Sessions also said top lawyers in the Justice Department believe that bump stocks can be banned through the regulatory process, Reuters reports. He noted that President Trump had asked the Justice Department to draft regulations that would ban the devices, which are used to accelerate gunfire on semi-automatic weapons. “We will have an announcement on that soon,” he said. http://www.abajournal.com/news/arti...ro&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=weekly_email
They need to ban hands, double ban thumbs and fingers, joints, triple ban elbows, knees, and any sharp objects, any blunt objects, all rocks, all drills, drill presses, hammers. Screw it, just ban humans, let's force us all to get into the Prius Final Solutions and we'll never have to have murder again, and the last human alive should quad-ban murder before he gets into his Prius. See there, Utopia now, no more murder.
When you need a license for a string, that's when you know the government is in full over-reach mode. What would our Founding Fathers have thought about this?
Let's all speak plainly, our founding fathers would have already been shooting back when they passed the First Federal gun control law back in 1934. They would have basically said come and take them like the boys did up in Concord when the British came for their illegal arms and munitions
That one supposedly was registered as the metal tag supposedly has a serial number on it. The owner actually applied for it to use it legally.
The string only needs to be licensed if you add it to a semi-auto rifle. The ATF didn't want to piss off the string-owning public in general.
But any string can be added to the rifle, making it illegal. So all string must be serial numbered and registered. Nemo
100% Concurrence. Now we say support a gun group and send in the lawyers. Please take note of where we are presently using that tactic. What was that definition of insanity again?
And any firearm capable of accepting a string is only one step away from full-auto, and therefore must be banned. /sarcasm
I do take note of where we presently are . . . It seems to me over the last twenty years, and especially over the last ten, things are way better for liberty, not worse. Does this opinion of mine reflect insanity?
No... Having been around for far longer than the last 20 years things have been getting better. More and more states are once again allowing the carrying of firearms where 20 years ago the practice was all but eliminated. Go back 40 years and things are not so great today as they were then. There has been a big turning back the clock in the last 20 years. Maybe some day we can get back to to the pre NFA days. It just takes the courts to not interject their personal beliefs and feelings into their decisions.
Well, I think it would have been better to have NEVER had a federal "assault weapon" ban in the first place, even though the one we had came with an expiration date 10 years after it was enacted. Its passage encouraged many states to pass their own permanent and non-expiring AWBs too. I don't mind so much the 1986 cut-off on new machinegun registrations, considering that we got more important pro-gun reforms passed through the same bill: No more FFL recordkeeping of ammo (made it OK for companies to sell you ammo directly and ship it to your home address), a safe passage provision for passing-through anti-gun jurisdictions with an unloaded firearm encased and out of reach, and some limits on ATF's inspections of and harassment of FFL dealers. To me, the biggest loss in gun rights over the last 20 years, well, let's say 25 years, was the Lautenberg Amendment that banned gun possession by any domestic violence misdemeanor offender, regardless of the date of offense. To permanently lose a fundamental constitutional right over a MISDEMEANOR crime was unheard-of at the time. Only felonies have historically triggered the loss of traditional rights of citizens beyond any period of incarceration or probation. Stripping citizens of their rights over small or petty offenses is a huge new development in the law. Carry rights have been expanded in the last 25 years, sure. More permits issued, more reciprocity, more states issuing carry licenses. But gun ownership has been denied to many more people, and the types of weapons we can choose from was limited for many years (and still is, in some states). I'd call it a mixed bag of results.
But only if the string is of a certain length, has loops at each end and is added to the rifle specifically to increase the rate of fire. So sayeth the ATF. https://www.everydaynodaysoff.com/2010/01/25/shoestring-machine-gun/
One benefit of having had it is that everybody now pretty much agrees it did zilch for crime prevention. I strongly disagree. While the Firearm Owners Protection Act did have some good provisions, it was not enough to cut off the militia's access to militia weapons. This Act did more to undermine the militia than any other federal law passed in the history of the United States. Outside of 20 years . . . doesn't count! I still hold out hope that maybe the Supreme Court will undo this one in the future . . . I find your last paragraph ironic given your minimizing the damage done in 1986.
I guess this is why know one is putting up too much of a fuss over bump stocks. I mean they can infringe there if they leave something else alone right?
I am not sure that has anything to do with what I wrote, but the reality is that not many people have them and not many people care about them and the general public perception is that they turn a semi-auto rifle into a machine gun. It does not matter that you could hand a slide stock equipped AR15 to a member of the public who holds that opinion and laugh as he tries to get it to fire "full-auto" . . . nobody is undertaking that education on a large scale sufficient to sway public opinion. In this case, public opinion is based on a false premise, but I do not see a way to correct it. The general public also does not care about executive overreach so long as they agree with the result. The general public does not care about judicial activism so long as they agree with the result. I tried to make this argument when the S. Ct. was about to rule that homosexuals have a right to marry, something the writers and ratifiers of the Fourteenth Amendment never in their wildest dreams would have imagined, but many here did not care, because they liked the result. Well, when you adopt that sort of reasoning, then this is what you get. Results based principles (which means no principles). A principled approach to the second amendment would look at the reasons it was adopted and keep the government away from undermining those reasons regardless of the majority's whims at the moment. A principled approach to executive power would need to find the power to ban an item of commerce in Article II of the constitution (article, not amendment). The public by and large has no principles but is swept up in whatever current propaganda is being displayed to them on the internet. Conservatives and libertarians and anarchists are not immune from this.