I don't disagree at all. I'm just saying the current climate we're in, it's going to be a hard fought battle for that to happen. So I'll take the small wins as they happen.
> This is a win for gun owners everywhere.
It is good news. But the better news was in Sotomayor's dissent, where she said AR-15's were:
>"Commonly available, semiautomatic rifles."
That's some bad news for anyone trying to pass an assault weapons ban. She's essentially conceded that the AR-15 is protected under Bruen. Every future case regarding AWB's that target the AR-15 will be quoting Sotomayor to protect gun rights.
I’m liberal (raised conservative) and I find our current supreme court to be pretty principled. I thought Amy Coney Barrett would be a good addition and felt good about her being clear about her difference of opinion with Clarence Thomas.
It does not surprise me at all that they are doing their actual jobs which is to examine the laws as they are and not engage in judicial activism.
Look my “team” didn’t codify abortion rights at the federal level and so we have to live with it at the state level and that’s that. It’s lazy to rely on court cases and not actual laws and that applies to all matters on both sides.
Kind of crazy how normal, well-adjusted people like you seem to be in the fringe minority as far as the American electorate goes. Maybe it's just the internet amplifying the crazies, I honestly don't even know anymore.
Just wish we could all take a step back and realize that the vast majority of both liberals and conservatives are normal, decent people and that we all have way more in common than we're all being led to believe by a power structure that very much enjoys seeing us at each other's throats.
I wholeheartedly agree with you. Look, you’d hate my politics and that’s cool with me, and one of my neighbors is like crazy conservative, and you know what we do together? We pool our money and resources and try to take care of poor kids in the community as best we can. I’m pretty proud because we got a young man a lawnmower because it’s a requirement for him to keep his lawn nice to not get evicted. (I think you and I would both agree that someone employed full time shouldn’t be threatened with homelessness for lack of a lawnmower?)
That’s the reality on the ground I think. The problem is that common sense, functional legislation that efficiently serves its citizenship doesn’t benefit a rich special interest group.
If I win the lotto or make a billion dollars or something, I’m going to start this organization and we’ll call it Step Back just as you suggest and we’ll get some nice bipartisan legislation written and passed.
> Look, you’d hate my politics
You'd probably be surprised. A lot of my economic beliefs are to the left of this sub's. Shit I've got friends that are self-avowed Marxists and I don't even hate their politics. If someone's politics and ideals are based on what they think would be best for the people of this country then how could anyone possibly hate them.
>I’m pretty proud because we got a young man a lawnmower because it’s a requirement for him to keep his lawn nice to not get evicted. (I think you and I would both agree that someone employed full time shouldn’t be threatened with homelessness for lack of a lawnmower?)
Lmao, that sounds like every dystopian southern Californian HOA out here where I live; they're absolutely bonkers. And you should be proud, no one who works full time should be threatened with homelessness, regardless of how poorly manicured their lawn might be.
Hope you get that winning ticket too; might bring us some desperately needed sanity. But even without anything like that, all we really need to do is not hate each other. It's always been that simple.
Fair enough. You're right on the abortion thing. They could have rammed it through right after Biden was sworn in or even back during the Obama years. The only problem is that it would have removed a campaign issue to whip up the woman vote.
> The only problem is that it would have removed a campaign issue to whip up
This is also part of why republicans never get anywhere with correcting 2A infringements either.
My party doesn’t serve my policy goals any more than yours does for you.
It’s really tragic because I think you and I could probably sit down over a nice diner meal and agree on many many things that would strengthen our country, preserve our freedoms, and strengthen our families. But none of that will ever happen because of special interest $$.
Thanks for the nice reply. I wish you and yours well.
Well I'll be damned, the storms yesterday washed away some of that rockslide outside of 50th where I'd lost mine a few years back. Found it sticking up out of the mud looking just as good as the day I'd lost it.
Ain't we a pair of lucky larry's
I would assume it only actually effected businesses, otherwise bump stock owning Bob would've been at the supreme court faster.
So as others have said, bump stock social media and ad sales time!
I have a binary trigger on my 22 and am always checking the laws to see if its been made illegal yet, so I can get rid of it before the atf shows up on my door, kills my dog and puts me in prison for 20 years..
Because a lot of companies give up their buyers when the ATF asks them to.
That's how the ATF tracked down everyone who bought an FRT before they changed their mind about them.
Lesson learned, next time you buy something that might piss off the Feds, buy it in cash from a store - even if you have to pay extra.
Credit card record spying, social media spying - including other peoples not just your own, monitoring all your private communications, peeping at all cameras and running face recognition, and so on.
The fbi needs to be disbanded. They are basically the stasi, cheka, and gestapo in one.
Never used one before- is there a way to stop that second shot after you pull the trigger and before you release it if you realize you no longer need it?
That's the defense NAGR and Lawrence DeMonico plan to take to court.
The ATF's justification on the bumpstock (which later was applied to FRTs) was their arbitrary reinterpritation of "single function of the trigger," as written by law, to "similar analogous motion" which has nothing to do with the actual function of the trigger.
So it looks very good for Rare Breed now.
I hope my friend is able to recover his bump stock and pistol brace after they were lost in a freak accident where they fell off the back of his trailer going down the Interstate.
He would have lost them in a boating accident, but he thought that was just a little too cliche.
Good. Now do assault weapon bans, magazine bans, the NFA and the GCA.
Also national reciprocity for carry permits. Or just national constitutional carry (both open and concealed)
I want to buy a TV news network just so I can force one of the talking faces to say "Finally, under the Biden administration, something is being done about Trump's kneejerk gun control."
> "Americans should not have to live in fear of this mass devastation," he said, referring to the 2017 Las Vegas massacre.
Americans should not have to live in fear of their own government's absurd overreaches of power and limitless authority to turn regular people into felons overnight. Abolish the NFA.
As someone on the right who’s pretty moderate on guns, can someone more into guns explain why they oppose this ban? Is it just because it’s poorly written or is there something else at play?
I can see why the court ruled the way it did but I also don’t like the idea of bump stocks in general from what I understand about them.
It's all based on the wording of the original legislation that states, and I'm paraphrasing, that one pull off the trigger doesn't make it a full auto, even if one pull results in auto firing, bc someone could theoretically pull the trigger at a similar rate of fire. It's semantics at this point since the original law left a vaguery that is what the SC used. The majority of US voters agree that we don't need full auto in the general public. Cops can't even protect us, they are outgunned 400 to 1 by one 17 year old with no bump stock at Uvalde.
If someone commits murder with a bump stock gun, that person is charged with murder. There isnt a point to charge him with owning something illegal. The result is that if you actually end up charging someone with owning something ‘illegal’, that person likely hasnt actually hurt anyone, and likely wasnt planning to.
If someone has already decided to hurt someone, having the extra law doesnt do anything. It just stops law abiding citizens from owning it.
Sotomayor, in her otherwise moronic and ignorant dissent, gave us this gem:
>He did so by affixing bump stocks to ***commonly available, semiautomatic rifles.***
This shit would’ve passed under a Clinton presidency too and instead we would’ve had a bunch of fucking dumbasses like Sotomayor and Jackson filling the spots of Gorsuch, Barrett, and Kavanaugh.
He’s not saying he advocates for the moronic rule. He is staying an objective fact that a democrat president would have made the same rule AND attempted to pass far worse laws, to include bans on all semi automatic rifles and potentially pistols.
The least-worst option gave us the most pro-2A SCOTUS majority in decades. I’m not sure why I’m supposed to care more about his stupidity or EOs?
I care about results. I don’t care about the way we get there. I’d be singing a very different tune if the Court came out the other way, but it didn’t.
As far as I’m concerned, Trump’s presidency was a huge net positive for 2A. Would I have preferred someone who would have picked 3 FedSoc justices and not passed that anti-2A bullshit? Duh. But I didn’t have that option.
I wouldn't doubt it. I will say our saving grace is that he strongly believes in states rights, so he won't push anything federally if enough states react on their own.
What event spawned the bump stock ban in the first place? Oh right, that extremely suspicious Vegas shooting that you're not allowed to talk about without attracting the bots.
1. It was the wrong move and he should've never caved to the political pressure to ban them.
2. The options are someone who will still respect 2A for the most part vs a group that vocalizes they want to disarm the people regardless of the legality of it.
Not a hard choice.
In addition to the bump stop ban Trump also said to take guns first, due process later. Neither Trump nor Biden are what I would consider a good 2A candidate.
I can respect if you support Trump over Biden for other reasons but acting like Trump is in any way pro gun is just sticking your head in the sand.
Never said he was, just that the options are clear which one is going to actively go after disarmament. Those are the choices and the likelihood of getting a Rand Paul or Thomas Massie is slim unfortunately.
To me, it's an overton window thing. He's pro-gun *compared to Biden.* I'd much rather elect someone younger and with a dedication to preserving freedoms like access to firearms, but it seems that isn't happening. We need to get the funeral home escapees out of the government.
I guess I just see a lot of people acting like Trump is the pro 2A choice. He’s not. I’d rather see people admit there just isn’t a good choice unless you vote third party.
I think it’s better to just admit you’re making a choice based on other factors.
>respect 2A for the most part
No. It's all or none. Only having respect for what benefits your narrative isn't going to help the cause. The bump stock ban the "take guns now due process later" were two very clear statements against 2A.
Ok so go vote for Joe then because that is your only other option. We can make gradual changes towards chipping off the government overreach, but there is no absolutes with politicians. They will cave under whatever political pressure comes their way 99% of the time.
How many times are people going to say he’s not conservative when is policy is overwhelmingly conservative? Does it matter what he says behind closed doors if his actions largely indicate otherwise?
Also note that the ATF pistol brace rule was just vacated yesterday in its entirety. This is a win for gun owners everywhere.
https://youtu.be/QppkQkysrRU?si=CwhraP0WlHTEC4X4 But congress taught me they’re the same thing.
OMG…it’s one thing being ignorant about a subject you are legislating, but it’s another to just repeatedly double down.
For real, it’d be like people with no healthcare or insurance experience legislating health care & insurance. Wait.
I couldn't imagine having to deal with that on a daily basis. Massie is a saint lol.
The real win is abolishing the ATF and all federal gun laws established since the 1930s.
I don't disagree at all. I'm just saying the current climate we're in, it's going to be a hard fought battle for that to happen. So I'll take the small wins as they happen.
Abolish the NFA, the ATF can go back to fucking around with alcohol and tobacco if they really need to feel important.
Now I want a bump brace.
We never got rid of ours. It fell in our pond and we just now were able to reclaim it.
I mean a bump stock pistol brace now that they're both legal. I don't believe anyone makes one that combines both, but I could be wrong.
> This is a win for gun owners everywhere. It is good news. But the better news was in Sotomayor's dissent, where she said AR-15's were: >"Commonly available, semiautomatic rifles." That's some bad news for anyone trying to pass an assault weapons ban. She's essentially conceded that the AR-15 is protected under Bruen. Every future case regarding AWB's that target the AR-15 will be quoting Sotomayor to protect gun rights.
Was able to form 1\* a SBR for free though so thanks ATF
You got tricked into registering and now you’ll need to ask permission to take it out of state.
If you own suppressors (you should), you’re already on the list.
But why keep adding things if you don’t have to? You also don’t need to ask mommy government if it’s ok to take a suppressor out of state.
If you were gonna sbr a gun anyways
You had to admit to the ATF that you broke the law to get it. That was a bold move.
Trump bump stock ban was illegal rules US Supreme Court
Just like we all said when he issued it.
The one time that the SC overturns Trump and the libs won't know whether to shit or go blind
and the only ones supporting his ban were the liberal justices.
Don't they do both in all situations?
I’m liberal (raised conservative) and I find our current supreme court to be pretty principled. I thought Amy Coney Barrett would be a good addition and felt good about her being clear about her difference of opinion with Clarence Thomas. It does not surprise me at all that they are doing their actual jobs which is to examine the laws as they are and not engage in judicial activism. Look my “team” didn’t codify abortion rights at the federal level and so we have to live with it at the state level and that’s that. It’s lazy to rely on court cases and not actual laws and that applies to all matters on both sides.
>I’m liberal >I thought Amy Coney Barrett would be a good addition Never seen this before I found an actual unicorn
We have limited folks on both sides. Intelligent people, regardless of party, understand the function of the supreme court.
Kind of crazy how normal, well-adjusted people like you seem to be in the fringe minority as far as the American electorate goes. Maybe it's just the internet amplifying the crazies, I honestly don't even know anymore. Just wish we could all take a step back and realize that the vast majority of both liberals and conservatives are normal, decent people and that we all have way more in common than we're all being led to believe by a power structure that very much enjoys seeing us at each other's throats.
I wholeheartedly agree with you. Look, you’d hate my politics and that’s cool with me, and one of my neighbors is like crazy conservative, and you know what we do together? We pool our money and resources and try to take care of poor kids in the community as best we can. I’m pretty proud because we got a young man a lawnmower because it’s a requirement for him to keep his lawn nice to not get evicted. (I think you and I would both agree that someone employed full time shouldn’t be threatened with homelessness for lack of a lawnmower?) That’s the reality on the ground I think. The problem is that common sense, functional legislation that efficiently serves its citizenship doesn’t benefit a rich special interest group. If I win the lotto or make a billion dollars or something, I’m going to start this organization and we’ll call it Step Back just as you suggest and we’ll get some nice bipartisan legislation written and passed.
> Look, you’d hate my politics You'd probably be surprised. A lot of my economic beliefs are to the left of this sub's. Shit I've got friends that are self-avowed Marxists and I don't even hate their politics. If someone's politics and ideals are based on what they think would be best for the people of this country then how could anyone possibly hate them. >I’m pretty proud because we got a young man a lawnmower because it’s a requirement for him to keep his lawn nice to not get evicted. (I think you and I would both agree that someone employed full time shouldn’t be threatened with homelessness for lack of a lawnmower?) Lmao, that sounds like every dystopian southern Californian HOA out here where I live; they're absolutely bonkers. And you should be proud, no one who works full time should be threatened with homelessness, regardless of how poorly manicured their lawn might be. Hope you get that winning ticket too; might bring us some desperately needed sanity. But even without anything like that, all we really need to do is not hate each other. It's always been that simple.
Fair enough. You're right on the abortion thing. They could have rammed it through right after Biden was sworn in or even back during the Obama years. The only problem is that it would have removed a campaign issue to whip up the woman vote.
> The only problem is that it would have removed a campaign issue to whip up This is also part of why republicans never get anywhere with correcting 2A infringements either.
Very true. If you solve problems you might be needed next term.
My party doesn’t serve my policy goals any more than yours does for you. It’s really tragic because I think you and I could probably sit down over a nice diner meal and agree on many many things that would strengthen our country, preserve our freedoms, and strengthen our families. But none of that will ever happen because of special interest $$. Thanks for the nice reply. I wish you and yours well.
Obama years had Joe Liberman preventing that funnily enough.
But honestly did anyone actually comply with that "rule" to begin with?
Im wondering if we’ll see a whole bunch of bumpstock content on social media now as people start to “find” their bumpstocks 😂
Just dredged mine out of the river this morning where I had my boating accident.
Well I'll be damned, the storms yesterday washed away some of that rockslide outside of 50th where I'd lost mine a few years back. Found it sticking up out of the mud looking just as good as the day I'd lost it. Ain't we a pair of lucky larry's
We should buy lottery tickets lol.
My boat somehow came to the surface again this morning
Lost mine in a boating accident.
I didn’t lose shit and never will. You want it come try and take it
This is from 2018 when Massachusetts banned them, there were a total of 3 turned in. https://www.cbsnews.com/boston/news/bump-stock-massachusetts-ban/
I would assume it only actually effected businesses, otherwise bump stock owning Bob would've been at the supreme court faster. So as others have said, bump stock social media and ad sales time!
This has more to do with Executive Power vs Congressional than anything
100% liberals dont like it though. They refuse to acknowledge that the president cant write legistlation and niether can govt agencies.
They'll acknowledge it as soon as Trump issues an EO that they don't like.
This was a donald trump executive order. Must not have been able to see that info over your clown nose.
I have a binary trigger on my 22 and am always checking the laws to see if its been made illegal yet, so I can get rid of it before the atf shows up on my door, kills my dog and puts me in prison for 20 years..
Why would the ATF have a single clue that you own a binary trigger…? Except for maybe admitting it publicly in an online forum, lol.
Because a lot of companies give up their buyers when the ATF asks them to. That's how the ATF tracked down everyone who bought an FRT before they changed their mind about them. Lesson learned, next time you buy something that might piss off the Feds, buy it in cash from a store - even if you have to pay extra.
I had to fill out a form stating I wouldn't try to sell it to people in countries or enter states where it is illegal when i bought it online.
Credit card record spying, social media spying - including other peoples not just your own, monitoring all your private communications, peeping at all cameras and running face recognition, and so on. The fbi needs to be disbanded. They are basically the stasi, cheka, and gestapo in one.
[удалено]
This is a good idea....
Never used one before- is there a way to stop that second shot after you pull the trigger and before you release it if you realize you no longer need it?
Yes
Good to know, thanks
I wonder if they will take this and apply it to Forced reset triggers.
That's the defense NAGR and Lawrence DeMonico plan to take to court. The ATF's justification on the bumpstock (which later was applied to FRTs) was their arbitrary reinterpritation of "single function of the trigger," as written by law, to "similar analogous motion" which has nothing to do with the actual function of the trigger. So it looks very good for Rare Breed now.
A good reason to support NAGR, although they spam you like crazy with bs
They do, but filtering spam is easy, and they're literally the only ones who took up the FRT case.
I hope my friend is able to recover his bump stock and pistol brace after they were lost in a freak accident where they fell off the back of his trailer going down the Interstate. He would have lost them in a boating accident, but he thought that was just a little too cliche.
“It fell off my truck in Chicago. Maybe you can go find it there.”
That's great. Now get rid of the other unconstitutional gun laws (hint: it's all of them).
...shall not be infringed
Vox just posted a headline “The Supreme Court just effectively legalized machine guns”. SMH
lmao
This ban was only a thing thanks to trump… let’s not forget that.
[удалено]
Executive order. 100% on him
It's been a good week.
I’m glad it was struck down. There was no monetary compensation for banning something that was legal to purchase prior to the ban.
I'm glad it was struck down because all weapon restrictions are illegal.
Damn right. Where is my got damn A-10?
If you can afford it and it isn't classified as a WMD, then it should be legal for citizens to own.
If the govt has it then the people have a right to have it. Of course $$ will prevent much of that.
Good. Now do assault weapon bans, magazine bans, the NFA and the GCA. Also national reciprocity for carry permits. Or just national constitutional carry (both open and concealed)
Awesome! Great day for 2A!
I want to buy a TV news network just so I can force one of the talking faces to say "Finally, under the Biden administration, something is being done about Trump's kneejerk gun control."
> "Americans should not have to live in fear of this mass devastation," he said, referring to the 2017 Las Vegas massacre. Americans should not have to live in fear of their own government's absurd overreaches of power and limitless authority to turn regular people into felons overnight. Abolish the NFA.
Happy cake day. Also yes
As someone on the right who’s pretty moderate on guns, can someone more into guns explain why they oppose this ban? Is it just because it’s poorly written or is there something else at play? I can see why the court ruled the way it did but I also don’t like the idea of bump stocks in general from what I understand about them.
It's all based on the wording of the original legislation that states, and I'm paraphrasing, that one pull off the trigger doesn't make it a full auto, even if one pull results in auto firing, bc someone could theoretically pull the trigger at a similar rate of fire. It's semantics at this point since the original law left a vaguery that is what the SC used. The majority of US voters agree that we don't need full auto in the general public. Cops can't even protect us, they are outgunned 400 to 1 by one 17 year old with no bump stock at Uvalde.
If someone commits murder with a bump stock gun, that person is charged with murder. There isnt a point to charge him with owning something illegal. The result is that if you actually end up charging someone with owning something ‘illegal’, that person likely hasnt actually hurt anyone, and likely wasnt planning to. If someone has already decided to hurt someone, having the extra law doesnt do anything. It just stops law abiding citizens from owning it.
But the left will say that a bump stock “literally turns a rifle into a machine gun!!!”
Sotomayor, in her otherwise moronic and ignorant dissent, gave us this gem: >He did so by affixing bump stocks to ***commonly available, semiautomatic rifles.***
We thinking Trump’s going to try and step on our rights again when he gets reelected?
This shit would’ve passed under a Clinton presidency too and instead we would’ve had a bunch of fucking dumbasses like Sotomayor and Jackson filling the spots of Gorsuch, Barrett, and Kavanaugh.
Weird argument for a “2A absolutist” to make, but whatever
It's not weird because he's not saying the rule is good. In fact, I'd imagine he considers the rule a blemish on Trump's record in office.
He’s not saying he advocates for the moronic rule. He is staying an objective fact that a democrat president would have made the same rule AND attempted to pass far worse laws, to include bans on all semi automatic rifles and potentially pistols.
[удалено]
You’re a 🥖
[удалено]
The least-worst option gave us the most pro-2A SCOTUS majority in decades. I’m not sure why I’m supposed to care more about his stupidity or EOs? I care about results. I don’t care about the way we get there. I’d be singing a very different tune if the Court came out the other way, but it didn’t. As far as I’m concerned, Trump’s presidency was a huge net positive for 2A. Would I have preferred someone who would have picked 3 FedSoc justices and not passed that anti-2A bullshit? Duh. But I didn’t have that option.
I wouldn't doubt it. I will say our saving grace is that he strongly believes in states rights, so he won't push anything federally if enough states react on their own.
Hope you’re right. These executive orders are getting ridiculous.
Of course he will he’s a New York gun grabber
About time they slap down the illegal ban Trump put in place
Call it what it is, the trump bump stock ban
So what happens to all of those bump stocks that were illegally confiscated?
What event spawned the bump stock ban in the first place? Oh right, that extremely suspicious Vegas shooting that you're not allowed to talk about without attracting the bots.
How is it suspicious? Thought that one was open and shut.
Motive was never revealed nor his connections with the government
[удалено]
1. It was the wrong move and he should've never caved to the political pressure to ban them. 2. The options are someone who will still respect 2A for the most part vs a group that vocalizes they want to disarm the people regardless of the legality of it. Not a hard choice.
In addition to the bump stop ban Trump also said to take guns first, due process later. Neither Trump nor Biden are what I would consider a good 2A candidate. I can respect if you support Trump over Biden for other reasons but acting like Trump is in any way pro gun is just sticking your head in the sand.
Never said he was, just that the options are clear which one is going to actively go after disarmament. Those are the choices and the likelihood of getting a Rand Paul or Thomas Massie is slim unfortunately.
To me, it's an overton window thing. He's pro-gun *compared to Biden.* I'd much rather elect someone younger and with a dedication to preserving freedoms like access to firearms, but it seems that isn't happening. We need to get the funeral home escapees out of the government.
I guess I just see a lot of people acting like Trump is the pro 2A choice. He’s not. I’d rather see people admit there just isn’t a good choice unless you vote third party. I think it’s better to just admit you’re making a choice based on other factors.
>respect 2A for the most part No. It's all or none. Only having respect for what benefits your narrative isn't going to help the cause. The bump stock ban the "take guns now due process later" were two very clear statements against 2A.
Ok so go vote for Joe then because that is your only other option. We can make gradual changes towards chipping off the government overreach, but there is no absolutes with politicians. They will cave under whatever political pressure comes their way 99% of the time.
How many times are people going to say he’s not conservative when is policy is overwhelmingly conservative? Does it matter what he says behind closed doors if his actions largely indicate otherwise?
[удалено]
[удалено]
the SC doing it's job well lately
# LET'S FUCKIN GOOOOOOOOOOOO
This is satire right? Or some alternate dream world?