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
My personal opinion is the entire NFA should be repealed, so I agree with you.I want my kids to have more freedom than I have.
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!
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!
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.
I want my kids to have more freedom than I have.
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...
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.
All bumpstock rules have been upheld in lower conservative courts.
Just curious how many bump-stocks you've owned?
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.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
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.