Brace Ban

[Ggreen]

The problem with amnesty and free nfa registration is that some states allow pistols, but not sbr's.

 

[OneBadV8]

The problem with amnesty and free nfa registration is that some states allow pistols, but not sbr's.

I wasn't actually proposing it as a solution. I was using it as an example that they put zero thought into anything. And they're making people felons when originally those items were perfectly legal when obtained. And if they're going to redefine it now, there should be something allowing those to still be owned because they were legal at time of purchase.

They have other options, they could even classify it as an AOW though too

 

[Ggreen]

I wasn't actually proposing it as a solution. I was using it as an example that they put zero thought into anything. And they're making people felons when originally those items were perfectly legal when obtained. And if they're going to redefine it now, there should be something allowing those to still be owned because they were legal at time of purchase.

They have other options, they could even classify it as an AOW though too

I want my kids to have more freedom than I have.

 

[OneBadV8]

I want my kids to have more freedom than I have.

My personal opinion is the entire NFA should be repealed, so I agree with you.

 

[jagee]

If I want to hand out short barreled machine guns with suppressors on the end for treats at Halloween, that is my right!

Hey...I gotta one up TT...he's got full size candy bars!

 

[MindfulMan]

If I want to hand out short barreled machine guns with suppressors on the end for treats at Halloween, that is my right!

Hey...I gotta one up TT...he's got full size candy bars!

One-upping TT ?......that's a tall order !

 

[jamil]

I have to say, if you're gonna one-up TT, go big or go home. Is short barreled machine guns with suppressors on the end big enough?

 

[Yup!]

If I want to hand out short barreled machine guns with suppressors on the end for treats at Halloween, that is my right!

Hey...I gotta one up TT...he's got full size candy bars!

Are you going to hand them out, or put them out with a note saying take just one.... Also what time will you start?

 

[Ingomike]

No, one doesn't negotiate with rights for perceived safety or political gain that's called treason. That's like saying certain books should be banned when quoted on a suicide note or a on a post made before a murder. The bumpstock ban came after Vegas was out of the news cycle. All it did was lead to the executive guidance that allows the atf to make anything nfa they want at their whim.

Momentum never subsided for gun control, the pig just keeps eating. The bumpstock fiasco is the biggest threat to the 2a since Reagan.

OK, just to be certain I understand you. If you alone were given the following choice which do you choose, just one or the other.

A/. A 75 % chance of major gun control and 100% certain legislative bumpstock ban.

B/. A procedural bumpstock ban that the courts may overturn.

A or B?

If you reply "I'm not giving in on either", the default answer to the question for that is A...

 

[TangoFoxtrot]

ATF=

Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk

 

[Ingomike]

I want my kids to have more freedom than I have.

I get that and agree, but until you can get a legislature and president to do that, we must use all tools at our disposal to fight the battle we are in not the battle some wish we were in. Sometimes that may mean a little horse trading that is uncomfortable...

 

[Ggreen]

OK, just to be certain I understand you. If you alone were given the following choice which do you choose, just one or the other.

A/. A 75 % chance of major gun control and 100% certain legislative bumpstock ban.

B/. A procedural bumpstock ban that the courts may overturn.

A or B?

If you reply "I'm not giving in on either", the default answer to the question for that is A...

I don't think you understand what the bumpstock ban opened us up to. And anyone that negotiates our rights away is a traitor period.

 

[KJQ6945]

OK, just to be certain I understand you. If you alone were given the following choice which do you choose, just one or the other.

A/. A 75 % chance of major gun control and 100% certain legislative bumpstock ban.

B/. A procedural bumpstock ban that the courts may overturn.

A or B?

If you reply "I'm not giving in on either", the default answer to the question for that is A...

I will take an order of “B” please, with a side order of fresh, conservative judges on the federal benches.

 

[Ggreen]

I will take an order of “B” please, with a side order of fresh, conservative judges on the federal benches.

All bumpstock rules have been upheld in lower conservative courts.

 

[ajeandy]

All bumpstock rules have been upheld in lower conservative courts.

Just curious how many bump-stocks you've owned?

 

[Ggreen]

Just curious how many bump-stocks you've owned?

Glowing

 

[KJQ6945]

All bumpstock rules have been upheld in lower conservative courts.

Some things take time. The ATF changing a rule, is neither new, nor precedent setting. A new bureaucrat could change it tomorrow. It means nothing. We need the legislature to do their jobs and repeal, or the scotus to overturn some of this stupidity.

With Trump, we are about to pick up a 3rd Supreme Court justice, an unknown number of conservative federal judges, and we temporarily lost bump stocks, and possibly pistol braces. That is a win for the good guys.

2A cases are very seldom heard by the Supremes because they were too close to call. A loss in the court can have precedent setting fall out that lasts for generations.

Which would you rather have?

a) An unnamed bureaucrat changes his mind and let’s you have your bumpstocks

b) the Supreme Court overturns the NFA, 68 GCA, and the Hughes amendment

 

[Ggreen]

Some things take time. The ATF changing a rule, is neither new, nor precedent setting. A new bureaucrat could change it tomorrow. It means nothing. We need the legislature to do their jobs and repeal, or the scotus to overturn some of this stupidity.

With Trump, we are about to pick up a 3rd Supreme Court justice, an unknown number of conservative federal judges, and we temporarily lost bump stocks, and possibly pistol braces. That is a win for the good guys.

2A cases are very seldom heard by the Supremes because they were too close to call. A loss in the court can have precedent setting fall out that lasts for generations.

Which would you rather have?

a) An unnamed bureaucrat changes his mind and let’s you have your bumpstocks

b) the Supreme Court overturns the NFA, 68 GCA, and the Hughes amendment

It's never 2 choices. And the bumpstock precedent is a warning being issued from high speed low drag gun rights lawyers and organizations, not just a Ggreen thing. It's a major blow and it never had to be.

Binary decision making is a distraction tactic powerful entities use to control the masses. It has been successful in converting gun owners into subservients fearful of our masters

 

[Ingomike]

Throughout this thread and the short lived dupe thread, several have blamed Trump for the bumpstock ban, and I agree he did that. What is missing is perspective on the situation at the time. I posted this in another thread when this topic came up and wanted to add it here.

I still believe that the bumpstock deal was a Solomon esque decision to me. I believe republicans were about to cave and really let the democrats pass some big time gun control. ( Remember republicans had the house, but it was Paul Ryan and 40 RINO's that are gone now.) One needs to step back and look at the political landscape at the time, it was not good for our side. The move by Trump short circuited the gun control drive and the fuse was snipped giving time for emotions to subside and with them the momentum for gun control.

I think that's nonsense. They can pass all the legislation they wanted. They did not have a veto-proof majority.

Was your reply to me? All democrats are on the team nowadays but only 60% of republicans are on their team. It is getting better with the ouster of Paul Ryan and his 40 RINO's. The house and senate would have found bipartisan majorities with the RINO's and democrats and then it would have been a tough Trump decision he avoided by playing the game.

 

[kawtech87]

Sorry but I seem to have missed the part where someone clearly stated whether or not braces are currently acceptable and legal to own/use. I must have overlooked it somewhere between the political bickering. Just wondering if I should expect a curb stopping by my local jack boots next time I go to the range or if I should disassemble any rifle type pistols I may or may not own.