienate folks who favor net neutrality (and don't trust Internet Service Providers, or the telecom industry in general).


BCG I’d respond to you on net neutrality but someone else already explained it better, pay attention to ninth and tenth paragraphs:

We can debate net neutrality if you want. But my point was that the NRA should stay in its lane, and not take sides in non-gun-owner related issues.

If not toeing the Party line on net neutrality (and other conservative issues) means that I'm not welcome in the gun culture -- which is the message I'm getting -- well, you guys can decide for yourself it that's a viable long-term strategy for gun-owner rights.

[LittleLebowski]

I personally have no problem with the idea of Netflix having to pay for their traffic, especially since any data Netflix sends upstream represents revenue coming in for them in the form of monthly subscription payments, but it's off mission for the NRA to even comment on net neutrality, let alone give out awards based on it.

I completely agree, but the tech in me tires of the lies perpetuated in the name of Netflix getting free shit.

[LittleLebowski]

We can debate net neutrality if you want. But my point was that the NRA should stay in its lane, and not take sides in non-gun-owner related issues.

If not toeing the Party line on net neutrality (and other conservative issues) means that I'm not welcome in the gun culture -- which is the message I'm getting -- well, you guys can decide for yourself it that's a viable long-term strategy for gun-owner rights.

I’m not talking about “toeing the party line” on shit and never mentioned those words. I am just putting real data in front of you regarding net neutrality as I feel that the bullshit on net neutrality vastly drowns out the truth. I agree that the NRA was idiotic in giving said award and I’m not keen on other off topic forays of theirs such as commenting on religion.

[TheRoland]

Again, I think we're all pretty much agreeing the NRA shouldn't be taking positions on layer 2 networking, religion, video games, Russia, or avocados. What should potential members actually do about it? Getting people under 30 to join (or rejoin) and vote in an organization which has spent the last 5 years alienating them doesn't sound, well, possible.

Does the NRA comment on their demographics? Surely leadership has to see their under-30 numbers are abysmal (unless we're all wrong and things are totally fine).

[GardoneVT]

This is going to sound cold, but on some level, is the distinction between 10 or 20 people with non-survivable sword wounds and 100+ people dead from gunfire really statistically significant?

Yes. The obvious answer is more people are dead.

Let us not indulge in denial; one motivated attacker with skill and a long gun can cause exponentially more damage at longer range then the same person with an edged weapon. But the critical difference in the mind of ordinary people is that there is a utilitarian purpose for a knife besides killing someone. There is no tool-centric social utility to carrying a firearm besides the efficient ability to hurt someone.

In times past the civic and social benefit of firearms was understood, to the degree liberal and conservative both agreed arms were a socially positive thing . That social and civic benefit has not been communicated at all to the current generation, and the NRA is too busy stumping for the GOP to bring that message to the younger voters. So when a proposal for additional gun control is floated the question in the minds of younger people is “why not?” . What’s the harm banning guns?

Unless we educate the masses, we should be unsurprised when the masses behave in uneducated ways.

[Bergeron]

A thing that I learned in sales is that people make decisions based on emotions and relationships, then justify those decisions based on logic. You don’t convince people by logic, you convince them by emotional connection to your argument, and by having a relationship to them.

The time to argue against gun bans is before incidents like Vegas, and to have a constant and consistent message before and after an event like that. Our opponents like to paint us as being of a particular demographic; the more frequently and convincingly we can show the larger public that this is instead a purposeful lie, the more we open people’s hearts to our arguments.

Having Ollie North as NRA President and Wayne LaPierre as EVP does not help our argument. Certainly, they are people who have done much for RKBA, but a younger public NRA face made of urban people who don’t look or sound like what the antis untruthfully claim we are takes away their best weapon against us.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Thanks, that's the point I've been making about the core concept of firearms. It is denied by the excuse folks. Yes, cars, draino, knives, etc. can be used for evil. However, I haven't cleared my shower drain with my AR.

Excuses don't work.

I really don't feel the small number argument as one that works. Medical researchers work on diseases that are rare. Should they abandon the research? Guns are statistical insignificant is a stupid statement. That isn't even what statistical significance means in the technical sense. You are trying to say the effect size isn't important.

What is the level of crime that is needed for us to act to lower it?

Also, folks focus on the number killed. IIRC, approximately 80,000 people are shot and don't die. That's not a small number in absolute terms.

It is the evil intent of shootings that differentiate between accidental incidents. How many times do we have to say that and some folks seem to deny this factor?

BTW, if 20,000 people a year were killed and 80,000 seriously injured by Modern Sporting Bowling Balls - think there would be lots of law passed? Would the National Bowling Association be screaming about the Socialist Wave and the Anti-Trump resistance in their magazine.

[BehindBlueI's]

A thing that I learned in sales is that people make decisions based on emotions and relationships, then justify those decisions based on logic. You don’t convince people by logic, you convince them by emotional connection to your argument, and by having a relationship to them.

That's very true. Taking someone shooting is the best way to "convert" someone. I've also seen a lot of post-violent confrontation conversions. Both work for the obvious reasons.

[olstyn]

I really don't feel the small number argument as one that works. Medical researchers work on diseases that are rare. Should they abandon the research? Guns are statistical insignificant is a stupid statement. That isn't even what statistical significance means in the technical sense. You are trying to say the effect size isn't important.

I think you're misunderstanding me. I'm not saying that effect size is unimportant, but rather that once a certain effect size is reached, it's a tragedy, and more is just...more. Is ten people dead due to the actions of a deranged mad(wo)man not tragic where 50 is? 5? Where's the line? In my view, they're all massive problems. Sure, the exact number of people hurt is different, but either way, it counts as a mass killing, and mass killings are things we should be trying as hard as possible to avoid, as long as it's feasible to do so without severely curtailing or outright removing the rights of ordinary, law-abiding citizens. Whether that's feasible is really the difficult question.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I have seen a couple of folks abandon firearms after exposure. One young woman after seeing ARs, pistols and shotguns shred B-27s said she could never do that. One woman crossed path with another woman in a FOF and couldn't fire. She said she could never do that with a real person and gave it up.

It isn't a gender thing (that's just who I saw). In the same exercise, a male who proclaimed his martial arts prowess froze solid and was knocked on his ass by the instructor.

[11B10]

For those of you without the defeatist attitude, (it doesn't matter) when you contact your representatives are you laying out facts for them? I have seen a lot of blanket templates going to senators and congressmen and blanket letters back. I don't think they have the same effect as a genuine letter filled with facts and a coherent argument followed up by a phone call, voting, contributing money in the right place, etc. I know when I got some bullshit letter back I called and bitched, I also sent more letters and am sure to tell everyone I know or who will listen about their lack of effort. Whether or not some lackey shit-bird got a laugh or not doesn't matter but it does matter that I do what I can about it. I do think we have to use proper channels for starters then be active to effect change. I'm not saying one letter or e-mail is going to fix it but I am surprised at the general attitude in this topic. I would figure despite the bump stocks being stupid the manner in which this whole process is being undertaken is fucked up and there would/should be more upset. I'm not saying anyone needs to be in the streets torching cars but WTF?

GardoneVT, dude you make some solid ass points about how fucked up the NRA is and there needs to be complete separation from the GOP and politics in general and you're damn straight about being all inclusive no doubt about that. I'd also love to see the NRA get a face lift because I don't want to contribute to them in current form. I'm sick of the constant whining for money and letters and e-mail to create panic to drive donations. At the same time man I don't agree at all that it is a waste of time.



Everyone...please read the part about HOW to write your Congressman! I've done work for legislators and I can tell you one thing that is very consistent: They almost NEVER do anything with emails. If you're gonna take the time to do this, do it right. WRITE A REAL LETTER, WITH REAL FACTS AND THE COHESIVE ARGUMENT THAT MIKE DESCRIBES.

[Doc_Glock]

@BCG (https://pistol-forum.com/member.php?u=16147) I’d respond to you on net neutrality but someone else already explained it better, pay attention to ninth and tenth paragraphs:

May I ask where you are quoting that from? It explains Net Neutrality to me for the first time in a way I understand.

[Zincwarrior]

Edit:sorry, accidental post.

[LittleLebowski]

May I ask where you are quoting that from? It explains Net Neutrality to me for the first time in a way I understand.


Good, isn’t it? A network guy on another forum.

[Mjolnir]

https://s17-us2.startpage.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=http%3A%2F%2Ft0.gstatic.com%2Fimage s%3Fq%3Dtbn%3AANd9GcQPHzgZxPbX-O7TjWFi5075ZAToHexp0rBlgEnqgzVtMpSGO2SG&sp=ed2bc844a26f174022d518b179f27f2d&anticache=639702

"Does no one honor trademarks anymore? Where is my attorney?"



On topic: Never owned a bump stock, never intended to...but surely no one is surprised by this.

It's all well and good to draw a hard line and promise to die supporting it, but as others have mentioned, is this the hill we want to die on? Perhaps better to win the war and concede a battle here and there. Each side has its merits.

Any infringement is an infringement.

Every single time we have conceded THEY gain precious ground. Period.

Bump stocks are... not for me.

Next time there will be a gang using Glocks. Are we to to assume “the retreat” position on them?

It never stops, you know...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BehindBlueI's]

https://fox59.com/2018/12/18/trump-administration-officially-bans-bump-stocks/

[blues]

https://fox59.com/2018/12/18/trump-administration-officially-bans-bump-stocks/


The NRA must've timed their email inviting me to bump my life membership to "endowment" to coincide with the news. Those sneaky devils...:rolleyes:

[Stephanie B]

https://fox59.com/2018/12/18/trump-administration-officially-bans-bump-stocks/

So, are the Feds going to pay full retail price for each one? If not, there could be a 5th Amendment issue.

[JRB]

So, are the Feds going to pay full retail price for each one? If not, there could be a 5th Amendment issue.

All current signs point to no - destroy or turn in without compensation. A lovely precedent to set for future 'bans'. Hopefully the sanctimonious types that didn't want to defend bumpstocks because they expected a reasonable outcome will now change their perspective.

[VT1032]

So, are the Feds going to pay full retail price for each one? If not, there could be a 5th Amendment issue.That was my exact thought. How can they deprive someone of their legally purchased property without compensation? In state level bans, they have the excuse that it can be sold out of state, but if this is across the board, I would be very interested in the outcome of any legal action. I could care less about bump stocks but the principle of what they are doing concerns me greatly.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Bump stocks are idiotic but this incident shows that:

1. Bans can be instituted because of perceived danger without legislation. If the Las Vegas guy had used 30 round mags and killed because a smaller number but still a large one, Donald might have banned them under some made up pretext.

2. The idea of the danger of the AR platform is the mantra being used for the state bans. The lower courts don't seem them useful in self-defense for the average home owner.

3. The next monstrous occurrence could easily lead to more state and perhaps federal action against the guns and that would be just fine with Donald, depending on the random firings of his brain.

4. Will SCOTUS overturn this, would they even take the case? Hofman in his latest SWAT column points out how Kavanaugh and common usage is a real problem.

5. Time to take of the blinders off at NRA HQ and stop the obsequious praise of Donald and put real electoral pressure on the GOP to come across, or perhaps they can just not count of support for talk but no action. Various other groups are calling politicians on their BS rhetoric but do nothing performance. The Bump stock ban, failure of the HPA to get to the floor (Tax Cut Ryan couldn't wait to sink it) and lack of other legislative actions suggest that current real action (as compared to fund raising strategies) are ineffective.

Speeches at the convention and editorials of praise don't substitute for real progress. Pledging defense is just a way to see things nibbled away.

[Totem Polar]

The NRA must've timed their email inviting me to bump my life membership to "endowment" to coincide with the news. Those sneaky devils...:rolleyes:

Yeah, I got one of those emails today, as well.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Didn't you get the Wine Club e-mail last week?

[blues]

Didn't you get the Wine Club e-mail last week?

I asked them not to spam my email or phone and for the most part they've respected that request. Recently, I seem to be getting a few offers but I'm hoping that I won't have to reiterate my earlier request.

[Casual Friday]

It's a good thing the NRA isn't continuing on with a months old manufactured outrage campaign against Yeti coolers the same day Trump bans bump stocks. Maybe they can find another another cop that had to remove his thin blue line sticker from his patrol car per department policy, that would be another really good thing for them to focus time and resources on.

33353

[joshs]

It's a good thing the NRA isn't continuing on with a months old manufactured outrage campaign against Yeti coolers the same day Trump bans bump stocks. Maybe they can find another another cop that had to remove his thin blue line sticker from his patrol car per department policy, that would be another really good thing for them to focus time and resources on.

33353

Substantive posts get very little traction on Instagram and Twitter. Posts like the one you linked do very well. I think a lot of our posts on social are pretty silly too, but if we let an attorney control our social media accounts, they'd be pretty boring to the vast majority of our followers on social media.

We released the following statement on the announcement of the final rule:

Today, the Department of Justice announced a final rule on “bump-stock-type devices.” We are disappointed that this final rule (http://shared.nrapvf.org/sharedmedia/1510469/bump-stock-final-rule.pdf) fails to address the thousands of law-abiding Americans who relied on prior ATF determinations when lawfully acquiring these devices. As we recommended to ATF in our comments (http://shared.nrapvf.org/sharedmedia/1510470/nra_comments_on_atf2017r-22.pdf) on the proposed rule, Congress made it possible for the Attorney General to provide amnesty for firearms regulated under the National Firearms Act. The Attorney General should have exercised that authority to provide a period of amnesty under this rule.

[Zincwarrior]

Substantive posts get very little traction on Instagram and Twitter. Posts like the one you linked do very well. I think a lot of our posts on social are pretty silly too, but if we let an attorney control our social media accounts, they'd be pretty boring to the vast majority of our followers on social media.

We released the following statement on the announcement of the final rule:

Today, the Department of Justice announced a final rule on “bump-stock-type devices.” We are disappointed that this final rule (http://shared.nrapvf.org/sharedmedia/1510469/bump-stock-final-rule.pdf) fails to address the thousands of law-abiding Americans who relied on prior ATF determinations when lawfully acquiring these devices. As we recommended to ATF in our comments (http://shared.nrapvf.org/sharedmedia/1510470/nra_comments_on_atf2017r-22.pdf) on the proposed rule, Congress made it possible for the Attorney General to provide amnesty for firearms regulated under the National Firearms Act. The Attorney General should have exercised that authority to provide a period of amnesty under this rule.

I think bump stocks are stupid and am glad they are gone. Having said that, your whole defense is the above non defense? really?

[Casual Friday]

Substantive posts get very little traction on Instagram and Twitter. Posts like the one you linked do very well. I think a lot of our posts on social are pretty silly too, but if we let an attorney control our social media accounts, they'd be pretty boring to the vast majority of our followers on social media.

We released the following statement on the announcement of the final rule:

Today, the Department of Justice announced a final rule on “bump-stock-type devices.” We are disappointed that this final rule (http://shared.nrapvf.org/sharedmedia/1510469/bump-stock-final-rule.pdf) fails to address the thousands of law-abiding Americans who relied on prior ATF determinations when lawfully acquiring these devices. As we recommended to ATF in our comments (http://shared.nrapvf.org/sharedmedia/1510470/nra_comments_on_atf2017r-22.pdf) on the proposed rule, Congress made it possible for the Attorney General to provide amnesty for firearms regulated under the National Firearms Act. The Attorney General should have exercised that authority to provide a period of amnesty under this rule.

Let's call this social media stunt what it is Josh, a distraction. Do you really expect anyone to believe that a stupid ad for a cooler would do better than the NRA taking a hard stand against this ban? Maybe if the NRA wasn't so busy waging war on Yeti over the loss of a discount that had nothing to do with them not supporting the 2nd amendment, maybe, just maybe you guys wouldn't be bleeding membership. They sat back, let it happen so they use this as a way to drum up some more donation money. People aren't falling for the dog and pony show anymore. I'm a life member but I won't contribute another penny until they cut the shit and start actually trying to restore gun rights that they let slip away.

[TiroFijo]

Could "pistol braces" be next?

[Casual Friday]

Could "pistol braces" be next?

Absolutely....and you can bet the NRA will be there to do nothing to stop them from being banned. This isn't about bump stocks.

They'll release a statement though.

[Mike C]

Could "pistol braces" be next?

or binary triggers? Not that I care about those either but this is a slippery slope.

[blues]

Stuff like this (https://www.foxnews.com/us/gun-purchasers-may-need-to-submit-social-media-history-under-proposed-new-york-legislation) would create a very bad precedent for other states to try to promote and needs to be nipped in the bud sooner than later. This would concern me considerably more than alternative picnic cooler considerations.


Those looking to buy a gun in New York may need to submit their social media profiles and search history prior to purchase if new firearm legislation in the state becomes law.

Under the legislation drafted by Brooklyn Borough President Eric Adams and State Senator Kevin Parker, both Democrats, up to three years’ worth of search history on social media would be able to be reviewed, ABC Action News reported.

Senate Bill 9191, according to WHAM, mandates "social media and search engine reviews prior to the approval of an application or renewal of a license to carry or possess a pistol or revolver; requires a person applying for a license to carry or possess a pistol or revolver or a renewal of such license to consent to having his or her social media accounts and search engine history reviewed and investigated for certain posts and/or searches over a period of 1-3 years prior to the approval of such application or renewal; defines terms."

Under the proposed legislation, law enforcement officials could investigate "commonly known profane slurs used or biased language used to describe race, national origin, ancestry, gender, religion, disability or sexual orientation; threatening health or safety of another person, or an act of terrorism."

Thankfully, I don't have a twitter, facebook or instagram account, not that I meet any of the intended categories of hate speech etc...but I also don't have confidence that the investigation would necessarily be conducted in a fair and impartial manner either.

[Mike C]

joshs, does the NRA not feel that this issue is lawsuit worthy on behalf of gun owners? The federal government is essentially stripping privately owned property (albeit gun accessory) without compensation, (potentially as ATF/DOJ did figure costs in paying the public for losses). Seriously, what happens when they decide to do away with the NFA list, or something else? Imagine forcing people to turn in registered MG's or and auto sears they paid big bucks for, what about suppressors? Will the NRA stand up then? These are honest questions and I'm not trying to dig at you or the NRA but I am having a hard time wanting to get behind the NRA in any meaningful way and I want to. I want an organization I can be proud to be a member of and encourage my children to be a part of so we can keep the legacy of the Second Amendment alive.

Again not an attack on you or the NRA but all I ever get from them are constant fretting letters telling me I need to donate now, requests to renew membership etc. When I see things like the flaccid response posted to this specific issue with no threat of legal action on behalf of gun owners, (so far); I don't think they'll ever get a dime from me or my kin. It is sad because they could make a bigger dent in the BS we're seeing now, be more inclusive, gain more support and lobby/fight more effectively.

ETA: I 'm not a lawyer and if the DOJ/GOV intends on compensating citizens for their loss in property I am unsure if a suit would have any leg to stand on or effect, if the effort is futile has a statement to membership been released to that effect explaining if or why there will or won't be a lawsuit? I've looked but will admit my Google skills suck but that's probably because I don't use Google.


blues, that's fucking scary. This is simply about control, nothing more. It sure looks like the prequel to "Minority Report" thought police anyone?

[OlongJohnson]

We released the following statement on the announcement of the final rule:

Today, the Department of Justice announced a final rule on “bump-stock-type devices.” We are disappointed that this final rule (http://shared.nrapvf.org/sharedmedia/1510469/bump-stock-final-rule.pdf) fails to address the thousands of law-abiding Americans who relied on prior ATF determinations when lawfully acquiring these devices. As we recommended to ATF in our comments (http://shared.nrapvf.org/sharedmedia/1510470/nra_comments_on_atf2017r-22.pdf) on the proposed rule, Congress made it possible for the Attorney General to provide amnesty for firearms regulated under the National Firearms Act. The Attorney General should have exercised that authority to provide a period of amnesty under this rule.

Thanks for posting the link to the final rule. Since I read the NPRM, I've felt like I'm the only person outside the government who actually read it.

If you want good government, if you believe that words have meaning, if you think that tyranny is when government says the law is whatever it wants it to be, then you must oppose this rule, even if you want all firearms to be banned.

This is the exact point where the new rule goes completely off the rails, declaring that the sky is green and the grass blue:

Olofson thus requires only that the weapon shoot
multiple rounds with a single function of the trigger "as the result of a self-acting
mechanism," not that the self-acting mechanism produces the firing sequence without any
additional action by the shooter.

Reading the rest of the details, they fully admit (although with a little more detail in the NPRM) that the "self-acting mechanism" doesn't actually self act, and that all the "action" is in reality provided by the shooter applying forward force to the forend. There is, in fact, no "self-acting mechanism" present, as was determined consistently in all the prior determinations from 2008-2017. The BATFE is simply gaslighting us all by saying there is such a mechanism when there is not.

This is the most egregious example of doublespeak I can remember since the proposed ban of M855/SS109 under Obama. It's worth noting that that rule was abandoned not because of the ~80,000 overwhelmingly negative responses to the NPRM, or because someone realized that it was similarly based entirely on gaslighting, but because John Culberson, a key member of the House Appropriations Committee, visited the BATFE and told them essentially, "Gosh, it sure would be nice if we were able to support your activities." The announcement that the rulemaking was dropped came just days later.

This is not about culture, gun people versus gun banners, Red Team versus Blue Team, Liberals versus Conservatives. This is about truth. This is about reason. If this rule can stand, rule of law is dead and the government can do whatever the hell it wants.

Every American should be scared as hell.

It would be nice if there was an organization with the ability to speak to the media that could get that message out.

[joshs]

joshs, does the NRA not feel that this issue is lawsuit worthy on behalf of gun owners? The federal government is essentially stripping privately owned property (albeit gun accessory) without compensation. Seriously, what happens when they decide to do away with the NFA list, or something else? Imagine forcing people to turn in registered MG's or and auto sears they paid big bucks for, what about suppressors? Will the NRA stand up then? These are honest questions and I'm not trying to dig at you or the NRA but I am having a hard time wanting to get behind the NRA in any meaningful way and I want to. I want an organization I can be proud to be a member of and encourage my children to be a part of so we can keep the legacy of the Second Amendment alive.

Again not an attack on you or the NRA but all I ever get from them are constant fretting letters telling me I need to donate now, requests to renew membership etc. When I see things like the flaccid response posted to this specific issue with no threat of legal action on behalf of gun owners, (so far); I don't think they'll ever get a dime from me or my kin. It is sad because they could make a bigger dent in the BS we're seeing now, be more inclusive, gain more support and lobby/fight more effectively.

The problem with litigating this is that it has effectively already been litigated and lost. ATF did the exact same thing with Akins Accelerators (they weren't machineguns and then they were). The case got before what should have been a friendly panel of the 11th Circuit, and Akins still lost with a unanimous panel opinion. The opinion is available here: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca11/08-15640/200815640-2011-02-28.html Unless SCOTUS is willing to overrule Chevron, I don't see a court getting too far into the weeds on the difference between the original Akins Accelerator and bump stocks that work without the spring.

We're already litigating the takings issue with regard to magazines in NJ and CA. Here is the 9th Cir. opinion on the preliminary injunction: (https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/memoranda/2018/07/17/17-56081.pdf). If you read our comments (http://shared.nrapvf.org/sharedmedia/1510470/nra_comments_on_atf2017r-22.pdf), I note that the takings issue is an important reason why the Attorney General should have provided for a period of amnesty. This would also move ATF away from their (in my mind) ridiculous interpretation of 922(o), that it somehow forecloses the availability of amnesty for machineguns.

[OlongJohnson]

Unless SCOTUS is willing to overrule Chevron, I don't see a court getting too far into the weeds on the difference between the original Akins Accelerator and bump stocks that work without the spring.

Chevron is a travesty.

In this case, the ATF has expounded at length on the difference between the original Akins Accelerator and bump stocks that work without the spring. Shouldn't be too hard for a court to see that a "self-acting mechanism" that doesn't itself provide any of the action is not in reality a "self-acting mechanism."

And how about putting the message out in the court of public opinion? Why am I the only person who I've seen say that in public?

[Mike C]

joshs, you caught me when I was adding this:

ETA: I 'm not a lawyer and if the DOJ/GOV intends on compensating citizens for their loss in property I am unsure if a suit would have any leg to stand on or effect, if the effort is futile has a statement to membership been released to that effect explaining if or why there will or won't be a lawsuit? I've looked but will admit my Google skills suck but that's probably because I don't use Google.

Thank you for taking the time to respond, explaining and for posting the information you did. It is extremely helpful and informative.

[OlongJohnson]

This is not about culture, gun people versus gun banners, Red Team versus Blue Team, Liberals versus Conservatives. This is about truth. This is about reason. If this rule can stand, rule of law is dead and the government can do whatever the hell it wants.

Just so I don't sound like such a serious asshole, here's something to laugh aboot. misanthropist ('cause where have you been lately?)


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WUbpLiTq_uI

[joshs]

Chevron is a travesty.

In this case, the ATF has expounded at length on the difference between the original Akins Accelerator and bump stocks that work without the spring. Shouldn't be too hard for a court to see that a "self-acting mechanism" that doesn't itself provide any of the action is not in reality a "self-acting mechanism."

But, most shoulder fired machineguns aren't really "self-acting" either. They all require consistent input into the butt stock, pistol grip or handguard to function "automatically." I'm not saying I agree, I just don't think a court is going to be particularly friendly to the idea without substantially changing how deferential courts are to administrative agencies generally.

[Bart Carter]

...Thankfully, I don't have a twitter, facebook or instagram account, not that I meet any of the intended categories of hate speech etc...but I also don't have confidence that the investigation would necessarily be conducted in a fair and impartial manner either.

What? Are you implying that pistol-forum.com is not social media? :p

[blues]

What? Are you implying that pistol-forum.com is not social media? :p

Never heard of it. ;)

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Do anti-social media count?

Here's a nightmare scenario for you. We have another horror show. Under the Destructive Device mantle, high capacity mags are defined as such. The precedent might be similar to street sweepers. The rationale is that the 'sporting use' of such (nuts in competition), hunting - is not sufficient to allow unregulated ownership of such.

SBRs are tools of destruction, with no real rationale for such besides general banning of weapons. Would Donald go for that precedent for mags? Would common usage for sport or general numbers override the danger of such?

I could see this easily happening and SCOTUS - Roberts + 4 thinking it is just fine. The lower court precedents are repeatedly forthcoming using the limited home defense rationale to deny the necessary utility of such terrible items for defense of the home.

Now if I were king, I would have an off the record talk with McConnell, Donald and the House leader and say - here's the reality. We will not issue support for the Donald in 2020. Our kiss butt editorials will cease. No more rants on the AntiTrump Resistance on our editorial pages. Instead we shift to Congressional candidates and state candidates who will block anti legislation and actively push for progun bills (no more Rep. Ryan wussy-itis). If there is a primary challenge for POTUS, we are out of it as it currently stands. You can go the annual convention of the LLama Farmers of America and not the NRA

Now, Donald - you get out there and constantly make specific speeches promoting progun legislation and threaten to shut the government down. You specifically state repeatedly that the state bans are unconstitutional and must be challenged. You promote legislation such as the SAGA Act.

Of course, this could have been done before but ...

The Democrats had no trouble staying home or voting third party when HRC was the chosen one. Folks aren't going to buy into Stop the Social Wave and buy our wine as a winning set of strategies. Ancient Ollie - well, one critique of the Dems is that their leadership is ancient and does not have expansive appeal. Expand outside of the marketing demographic is risky from a business point of view but necessary.

Donald doesn't fear the NRA. Wonder why?

[JHC]

The problem with litigating this is that it has effectively already been litigated and lost. ATF did the exact same thing with Akins Accelerators (they weren't machineguns and then they were). The case got before what should have been a friendly panel of the 11th Circuit, and Akins still lost with a unanimous panel opinion. The opinion is available here: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca11/08-15640/200815640-2011-02-28.html Unless SCOTUS is willing to overrule Chevron, I don't see a court getting too far into the weeds on the difference between the original Akins Accelerator and bump stocks that work without the spring.

We're already litigating the takings issue with regard to magazines in NJ and CA. Here is the 9th Cir. opinion on the preliminary injunction: (https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/memoranda/2018/07/17/17-56081.pdf). If you read our comments (http://shared.nrapvf.org/sharedmedia/1510470/nra_comments_on_atf2017r-22.pdf), I note that the takings issue is an important reason why the Attorney General should have provided for a period of amnesty. This would also move ATF away from their (in my mind) ridiculous interpretation of 922(o), that it somehow forecloses the availability of amnesty for machineguns.


Thank you joshs I've no quarrel with the NRA's stance on this issue. Seems they were transparent about their position from the get go on this topic.

[wmu12071]

https://www.firearmspolicy.org/guedes-v-batfe

Does this have any chance? I keep hearing people talk about dropping the NRA and giving money to FPC.

[Darth_Uno]

The NRA is the big gorilla whether we like it or not. If they were as serious about actually getting our rights back as they were about keeping Republicans in office, they’d bail and back a third party. Just tell R’s they’re not getting the job done and abandon ship. This would immediately send a very serious message, and immediately vault a third party from also-rans into legitimate contenders.

I don’t know what party that’d be, but it’s something I’ve often thought. Since 2004, the NRA & Republicans have been mostly about damage control and not actually making progress. I also admit I don’t know how much credit to give them for all the good CHL laws.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Bart Carter]

The NRA is the big gorilla whether we like it or not. If they were as serious about actually getting our rights back as they were about keeping Republicans in office, they’d bail and back a third party....

Maybe be more effective by lowering ratings for those that don't vote appropriately and contribute money to campaigns that did. But who really knows?

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Here's a look at upcoming attractions:

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/12/17/house-democrats-guns-background-checks-1063231?nname=playbook&nid=0000014f-1646-d88f-a1cf-5f46b7bd0000&nrid=00000154-8651-d9c5-adf7-af739eb50000&nlid=630318


Thompson's legislation would require federal background checks on all gun sales, including private transactions. There likely would be small exemptions, such as transfers between family members, or temporary use of a gun for hunting. Gun-control groups estimate that roughly one-fifth or more of gun sales don't include background checks.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/12/house-democrats-eye-legislation-background-checks/578473/


We are concerned that it is a solution in search of a problem,” said Michael Hammond, the longtime legislative counsel to Gun Owners of America, a nonprofit group dedicated to protecting gun rights. “Which leads to the question: What’s the [Democrats’] objective here? Is it achieving policy or putting points on the board?” Gun-control opponents like Hammond have long been worried about the creation of a gun-control registry that they fear could ultimately be used by the federal government to confiscate Americans’ firearms. To counter this concern, Thompson’s legislation actually includes a provision making it a federal crime to create a gun registry.

My take - the article states they know it won't pass but they are staking out the grounds and doing what they think will be popular. They have highlighted several major objections which are family transfers and creating a registry and seemingly removed those objections.

The idea of making a strong statement is interesting, strategically and tactically. The GOP and NRA team couldn't get the HPA, Reciprocity or SAGA voted on to make a statement. Why not? Why can't the progun side of the debate come out with more than:


"Thanks to your activism and dedication, you have an administration fighting to protect your Second Amendment and we will protect your Second Amendment," he said. "Your Second Amendment rights are under siege, but they will never ever be under siege as long as I am your president." the Donald.

Defense again - no expansion.

[Casual Friday]

The NRA releases statements, FPC files lawsuits.

33363

[Mjolnir]

All current signs point to no - destroy or turn in without compensation. A lovely precedent to set for future 'bans'. Hopefully the sanctimonious types that didn't want to defend bumpstocks because they expected a reasonable outcome will now change their perspective.

They will likely never see the light. At least I’ll NEVER bet they will. They are “compromises” by nature; quislings.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[DMF13]

This would also move ATF away from their (in my mind) ridiculous interpretation of 922(o), that it somehow forecloses the availability of amnesty for machineguns.Based on the language of 18USC922(o), I'd be interested in seeing your explanation as to how that statute would allow for any "amnesty" period with regard to "machineguns."

While the NFA (as amended) does allow for NFA "amnesty" periods, 18USC922(o), which became law after the 1968 amendments to the NFA, which created "amnesty" registration, specifically bars the transfer/possession of "new" (ie, manufactured after 18USC922(o) became law) machineguns, except for, "a transfer to or by, or possession by or under the authority of, the United States or any department or agency thereof or a State, or a department, agency, or political subdivision thereof."

[JAD]

The NRA is the big gorilla whether we like it or not. If they were as serious about actually getting our rights back as they were about keeping Republicans in office, they’d bail and back a third party. Just tell R’s they’re not getting the job done and abandon ship. This would immediately send a very serious message, and immediately vault a third party from also-rans into legitimate contenders.

I don’t know what party that’d be, but it’s something I’ve often thought. Since 2004, the NRA & Republicans have been mostly about damage control and not actually making progress. I also admit I don’t know how much credit to give them for all the good CHL laws. k

So, a sternly worded letter, that went against the primary elements of their base, who are trumpian, and the secondary elements of their base, who are traditional republicans, to die on a lonely hill with... I don't know, the five libertarians who aren't completely focused on legalizing dope?

[joshs]

Based on the language of 18USC922(o), I'd be interested in seeing your explanation as to how that statute would allow for any "amnesty" period with regard to "machineguns."

While the NFA (as amended) does allow for NFA "amnesty" periods, 18USC922(o), which became law after the 1968 amendments to the NFA, which created "amnesty" registration, specifically bars the transfer/possession of "new" (ie, manufactured after 18USC922(o) became law) machineguns, except for, "a transfer to or by, or possession by or under the authority of, the United States or any department or agency thereof or a State, or a department, agency, or political subdivision thereof."

One, because I don't think that the provisions have to be read to conflict. Amnesty was fully discussed during the debates over FOPA, and there was ample opportunity to amend the amnesty provision if that was the intent of Congress. The whole point of the amnesty provision is to "cure" unlawful possession, so I don't think that Congress simply enacting a new statute that limits future possession of newly manufactured machineguns clearly prohibits amnesty.

Two, because Orin Hatch said so during the debate over FOPA.

Here is a colloquy between Senators Dole and Hatch regarding amnesty and 922(o).

Mr. Dole. Can an amnesty period be declared administratively by the Secretary of Treasury under current law?
Mr. Hatch. Absolutely. Moreover it would be in the interest of law enforcement to do so in light of this provision in section 102. 132 Cong. Rec. S5361 (1986).

The “provision in section 102,” of course, was § 922(o). At the end of the colloquy, Senator Dole thanked Senator Hatch “for his clear legal reading of this provision,” noting that many colleagues “have asked me similar questions” and thanking Hatch for “explain[ing] in understandable terms these complex provisions.” Id.
In an exchange with Senator Metzenbaum, Hatch added that the colloquy “reflect[s] the intentions of the sponsors of the bill.” Id. Metzenbaum then asked Senator Kennedy about “granting amnesty to people who now possess machineguns outside of the law.” Kennedy responded: “There is nothing in the bill that gives such an authority, and there is clearly no valid law enforcement goal to be achieved by such open-ended amnesty.” 132 Cong. Rec. S5362 (1986).

That statement by Kennedy has been latched onto by ATF as foreclosing amnesty for machineguns, but if you look at what Kennedy actually said, he isn't referring to 207(d) amnesty at all. He simply says nothing in S.49 provided such authority. Also, I find relying a statement from Kennedy, who repeatedly tried to kill FOPA with poison pill amendments, as evidence of legislative intent somewhat suspect.

ETA: H/t to Steve Halbrook for his legislative research on FOPA.

[joshs]

Based on the language of 18USC922(o), I'd be interested in seeing your explanation as to how that statute would allow for any "amnesty" period with regard to "machineguns."

While the NFA (as amended) does allow for NFA "amnesty" periods, 18USC922(o), which became law after the 1968 amendments to the NFA, which created "amnesty" registration, specifically bars the transfer/possession of "new" (ie, manufactured after 18USC922(o) became law) machineguns, except for, "a transfer to or by, or possession by or under the authority of, the United States or any department or agency thereof or a State, or a department, agency, or political subdivision thereof."

Reading the quoted language again, what I think is "ridiculous" is not ATF's interpretation of the plain text of the statute (although I disagree that there's is the only reasonable interpretation), but I find their "legislative history" analysis extremely dishonest. Relying on the above quote from Senator Kennedy without even addressing Senator Hatch's statements is not a serious application of the legislative history. They could have addressed the legislative history in a number of ways, but presenting only one side, (which I think is weaker for the reasons stated in my last post) when there are contrary statements on the same and adjacent pages of the Congressional Record, makes it look like they are trying to hide information that damages their position.

I also don't like that ATF will pick and choose canons of statutory construction to fit their particular need at a given. In this case relying on 922(o) as the later passed provision, but then rejecting the idea that FOPA could allow for the import of C&R NFA firearms because of the potential conflict between 18USC925(d) and 26USC5844.

Even if you think that 922(o) as the later in time statute should control, I still think that this is a reasonable construction of the provisions, and I'm not sure how anyone would have standing to challenge the Attorney General's decision to create a period of amnesty.

[Darth_Uno]

So, a sternly worded letter, that went against the primary elements of their base, who are trumpian, and the secondary elements of their base, who are traditional republicans, to die on a lonely hill with... I don't know, the five libertarians who aren't completely focused on legalizing dope?

Well there's the problem. The NRA loses clout without being tied to the Republicans...but the Republican stance is just "We won't go out of our way to make things better, but we won't let it get (much) worse". If the NRA is ostensibly only about gun rights, there's a lot better choices than the GOP.

'Course if the NRA says, "Republicans don't do jack squat, vote for this guy instead," and the guy promises to get you all the cool stuff back and ohbytheway we're shit-canning Social Security...that's not really backing a winner.

Ah, politics. I hate them so much.

[Joe in PNG]

Well there's the problem. The NRA loses clout without being tied to the Republicans...but the Republican stance is just "We won't go out of our way to make things better, but we won't let it get (much) worse". If the NRA is ostensibly only about gun rights, there's a lot better choices than the GOP.

'Course if the NRA says, "Republicans don't do jack squat, vote for this guy instead," and the guy promises to get you all the cool stuff back and ohbytheway we're shit-canning Social Security...that's not really backing a winner.

Ah, politics. I hate them so much.

It is what it is. We're stuck in an odd cycle of pretty much having to choose the Least Bad over the Most Qualified, with the addition that most parties are working hard to be as repellent to the other side as humanly possible. So, if I vote for Third Party Pete, I run the risk of Radical Rheasa getting elected, and she's openly in favor of outright gun bans, ammo registration, communializing all private property, plus more and bigger government restrictions and more and bigger taxes. So I pretty much have vote for John the Squish instead.

Meanwhile, the supporters of Radical Rheasa are told that John the Squish is literally Hitler, and will throw all minorities into concentration camps, despite his decades old congressional record of never taking a stand on anything that didn't involve him getting money.

[Totem Polar]

For those that don't subscribe to push marketing from all the usual suspects:

https://smhttp-ssl-44367.nexcesscdn.net/pub/media/catalog/product/cache/39b7b76033368a957a5317a85b656898/n/o/now_i_have_a_machine_gun.jpg

[Screwball]

https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/trigger-words-w-ryan-cleckner/id1299836235?mt=2&i=1000426288312

Listened to this today, and figured it would be of interest.

Bump stocks, not many people care if they go. Binary triggers... a few more, but not enough to stand up. I had a very similar feeling to what Cleckner viewed... but pistol braces likely are on the block if this is left unchecked.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2019/01/04/coat-hanger-machine-gun-dias-drop-in-auto-sear/

Here's a thought, if someone goes nuts with one of these gadgets - it might motivate the beloved Orange One to ban all ARs. Certainly, the standard antigun folks will make that case with even more of a vivid incident.

Unless, Kavanaugh and Ollie save us. Cynical me.

This is an interesting article on the scope of Presidential emergency powers.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/01/presidential-emergency-powers/576418/

Now the article has useful information. It also raises the fears of Trump going off the deep end with them. Yeah, what else is new but the info is useful.

One part I found interesting (if truthful) was that the defender of our RKBA rights, who brings fear to the heart of the antigun forces (Ollie) was reported to:


Less is known about the contents of more recent peads and equivalent planning documents. But in 1987, The Miami Herald reported that Lieutenant Colonel Oliver North had worked with the Federal Emergency Management Agency to create a secret contingency plan authorizing “suspension of the Constitution, turning control of the United States over to fema, appointment of military commanders to run state and local governments and declaration of martial law during a national crisis.” A 2007 Department of Homeland Security report lists “martial law” and “curfew declarations” as “critical tasks” that local, state, and federal government should be able to perform in emergencies.

Reagan Advisors Ran Secret Government, Miami Herald, July 5, 1987

North wasn't a friend of EBRs in the past. Might have changed with the new job?

So my concern is that we cannot trust another Las Vegas like horror show to cause a moral panic that says EBRs ARE machine guns and ban the lot of them. Our supposed friends will go along with it. The presidential powers to do such are supported by the left and right as seen in the article, if the issue moves them.

[GardoneVT]

https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2019/01/04/coat-hanger-machine-gun-dias-drop-in-auto-sear/

Here's a thought, if someone goes nuts with one of these gadgets - it might motivate the beloved Orange One to ban all ARs. Certainly, the standard antigun folks will make that case with even more of a vivid incident.

Unless, Kavanaugh and Ollie save us. Cynical me.

This is an interesting article on the scope of Presidential emergency powers.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/01/presidential-emergency-powers/576418/

Now the article has useful information. It also raises the fears of Trump going off the deep end with them. Yeah, what else is new but the info is useful.

One part I found interesting (if truthful) was that the defender of our RKBA rights, who brings fear to the heart of the antigun forces (Ollie) was reported to:



Reagan Advisors Ran Secret Government, Miami Herald, July 5, 1987

North wasn't a friend of EBRs in the past. Might have changed with the new job?

So my concern is that we cannot trust another Las Vegas like horror show to cause a moral panic that says EBRs ARE machine guns and ban the lot of them. Our supposed friends will go along with it. The presidential powers to do such are supported by the left and right as seen in the article, if the issue moves them.

Silliness. The Orange One is endorsed by the NRA and says he’s a friend for gun rights. Empty promises are always better then logic!

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Sitting with a bunch of gun folks yesterday, the thought came up. What if Nancy said to Orange:

"Orange Overlord, we appreciate that terrorism is flooding the country through the border. We also know that folks of terrorist leanings have used higher capacity weapons for evil such as in San Bernadino. Let's make a deal! We will give the you the $ 5 billion for your truly excellent wall, if you use your emergency powers and/or get the ATF to ban all magazine fed semiautomatic long arms! I know that you are not afraid of the NRA! You did so well with bump stocks! It's easy to make a semiautomatic rifle into a machine gun! What do you think? The wall is so important to your base!"

Does OO make a deal? Or a partial one - no new semis, no mags over 10, register all older weapons. It's for the Wall, baby!

It this a fantasy brought on by too much hot green salsa? Given another atrocity like Las Vegas, I well could see OO going for it.

[OlongJohnson]

"Our security measure, your security measure - we both win!"

Negotiated like a champ.

[Rex G]

Sitting with a bunch of gun folks yesterday, the thought came up. What if Nancy said to Orange:

"Orange Overlord, we appreciate that terrorism is flooding the country through the border. We also know that folks of terrorist leanings have used higher capacity weapons for evil such as in San Bernadino. Let's make a deal! We will give the you the $ 5 billion for your truly excellent wall, if you use your emergency powers and/or get the ATF to ban all magazine fed semiautomatic long arms! I know that you are not afraid of the NRA! You did so well with bump stocks! It's easy to make a semiautomatic rifle into a machine gun! What do you think? The wall is so important to your base!"

Does OO make a deal? Or a partial one - no new semis, no mags over 10, register all older weapons. It's for the Wall, baby!

It this a fantasy brought on by too much hot green salsa? Given another atrocity like Las Vegas, I well could see OO going for it.

Well, I believe that the OO would, certainly, throw anyone/anything under the bus, if it accomplished a larger goal, or, as a matter of convenience. The OO was politically allied with the Clintons, when it was politically convenient, and he is now politically allied with firearms owners, because it was politically convenient, at election time. He may well dump firearms owners as quickly as he dumped the Clintons.

[Spartan1980]

Well, I believe that the OO would, certainly, throw anyone/anything under the bus, if it accomplished a larger goal, or, as a matter of convenience. The OO was politically allied with the Clintons, when it was politically convenient, and he is now politically allied with firearms owners, because it was politically convenient, at election time. He may well dump firearms owners as quickly as he dumped the Clintons.

Ahem... There's an election coming up in about 2 years.

[Rex G]

Ahem... There's an election coming up in about 2 years.

Yes, but toddlers think of the present, not the future.

[0ddl0t]

Federal judge expresses skepticism of US Government's bump stock ban, denies motion to dismiss: https://reason.com/2020/03/31/district-court-finds-bump-stock-ban-may-constitute-a-taking-because-the-federal-government-lacks-a-police-power/

[5pins]

https://twitter.com/2Aupdates/status/1611496031207800833

[HeavyDuty]

https://twitter.com/2Aupdates/status/1611496031207800833

“Hmm...this page doesn’t exist. Try searching for something else.”

[5pins]

“Hmm...this page doesn’t exist. Try searching for something else.”

BREAKING: Cargill v. Garland (5th Circuit): En banc Fifth Circuit strikes down the federal bump stock ban, saying it violates the Administrative Procedure Act.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ij7E5CAymiQ

[fly out]

AP's story:

https://apnews.com/article/politics-new-orleans-texas-state-government-b5990ed60ebb617055cc8d5c36a84050

[5pins]

Breaking News. Government Intends To File Cargill Appeal By Thursday

<strong>
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zn0WHSeQhB8&amp;t=256s

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Well, when Donald goes to speak to the NRA (saw the list of speakers) ask him about that! Of course, he's the greatest champion of the Second Amendment of all times.

[5pins]

With Only Minutes To Spare Biden Administration Appeals Bump Stock Case to SCOTUS (ammoland.com) (https://www.ammoland.com/2023/04/garland-et-al-v-cargill/#axzz7yDVUB2rI)

AUSTIN, TX – On Thursday, April 6th, 2023 at 10:30 pm, With only minutes to spare, the DOJ filed Petition for A Writ of Certiorari.
The DOJ is also asking for a stay against the Circuit Court’s ruling until the United States Supreme Court can decide whether to grant certiorari. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals en banc ruled 13-3 (https://www.ammoland.com/2023/04/attorney-general-garland-prepares-bump-stock-appeal-to-supreme-court/) in favor of Cargill. The court remanded the case back to the District Court to rule in favor of Cargill and issue appropriate relief on 01-06-2023.




“By ruling 13-3 in our favor, the Fifth Circuit reinforced the principle that the laws are to be written by Congress, not federal administrators. And if the Supreme Court agrees to hear the case, we are confident that it will uphold the Fifth Circuit’s decision,” says Michael Cargill.

[5pins]

Sixth Circuit Panel Rejects Bump Stock Ban

https://reason.com/volokh/2023/04/25/sixth-circuit-panel-rejects-bump-stock-ban-again/


Today, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit decided Hardin v. BATF (https://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/23a0086p-06.pdf), concluding that a bump stock is not a machine gun "part" prohibited under federal law. Judge Gilman wrote for the court, joined by Judge McKeague. Judge Bush concurred in the judgment.