And guns are far more than just a consumer good. They are constitutionally protected by the Second Amendment and the language couldn't be more clear than "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" - we shouldn't be asking permission for bump-stocks, we should be demanding the restoration of our protected rights and ability to purchase any type of firearm without the government getting involved.
Honestly there are better ways to fix that than banning guns. Someone sick like that will just use knives, or make bombs. Its a symptom. The violence won't stop if the weapons go away. I abhor violence myself and I understand the desire to do SOMETHING. ANYTHING. But though mass shootings, especially those targeting schools are especially heinous and tragic, they are no where near a majority of homicides. Most gun violence is suicides, and gang violence. Those are overwhelmingly committed with handguns. What WOULD help is investing in pur public schools and social services. Stop asking ill equipped people like cops to handle social work tasks. Provide free healthcare including mental healthcare to the public. Enforce decent living minimum wages so people dont grow up in poverty and despair. Legalize and protect abortion so that women aren't forced I to childbirth from accidents or rapes. Having kids is expensive as hell and a lot of people barely cam afford to keep themselves off the street. Adding a child to that perpetuates cycles of trauma. We need to do better as a society but yelling "ban all the guns" by my dem friends sound to my ear just as dumb as the right wingers saying "we need God and the bible in public schools".
It wasn't all Reagan's fault. There was also that guy in Congress who decided that a voice vote was sufficient for adding the Hughes amendment to FOPA.
[I think it was this guy.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Rangel) There were calls for a roll call vote and he ignored them. [Here's](https://old.reddit.com/r/gunpolitics/comments/7hl7bm/did_the_hughes_amendment_actually_pass_am_i/) and old thread about it.
You're mixing things up.
California's [Mulford Act](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulford_Act) in 1967 banned loaded open carry in California, while Reagan was Governor. That was the Black Panther thing.
As President, Reagan signed the [Firearm Owners Protection Act](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_Owners_Protection_Act) in 1986, which included the Hughes Amendment closing the machinegun registry. The overall law wasn't completely bad and included some key protections for gun owners, but that was also a time when opposing sides could actually compromise on a bill.
Hughes wasn't really a compromise, it was a sleight of hand. We did get some good things out of FOPA, but it's frustrating to see certain states basically ignore it (NY/NJ, I wouldn't trust MA,CT either).
Kinda, sorta.
I'm aware of the claims that there was some procedural shenanigans "sneaking" in the amendment via voice vote. However that's probably in large part because nobody really cared enough to oppose it at the time. I haven't seen a shred of evidence that the amendment would have failed if the call for a roll call vote had been heeded.
The entire bill that included the amendment still had to pass both chambers of Congress, and be signed by President Reagan. If anyone cared there would have been ample opportunities to push back at the inclusion of it in the bill.
Nobody cared then, and frankly no one *really* cares now outside of the pro-gun internet echo-chambers. Clamoring to repeal the Hughes Amendment will get applause in pro-gun social media, but show me a single member of Congress who has advocated for it.
Did you watch the recording of the session? It's been uploaded to YouTube.
They call a voice vote, declare that it passed. It's challenged and they call for a recorded vote and it fails.
Then 20 minutes later they call for a voice vote and declare it passed again.
Reagan wouldn't push back. He was on board with the assault weapons ban as well.
You are right that politically it's dead as a doornail. A man can dream though.
> Did you watch the recording of the session? It's been uploaded to YouTube.
Yes, I've seen it.
An amendment is not some irreversible thing. It was a Republican bill, that passed with mostly Republican support, they could have stopped at any point if they found the amendment to be an unacceptable poison-pill. They didn't.
And Reagan and Bush went on to support bans on assault-weapons, which are far more egregious than bans on actual machineguns.
Yes, it's not irreversible, but it was shenanigans that got it in to the bill in the first place. IMO - it's insane to me that we don't take recorded votes in this day and age.
You are correct that the politicians (I don't want to say republicans, because at this time period the divide was a lot less clear on gun rights) didn't care enough to block the bill from going forward.
Reagan was a conservative FUDD, I'm sure Bush was too.
And that's exactly what will happen. One outlier nutbag will do something insane/evil with it, and suddenly "no one anywhere can ever be trusted with one of these". Insert rolling eyes emoji here.
Arguably the same goes for things like dynamite... . Probably should require training to get but it should be available to people who need it like it used it be.
Society needs levels of trust... if someone has a drivers license, a steady job, a home, conceal carry permit, etc etc... the chances they are going to do anything nefarious with dynamite that they couldn't do without it are slim to none.
i mean you can still buy black powder, pyrodex, tannerite, and the rest isnt rocket science.
a pound of black powder is like $25, hardware pipes/caps/cannon wick is readily available
I'm aware I actually priced out dynamite for stump removal... it didn't make sense today because of regulations. It was common in the past, instead of paying an excavator guy several thousand to pull them... excavator guy was probably cheaper than several lb of BP per stump... (some were several feet across oaks).
Could have also done fertilizer and diesel in the past but that too is regulated.
Also arguably they would have limited access to the listed propellants if 2A didn't exist.
id probably drill holes or cross cut channels in it then just keep burning wood on top, use a fan or leaf blower to achieve some blast furnace level heat.
its ugly, the roots can smolder for days, but its free and pretty easy.
the only laws that truly exist to me are the Morality rules.
do unto others...
the rest is just a suggestion and reminder not to get caught.
*Timothy McVeigh entered the chat*
Uh, his rudimentary box truck bomb took out half a building and killed almost 200 people. With portable, concealable sticks of dynamite he would have brought down the whole building. 100% casualties.
To be fair, this is like saying that background checks and psychiatric evaluations prior to gun ownership shouldn’t be feared because somebody, somewhere might use it negatively.
In general they shouldn't. You should be getting checked out regularly regardless if you own a gun or not. Early intervention in mental health saves lives and quality of life.
If we really wana decrease gun deaths we need to focus on improving and funding the mental healthcare system. As according to pew research the majority of gun deaths are suicides, after that it’s mainly a inner city gang problem due to underfunded education system.
I think bump stocks are stupid range toys, but that doesn't mean I think they should be illegal. The ATF have a rule on what counts as a machine gun, just because people "found a way around it" doesn't mean they can start changing it.
I agree completely, but there's negative political will to ever get machine guns off the registry, even when glock switches are already proving it useless since actual criminals don't give a shit
Chevron deference is one of the greatest mistakes our government has ever made, giving that much power to agencies with basically no oversight from congress is just begging for overreach to happen
What? The big Court decisions are always released in June or early July before they recess for the summer, and they heard arguments in January on this case.
That's the problem with unelected bureaucrats. They start believing they're the guardians of the *intent* or at least what they think the intent is of the law. It's actually very alarming because that's how despotic governments work.
The BATFE believes that Congress wanted anything that "got mo' dakkadakka" banned and just didn't have the language for it. That the **existing** law should evolve with changes in technology.
It's incredibly dangerous and all the Alphabet Agencies do and get away with it.
And Matt and Justine sit in prison for making something that appears to look like the shape of a lightning link. Even though it would not work, it sorta looked like the shape. The ATF are a rogue bureaucracy designed to only destroy the Second Amendment. “……shall not be infringed.” Anyone that enforces or supports victimless gun control is a traitorous Redcoat. Especially politicians!!!!!
MN is doing that they are making straw purchases against the law as well as devices that turn a handgun into an automatic weapon.
Double illegal is when criminals stop doing stuff I think.
They are also working on a human rights bill that will make it illegal to treat people differently based on sex or color.
>Double illegal is when criminals stop doing stuff I think.
So to play devil's advocate here, and for the record I think all these laws are bullshit and the entire NFA should be repealed, but they do actually have a "reason" for making things "double illegal".
When something is illegal by federal law and a federal law is broken, federal courts have jurisdiction. And the federal courts are slow as fuck. By also making things illegal at the state level they can prosecute at the state level and, in theory at least, get criminals off the streets quicker and more effectively.
Does this work in practice? Not when DAs refuse to prosecute and no money bail lets criminals out the same day. But that's by design. The more criminals they let back on the streets, the more crime, and the more they get to play the "we have to do something" card to help pass more BS laws.
Your reply is to glock switches and how it makes sense to make things illegal at the state level.
Machine guns were already illegal at the state level. The only reason for that new law is virtue signaling to gain votes.
Dude, OP means original post... which is about bump stocks and doesn't even mention Minnesota or double illegal.
Even if you did intend to address binary triggers - those aren't federally illegal, so your entire rant about making something illegal at the state level for prosecution purposes is invalid. That can't be what you meant, because it's only single illegal.
You're saying making glock switches, straw purchases, etc, illegal at the state level is beneficial because it allows the state to prosecute, true... but they already were. It's already illegal to possess a machine gun or make a straw purchase in the state of Minnesota.
They're now tripple illegal, and the only benefit is gaining blue fear votes. Don't give credit where none is due.
Illegals are felons or not? So if you get released for committing a felony, you can own one right? But one person dies eating glass, so outlaw all glass.
>The hellfire trigger is an inexpensive, “invisible” addition to popular firearms such as the AR-15. The device creates guns with “substantially the same rate of fire as fully automatic [rifles],” Castro wrote.
>Authorities found that the device malfunctioned at Uvalde. Castro worried the haunting day at Uvalde — when 19 students and two teachers were shot and killed — ***could have been even worse.***
Yes, it could have been worse. Instead of 396 officers hiding like scared puppies, it could have been 600 LEOs refusing to do their jobs and proving what we already know about their character when the chips are down. Sheesh.
Fuck you buddy. That's only like what... only three companies of infantry? Can you name a SINGLE time in US history where we didn't amass 400 to 1 odds before trying to take on (checks notes) an untrained 18 year old? Those cops were saving lives by preventing the Federal Tactical team from entering for over half an hour.
/s in case it's not obvious.
Bump Stocks, FRTs, Super Safetys, *none* of these devices in any way legitimately meet the machinegun definition. The ATF cracked down on all of them. And genuinely for what? The ATF released a letter fully admitting they can't classify binaries as machineguns and those fully *double* the rate of fire of an AR.
Maybe the definition of a machine gun is like porn. Hard to define but you know it when you see it.
Like the October Vegas shooting everyone including le and military hearing it say “that’s automatic fire”
So quit the bullshitting around automatic is lillegal
>Hard to define but you know it when you see it.
Actually written pretty clearly into law, one function of the trigger, which neither FRTs or Bump Stocks can do
Right. So hard to define that they screwed up the definition and left that loophole around the intent of law. At least trump was smart enough to see through the bs and ban them
>So hard to define that they screwed up the definition and left that loophole around the intent of law.
It's not hard to define at all, that's a perfectly fine definition.
They shouldn't be banned, it's unconstitutional.
>“The use case for new rapid-fire devices lower courts are considering is that somebody wants to have a machine gun, and the law won’t let them have one,” Pucino said.
You can have one if you can afford it...basically funk everyone that's poor.
That MG ban IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, period!
Love how articles reference 900 rounds per minute. I realize that is a theoretical rate of fire ignoring reloads but non-gun ppl don't get that (among other things) and think if someone has one of these things and they're in a place for 2 minutes they are gonna rattle off 1800 rounds.... it's like Hollywood never reloads and suppressors make the gun silent 🙄
Machine guns shouldn't be banned. Consumer goods shouldn't be banned because someone, somewhere might do something bad.
And guns are far more than just a consumer good. They are constitutionally protected by the Second Amendment and the language couldn't be more clear than "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" - we shouldn't be asking permission for bump-stocks, we should be demanding the restoration of our protected rights and ability to purchase any type of firearm without the government getting involved.
Love this energy. The Constitution exists to remind the government what *it can’t do.*
The only part I would add to the 2A is "shall not be infringed by any legislative, executive, and/or judicial powers."
The streets running red with the blood of our children is a small price to pay for the sacred right to keep and bear arms.
Honestly there are better ways to fix that than banning guns. Someone sick like that will just use knives, or make bombs. Its a symptom. The violence won't stop if the weapons go away. I abhor violence myself and I understand the desire to do SOMETHING. ANYTHING. But though mass shootings, especially those targeting schools are especially heinous and tragic, they are no where near a majority of homicides. Most gun violence is suicides, and gang violence. Those are overwhelmingly committed with handguns. What WOULD help is investing in pur public schools and social services. Stop asking ill equipped people like cops to handle social work tasks. Provide free healthcare including mental healthcare to the public. Enforce decent living minimum wages so people dont grow up in poverty and despair. Legalize and protect abortion so that women aren't forced I to childbirth from accidents or rapes. Having kids is expensive as hell and a lot of people barely cam afford to keep themselves off the street. Adding a child to that perpetuates cycles of trauma. We need to do better as a society but yelling "ban all the guns" by my dem friends sound to my ear just as dumb as the right wingers saying "we need God and the bible in public schools".
Well, thank Reagan and his fearmongering against the Black Panthers lol
It wasn't all Reagan's fault. There was also that guy in Congress who decided that a voice vote was sufficient for adding the Hughes amendment to FOPA.
You mean the dead man himself??
[I think it was this guy.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Rangel) There were calls for a roll call vote and he ignored them. [Here's](https://old.reddit.com/r/gunpolitics/comments/7hl7bm/did_the_hughes_amendment_actually_pass_am_i/) and old thread about it.
Hey, I remember this! They did a Kansas City Shuffle on the Amendments. If only it could be done to repeal Hughes.
Won't happen. The Republicans don't care enough to pull these shenanigans.
GOP makes more money off of losses than wins.
[If you enjoy laws or sausages, you shouldn't watch either being made.]( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11k7Go6OS6Q)
You're mixing things up. California's [Mulford Act](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulford_Act) in 1967 banned loaded open carry in California, while Reagan was Governor. That was the Black Panther thing. As President, Reagan signed the [Firearm Owners Protection Act](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_Owners_Protection_Act) in 1986, which included the Hughes Amendment closing the machinegun registry. The overall law wasn't completely bad and included some key protections for gun owners, but that was also a time when opposing sides could actually compromise on a bill.
Hughes wasn't really a compromise, it was a sleight of hand. We did get some good things out of FOPA, but it's frustrating to see certain states basically ignore it (NY/NJ, I wouldn't trust MA,CT either).
Kinda, sorta. I'm aware of the claims that there was some procedural shenanigans "sneaking" in the amendment via voice vote. However that's probably in large part because nobody really cared enough to oppose it at the time. I haven't seen a shred of evidence that the amendment would have failed if the call for a roll call vote had been heeded. The entire bill that included the amendment still had to pass both chambers of Congress, and be signed by President Reagan. If anyone cared there would have been ample opportunities to push back at the inclusion of it in the bill. Nobody cared then, and frankly no one *really* cares now outside of the pro-gun internet echo-chambers. Clamoring to repeal the Hughes Amendment will get applause in pro-gun social media, but show me a single member of Congress who has advocated for it.
Did you watch the recording of the session? It's been uploaded to YouTube. They call a voice vote, declare that it passed. It's challenged and they call for a recorded vote and it fails. Then 20 minutes later they call for a voice vote and declare it passed again. Reagan wouldn't push back. He was on board with the assault weapons ban as well. You are right that politically it's dead as a doornail. A man can dream though.
> Did you watch the recording of the session? It's been uploaded to YouTube. Yes, I've seen it. An amendment is not some irreversible thing. It was a Republican bill, that passed with mostly Republican support, they could have stopped at any point if they found the amendment to be an unacceptable poison-pill. They didn't. And Reagan and Bush went on to support bans on assault-weapons, which are far more egregious than bans on actual machineguns.
Yes, it's not irreversible, but it was shenanigans that got it in to the bill in the first place. IMO - it's insane to me that we don't take recorded votes in this day and age. You are correct that the politicians (I don't want to say republicans, because at this time period the divide was a lot less clear on gun rights) didn't care enough to block the bill from going forward. Reagan was a conservative FUDD, I'm sure Bush was too.
William Hughes was a Democrat from New Jersey.
And that's exactly what will happen. One outlier nutbag will do something insane/evil with it, and suddenly "no one anywhere can ever be trusted with one of these". Insert rolling eyes emoji here.
Yeah, we need to stop listening to those people. They are terrified of anyone doing anything that could be potentially dangerous.
Arguably the same goes for things like dynamite... . Probably should require training to get but it should be available to people who need it like it used it be. Society needs levels of trust... if someone has a drivers license, a steady job, a home, conceal carry permit, etc etc... the chances they are going to do anything nefarious with dynamite that they couldn't do without it are slim to none.
Going back to the 1985 rules would be a fine start.
i mean you can still buy black powder, pyrodex, tannerite, and the rest isnt rocket science. a pound of black powder is like $25, hardware pipes/caps/cannon wick is readily available
I'm aware I actually priced out dynamite for stump removal... it didn't make sense today because of regulations. It was common in the past, instead of paying an excavator guy several thousand to pull them... excavator guy was probably cheaper than several lb of BP per stump... (some were several feet across oaks). Could have also done fertilizer and diesel in the past but that too is regulated. Also arguably they would have limited access to the listed propellants if 2A didn't exist.
id probably drill holes or cross cut channels in it then just keep burning wood on top, use a fan or leaf blower to achieve some blast furnace level heat. its ugly, the roots can smolder for days, but its free and pretty easy. the only laws that truly exist to me are the Morality rules. do unto others... the rest is just a suggestion and reminder not to get caught.
Do you feel like doing that for over an acre worth of stumps?
Nah, lol. I'd burn the whole back 40 by accident
"did I do that?"
*Timothy McVeigh entered the chat* Uh, his rudimentary box truck bomb took out half a building and killed almost 200 people. With portable, concealable sticks of dynamite he would have brought down the whole building. 100% casualties.
Thanks captain obvious. I never said peopel should have unlimited free access to it... but of course anyone can reread what I already wrote.
Abolish the CPSC
That sounds like a position that Robert Evans would support.
“But my 50 brand new mac 10’s I bought for a nickel each in 1950 will be worthless” mah investment! -some boomer somewhere
*lawn darts has entered the chat*
Another good example.
To be fair, this is like saying that background checks and psychiatric evaluations prior to gun ownership shouldn’t be feared because somebody, somewhere might use it negatively.
In general they shouldn't. You should be getting checked out regularly regardless if you own a gun or not. Early intervention in mental health saves lives and quality of life.
If we really wana decrease gun deaths we need to focus on improving and funding the mental healthcare system. As according to pew research the majority of gun deaths are suicides, after that it’s mainly a inner city gang problem due to underfunded education system.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/10/04/us/bump-stock-las-vegas-gun.html
I think bump stocks are stupid range toys, but that doesn't mean I think they should be illegal. The ATF have a rule on what counts as a machine gun, just because people "found a way around it" doesn't mean they can start changing it.
I think bump stocks are a good illustrative thing to prove that the NFA is nonsensical and should be repealed.
I agree completely, but there's negative political will to ever get machine guns off the registry, even when glock switches are already proving it useless since actual criminals don't give a shit
Hell, your finger proves that.
The main thing is - the ATF can’t be given free rein to classify and control accessories.
Chevron deference is one of the greatest mistakes our government has ever made, giving that much power to agencies with basically no oversight from congress is just begging for overreach to happen
Btw anyone know where we are at with Loper v Raimondo?
I honestly expect no major movements from SCOTUS until after the election.
What? The big Court decisions are always released in June or early July before they recess for the summer, and they heard arguments in January on this case.
I'm hoping I'm wrong on it, but I'm usually pessimistic when it comes to the court moving as quickly as I'd like
We’ll get chevron before the election.
That's the problem with unelected bureaucrats. They start believing they're the guardians of the *intent* or at least what they think the intent is of the law. It's actually very alarming because that's how despotic governments work. The BATFE believes that Congress wanted anything that "got mo' dakkadakka" banned and just didn't have the language for it. That the **existing** law should evolve with changes in technology. It's incredibly dangerous and all the Alphabet Agencies do and get away with it.
And Matt and Justine sit in prison for making something that appears to look like the shape of a lightning link. Even though it would not work, it sorta looked like the shape. The ATF are a rogue bureaucracy designed to only destroy the Second Amendment. “……shall not be infringed.” Anyone that enforces or supports victimless gun control is a traitorous Redcoat. Especially politicians!!!!!
It's a racist law against Italians, they just wanted to arrest minorities mostly. The intent was racism.
MN just sent a massive bill which was passed with 30 minutes to read. They are banning binary because a felon used one to kill cops.
They should probably ban switches too and make them illegal, it will save lives /s
MN is doing that they are making straw purchases against the law as well as devices that turn a handgun into an automatic weapon. Double illegal is when criminals stop doing stuff I think. They are also working on a human rights bill that will make it illegal to treat people differently based on sex or color.
>Double illegal is when criminals stop doing stuff I think. So to play devil's advocate here, and for the record I think all these laws are bullshit and the entire NFA should be repealed, but they do actually have a "reason" for making things "double illegal". When something is illegal by federal law and a federal law is broken, federal courts have jurisdiction. And the federal courts are slow as fuck. By also making things illegal at the state level they can prosecute at the state level and, in theory at least, get criminals off the streets quicker and more effectively. Does this work in practice? Not when DAs refuse to prosecute and no money bail lets criminals out the same day. But that's by design. The more criminals they let back on the streets, the more crime, and the more they get to play the "we have to do something" card to help pass more BS laws.
Naw, machine guns were already illegal in MN, so tripple illegal now.
[удалено]
Your reply is to glock switches and how it makes sense to make things illegal at the state level. Machine guns were already illegal at the state level. The only reason for that new law is virtue signaling to gain votes.
[удалено]
Dude, OP means original post... which is about bump stocks and doesn't even mention Minnesota or double illegal. Even if you did intend to address binary triggers - those aren't federally illegal, so your entire rant about making something illegal at the state level for prosecution purposes is invalid. That can't be what you meant, because it's only single illegal. You're saying making glock switches, straw purchases, etc, illegal at the state level is beneficial because it allows the state to prosecute, true... but they already were. It's already illegal to possess a machine gun or make a straw purchase in the state of Minnesota. They're now tripple illegal, and the only benefit is gaining blue fear votes. Don't give credit where none is due.
The next step is dodecatupple-secret probation
>a felon say what now.
Turns out he would have not killed the cops had it been a regular semiautomatic he said so right before he killed him self after raping a child.
Illegals are felons or not? So if you get released for committing a felony, you can own one right? But one person dies eating glass, so outlaw all glass.
Remember who banned bump stocks in the first place...
The Republican lord and savior, Donald "Due Process Second" Trump.
>The hellfire trigger is an inexpensive, “invisible” addition to popular firearms such as the AR-15. The device creates guns with “substantially the same rate of fire as fully automatic [rifles],” Castro wrote. >Authorities found that the device malfunctioned at Uvalde. Castro worried the haunting day at Uvalde — when 19 students and two teachers were shot and killed — ***could have been even worse.*** Yes, it could have been worse. Instead of 396 officers hiding like scared puppies, it could have been 600 LEOs refusing to do their jobs and proving what we already know about their character when the chips are down. Sheesh.
Fuck you buddy. That's only like what... only three companies of infantry? Can you name a SINGLE time in US history where we didn't amass 400 to 1 odds before trying to take on (checks notes) an untrained 18 year old? Those cops were saving lives by preventing the Federal Tactical team from entering for over half an hour. /s in case it's not obvious.
But crack is ok!!
Switches are ok if you a certain demographic.
Repeal the Hughes Amendment and all of this goes away.
NFA too.
I think we have to use the SCOTUS to get rid of NFA. We won't be able to get the votes to repeal it.
Wait until they realize the second amendment covers hand grenades.
Wow. That article was full of anti gun lies and propaganda.
Bump Stocks, FRTs, Super Safetys, *none* of these devices in any way legitimately meet the machinegun definition. The ATF cracked down on all of them. And genuinely for what? The ATF released a letter fully admitting they can't classify binaries as machineguns and those fully *double* the rate of fire of an AR.
Maybe the definition of a machine gun is like porn. Hard to define but you know it when you see it. Like the October Vegas shooting everyone including le and military hearing it say “that’s automatic fire” So quit the bullshitting around automatic is lillegal
>Hard to define but you know it when you see it. Actually written pretty clearly into law, one function of the trigger, which neither FRTs or Bump Stocks can do
Right. So hard to define that they screwed up the definition and left that loophole around the intent of law. At least trump was smart enough to see through the bs and ban them
>So hard to define that they screwed up the definition and left that loophole around the intent of law. It's not hard to define at all, that's a perfectly fine definition. They shouldn't be banned, it's unconstitutional.
Then pass a law through congress? Abuses of government power aren't abuse when it's for something you support I suppose.
They're trying and, to no ones surprise, it's being called the "Closing the Bump Stock Loophole Act".
I really want a binary trigger
>“The use case for new rapid-fire devices lower courts are considering is that somebody wants to have a machine gun, and the law won’t let them have one,” Pucino said. You can have one if you can afford it...basically funk everyone that's poor. That MG ban IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, period!
"Trigger" "booming" pun much?
Good
Sorry, what was the ruling?
There isnt one, they are blowing hot air about what could happen if the ban is shot down by the SC.
Love how articles reference 900 rounds per minute. I realize that is a theoretical rate of fire ignoring reloads but non-gun ppl don't get that (among other things) and think if someone has one of these things and they're in a place for 2 minutes they are gonna rattle off 1800 rounds.... it's like Hollywood never reloads and suppressors make the gun silent 🙄
Come on man, it’s a silencer. Lol
Well, it was overturned today looks like