Are "Bump-Stocks" getting banned?

Kathyp · March 11, 2019, 04:12:43 PM

I am a gun owner and 2nd amendment supporter. I also have mixed feelings about red flag laws. I would like to see laws amended so that those who are mentally ill can be stopped before they go out and shoot up the workplace, or whatever. In order to intervene, you would have to make sure they can't buy weapons and would have to take what they have even though they have not yet committed a crime.

I am very conflicted about this, but I am not sure how else you could stop these nuts if you are not proactively disarming them. I understand that this does not impact the majority of gun deaths and does not stop the criminal. However, WE are more in danger of having our weapons taken because of the public and spectacular nature of the shootings done by the nuts.

Of course, my first preference would be to have places to lock up the nuts...

gww · March 12, 2019, 08:01:17 AM

Kathy

QuoteI am very conflicted about this, but I am not sure how else you could stop these nuts if you are not proactively disarming them.

You can not stop the nuts and who gets to pick what is nutty. How many people get to not be the chosen ones to own a gun so you can have safety? You can have a gun and not be safe but at least you have some kind of chance. You can not have a gun accident if you don't have one around. You cannot have the chance you might have in some certain situations that you would have if you do have a gun around. In the beginning, you make a choice and only at the end of life will that choice be judged by you as good or bad. I make the choice to have a gun knowing that it is what it is, a chance for good or bad. I keep my fingers crossed that there is more good then bad in the world and hope that my judgement puts me on the good side of things knowing that some out there are going to have bad judgement and evil intent.

It is sorta like the safety or freedom argument. You won't have freedom and may not have safety if somebody else gets to make those decisions on what your safety is.

As bad as it is, bad actors have to commit bad things to be guilty of something in a place where you are innocent until proven guilty. The only counter to that is for a person to have the opportunity to do the things and have the tools to try and protect himself. It will not always work but gives the best chance. The ones hurt will think it was bad and the ones helped will know it was good. No guarantees in life except the chance to do your best.
Cheers
gww

Acebird · March 12, 2019, 09:02:57 AM

Quote from: kathyp on March 11, 2019, 04:12:43 PM
Of course, my first preference would be to have places to lock up the nuts...

That attitude is why the nuts don't seek help until it is too late. There are some solutions to mental illness but it is not guaranteed. Most solutions involve taking medication. Then there is the problem of the patient going off meds on their own because of the side effects, costs, or timing requirements. An alcoholic has to give up alcohol in order to have a normal life. It seems to me a gun owner has to give up firearms if they have been prescribed drugs for mental illness. Also the right to own firearms should be dependent on metal stability.

Michael Bush · March 12, 2019, 09:27:24 AM

>Also the right to own firearms should be dependent on metal stability.

Then it wouldn't be a right, it would be a privilege dependent on proving you are not crazy. How would you prove you are NOT crazy?

BeeMaster2 · March 12, 2019, 10:05:51 AM

The problem with that is someone in government can decide that they don?t like you and make the decision to take away your guns away, they can.
Jim

Kathyp · March 12, 2019, 12:29:39 PM

QuoteYou can not stop the nuts and who gets to pick what is nutty.
The problem with that is someone in government can decide that they don?t like you and make the decision to take away your guns away, they can.

Herein lies my conflict.

There was a time that you could lock up people who were perceived to be a danger. Under lock and key, they could be evaluated. It is true that this system was also abused and that it was also perhaps a violation of rights. On the other hand, it was a safety issue and we didn't have as many crazy folks on the streets like the one who just stabbed someone here for no reason other than the voices told him to.

Being on the west coast I am closer to losing my right to have the weapons I wish to have. If I still lived in CA I would already be in violation of the state laws. If we don't figure this out, you guys will end up where we are.

I don't know the answer. I just know the problem and see where we are going.

Terri Yaki · June 14, 2024, 11:43:40 AM

Old thread, new ruling. And the final answer is...

QuoteSupreme Court strikes down federal ban on bump stocks

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/supreme-court-strikes-down-federal-ban-bump-stocks?intcmp=tw_fnc

They are not my thing but I believe it should be for those who's it is.

Kathyp · June 14, 2024, 12:38:05 PM

this was kind of a technical ruling, rather than a rights ruling. I am happy to see the courts rein in some of the alphabet agencies. They don't have (shouldn't have) the power to redefine things and then order action on the re-definition.

Michael Bush · June 14, 2024, 12:44:02 PM

One of the frustrating things about most of these rulings is they are not based on rights, but on technicalities... The pistol brace rule is dead, but since it's not based on rights, what does it actually mean? They will just invent a new stupid rule that will have to be contested and fought in court.

animal · June 14, 2024, 12:59:11 PM

Quote from: Michael Bush on June 14, 2024, 12:44:02 PM
One of the frustrating things about most of these rulings is they are not based on rights, but on technicalities... The pistol brace rule is dead, but since it's not based on rights, what does it actually mean? They will just invent a new stupid rule that will have to be contested and fought in court.

Yes!
The ironic thing is that bump stocks could be banned using reasoning based on the 2A itself.
The term "well regulated" comes into play and the fact that the bump-stock decreases accuracy and effectiveness of the rifle. In other words, the way the bump stock functions, it encourages an ill regulated militia by decreasing the rifle's effectiveness in battle(as well as in general use). Under the same lines of reasoning, there would be no grounds for the effective banning of actual full automatics and selective fire rifles ... no politician wants to open that can of worms.

Kathyp · June 14, 2024, 02:02:54 PM

Yup, it could be done legislatively and might be done that way eventually. They could do it in the same way they did the assault weapons ban in the past. Congress would rather have the agencies do this stuff so they don't have to put their name on anything.

I don't see the point in the bump stocks. Seems like a great way to waste a bunch of ammo. I also hate these agencies thinking that they are unelected legislators. Let Congress put their names on the bill and deal with those who elected them.

Ben Framed · June 14, 2024, 02:25:14 PM

> I don't see the point in the bump stocks.

Nor do I.

>I also hate these agencies thinking that they are unelected legislators.

Ditto They are not.

>Let Congress put their names on the bill and deal with those who elected them.

That should be the same for ANY regulation. Regulation without reparation should be as taxation without representation.

animal · June 14, 2024, 02:37:45 PM

Kathy ... Nope. the bump stock thing was Trump jumping in to direct the ATF and getting populist credit after the Vegas nutjob . .. one of the very few places gww could fault Trump for doing something unconstitutional and actually be right.

(edit: just to clarify, the way it was done was unconstitutional and the reasoning behind the action was flawed)
The AWB should have been struck down and it wasn't because SCOTUS was abysmally stacked at the time. Things are better now(but not really good) ... Based on rulings it the past few years, AWB would have a chance of being struck down today. It's never a good idea to take such chances, though.
The agencies don't just think that. Congress has unconstitutionally delegated power to them. (another front in the Supreme Court "war" that is ongoing ... and related to many areas of regulation, including guns.)

My point was they would never ban bump stocks by the 2A reasoning I mentioned ... because it would rely on declarationist rather than constructionist reasoning ... and be in line with Michael Bush's comment. This shift in the basis of Constitutional reasoning could lead to undermining well over half of the things the govt. does and spends money on.

animal · June 14, 2024, 03:00:34 PM

Quote from: Ben Framed on June 14, 2024, 02:25:14 PM
> I don't see the point in the bump stocks.
Nor do I.

a "budget" way of : opening up a stack of watermelons so bees can feed.... rapidly draining water from plastic jugs .. or just making a little girl giggle(priceless)

Seriously, I don't have any use for them either ... but I also say the same for golf clubs, cricket bats, skateboards, and fireworks. .. but others have different ideas of having fun than I do and I'm not a control freak ... like most politicians are. I did like lawn darts(and never hurt anyone with one), but there ya go...

Terri Yaki · June 14, 2024, 03:02:48 PM

I always felt like the ATF, EPA et al were used to pass laws at the whim of the president and sidestepping a congress that would not have passed them. IIRC, there was fairly recently a decision that the EPA was not a lawmaking body and did not have the right to pass at least some of their regulations.

Kathyp · June 14, 2024, 04:01:31 PM

QuoteKathy ... Nope. the bump stock thing was Trump jumping in to direct the ATF and getting populist credit after the Vegas nutjob .

Yes, but the point of this decision is that ATF did it and did not have the authority to do it. The same might have been said if Trump had done it by executive order.

Congress has unconstitutionally delegated power to them. (another front in the Supreme Court "war" that is ongoing ... and related to many areas of regulation, including guns.)

QuoteMy point was they would never ban bump stocks by the 2A reasoning I mentioned ... because it would rely on declarationist rather than constructionist reasoning ... and be in line with Michael Bush's comment. This shift in the basis of Constitutional reasoning could lead to undermining well over half of the things the govt. does and spends money on.

Yes, which was my point about Congress trying to keep it's hands clean of controversial stuff. "ATF did it, Not us!".

Quotethere was fairly recently a decision that the EPA was not a lawmaking body and did not have the right to pass at least some of their regulations.

I think that was the inland waterways thing where EPA tried to take over every puddle and cow pond in the country.

animal · June 14, 2024, 04:39:58 PM

Just to correct both of us here... Actually the ATFE didn't do it.

Trump issued a memorandum to the AG and told him to do it. The ATFE didn't have a director and would not have been able to because the power to "write rules implementing legislation" rests with the director of the agencies.
Blocking appointment of an ATFE director for years was a tactic of pro-gun politicians to prevent that sort of thing.
Trump went the extra mile of unconstitutionality, so to speak, by going a route that had never been done before.

Trump ordered a legal but unconstitutional act to be done by the AG ... and yeah, 99 percent Congress's fault.

Kathyp · June 14, 2024, 04:54:45 PM

QuoteJust to correct both of us here... Actually the ATFE didn't do it.

Lol. Thanks for looking all of that up and fixing us.

animal · June 14, 2024, 05:13:43 PM

nah .. you made me think about it a second, remembered that there wasn't an ATF director ... and was compelled to look up how it happened without an XO ..

it's a disease..
I have a much easier time arguing with democrats ... they almost never say anything that makes me think

Ben Framed · June 14, 2024, 06:46:09 PM

Quote from: animal on June 14, 2024, 03:00:34 PM
Quote from: Ben Framed on June 14, 2024, 02:25:14 PM
> kathyP
I don't see the point in the bump stocks.

Nor do I.

a "budget" way of : opening up a stack of watermelons so bees can feed.... rapidly draining water from plastic jugs .. or just making a little girl giggle(priceless)

Seriously, I don't have any use for them either ... but I also say the same for golf clubs, cricket bats, skateboards, and fireworks. .. but others have different ideas of having fun than I do and I'm not a control freak ... like most politicians are. I did like lawn darts(and never hurt anyone with one), but there ya go...

>"but I also say the same for golf clubs, cricket bats, skateboards, and fireworks. .. but others have different ideas of having fun than I do and I'm not a control freak ... like most politicians are. I did like lawn darts(and never hurt anyone with one), but there ya go..."

We are on the same page. The nor do I was based for 'my' interests, (or lack of), which was based on the picture I had drawn 'of them' from the conversation you all are having here, which was 'you would be lucky to hit the broad side of the barn with one'! lol. So if that were the case then whats the use ....... Each to his own..

As far as the yard darts, that should be up to each individual to choose and do as they please.. It was a fun game when I was young especially on camping trips with several other kids in the group.

However it was reported there was a kid from another school who got hit in the top of the head with one. I had also seen a kid walk to close to a batter and took the swing in the head during baseball, luckily he had a batting helmet on but it still gave him a concussion. So there you go again....

......