If the lower courts are refusing to acknowledge the legally binding precedent of the Heller ruling when it pertains to common, everyday firearms that can easily be had on the private market, there is no reason to try and tackle the hughes amendment presently, as it would receive no traction.
No, I don't. I only own three "long guns" and a handgun, and used to reload my own .35 caliber brass.
If they'd opposed it from the jump instead of bitching out in the first place, it would never have gained momentum. Same with NFA. Same with GCA. Ffs they used to oppose open carry. The problems you see they bear plenty of blame for. If you want action there are far better organizations to donate to.
You want me to support a "guns rights organization" that cant or wont fight NFA GCA Hughes or even the executive simply re defining entire sections of law at a whim creating felons with the stroke of a pen without the input of Congress? I mean, you DO understand what the bump stock ban is doing right? You understand it's not simply about banning bump stocks but about the executive rewriting the definition section entirely by whim? THAT is what's at stake here, not ****ing bump stocks. ^^^ seems you missed the forest for the trees.
As you have reposted your earlier questions and comments I am guessing you would really like me to respond. I would believe this is more for your own enjoyment and horn blowing than for actual problem solving. I don't want you to support anything you would prefer not to support. I feel the NRA is not a gun rights organization, but an organization that supports gun rights. Yes. Yes Didn't miss the forest. I live right in the middle of it, in the American Redoubt where there is likely a higher concentration of firearms in civilian hands then anywhere on the planet. Many of us in this area don't really care what they do in Washington DC.
And the distinction between those two would be... what exactly? This doesnt strike you as violative of the constitution? That sort of arrogance is how slaves are made.
Dont be obtuse. Its tiresome. Youd end up the slave because of your arrogance that nothing in DC might ever effect you.
No. A Marlin lever action firing .35 caliber Remingtom magnum rounds. It's a great deer gun for heavy brush areas.
I like the Marlin rifles; at least the older ones. They even can do good service for personal defense if you know how to run them as such.
I have a 336, but it's chambered for .45/70. It's kept at a friend's place in AK. Explain what you mean by "True. But it causes a rapid trigger action with virtually the same effect as a machine gun." I suspect you are referring to the potential rate of fire, which, by the way, isn't criteria for defining a fully auto weapon. I asked if you had any semi autos because recoil of nearly any semi auto can be used to increase the rate of fire without any device. Rapid trigger action isn't full auto or should there be a regulated ROF?
The most important distinction here is the mechanical function of the weapon does not fire the next round - it loads the next round, but the round does hot fire until the shooter pulls the trigger. Thus, not a machinegun as defined by law.
Very true and that is why I believe it will be shot down in the courts. BATF misconstrued the definitions described in the NFA, but this is not uncommon when a regulatory agency is pushed to do something they understand they should not do. Boss says get it done, they do and the courts overrule that agencies decision, the agency shrugs and the boss can claim the courts effed it all up.
Most any with understanding of how gun mechanisms work know that. But, just as GCAs have tried to apply the term, ‘assault weapon’ to modern semi autos, they are attempting the same springing off the public’s general ignorance of the definition of and the mechanical operation of a full auto weapon. By shifting the argument subtly to ROF rather than the mechanism and knowing any semi auto can be bump fired without any assessory, they are laying the groundwork to indict all semi autos because they can be made to shoot at some arbitrary ‘high’ ROF. It’s incrementalism by playing on ignorance.
Are you perhaps unfamiliar with a bumpstock or how it works? The trigger is pushed each time a round is fired. 1 trigger pull per round fired = not a machine gun no matter the cyclic rate you achieve. Machinegun = I push the trigger once and it fires until I let up off the trigger. Machinegun != (does not equal) fires faster than an arbitrary limit not explicated. Here: https://www.firearmspolicy.org/guedes-v-batfe ^ The lawyers running the case for FPC took the time to make a nice easy to understand for the layman video to explain how it works and why your thought above is simply wrong.
Does anyone wonder how this bump stock ban aged? I wonder how many people actually destroyed them or turned them in. I’m going to guess that most didn’t
It'll be hard to tell because not very many had one to begin with, and most of them are poorly made so would have been tossed out already.
Rubber bands apparently work better than the banned "bump stocks" - and they give them away whenever you buy carrots broccoli etc. at the grocery story. Gun control laws only encourage more gun crime.
You can get really good ones from the post office, but I guess using one of those with a firearm would be considered "Going Postal."
