The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old November 19, 2017, 01:37 PM   #1
Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 7,342
Giffords Seeks Restrictions/Ban on Muzzleloaders

I know we have more than our fair share of folks who believe i “reasonable gun control.” This is what the other side considers “reasonable.” Goldilocks gun control.

https://www.nraila.org/articles/2017...hibition-lobby
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old November 19, 2017, 01:42 PM   #2
TXAZ
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 5, 2010
Location: Cyber-Texas - Antarctica +/-
Posts: 3,023
Reasonable:
It is “reasonable" that all employees of any government organization to be required to be truthful, regardless of the issue.
I consider it "reasonable" that appropriate punishment be afforded to any bureaucrat who materially lies or misleads, as solely determined by a jury of randomly selected peers. Doubly for those who are elected.

If it's a misdemeanor to lie to the cops, and a felony to lie to a grand jury, shouldn't it be up to a capital offense to lie to the American people, depending on the severity of the lie?
__________________
TXAZ’s First Law of Shooting:
With every round you fire:
There is a blank check (yours)
and an angry lawyer (not yours). Be careful.

Last edited by TXAZ; November 19, 2017 at 01:49 PM.
TXAZ is offline  
Old November 19, 2017, 03:52 PM   #3
ShootistPRS
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 3, 2017
Posts: 1,571
Sorry TXAZ, all our congress critters are immune from prosecution while they serve themselves in office or in any official capacity and during transportation to or from their job.
We have allowed them to become royalty. Now we either put up with it or change it within the legal system or begin a process of doing away with it. (or them)
ShootistPRS is offline  
Old November 19, 2017, 04:22 PM   #4
TXAZ
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 5, 2010
Location: Cyber-Texas - Antarctica +/-
Posts: 3,023
Yea I know Shootist, I worked for the Chairman of the House Appropriations committee a long time ago.

Not all, but from what I’ve seen the majority of Congress persons are crooks by definitions you and I have to live by.
__________________
TXAZ’s First Law of Shooting:
With every round you fire:
There is a blank check (yours)
and an angry lawyer (not yours). Be careful.
TXAZ is offline  
Old November 19, 2017, 06:45 PM   #5
JWT
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 16, 2007
Location: Southern Arizona
Posts: 3,811
If we could ban Congress the U S would be a much better place. A bunch of grandstanding, do nothing, egotistical liars. They are interested solely in their own betterment.
JWT is offline  
Old November 19, 2017, 07:10 PM   #6
Rangerrich99
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 20, 2014
Location: Kinda near Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 829
Oh you must watch the video about this. It's freaking hilarious:

https://youtu.be/AKPObRSU5w4
Rangerrich99 is offline  
Old November 20, 2017, 12:28 PM   #7
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 17,882
If it shoots too big, ban it!
If it shoots too small, ban it!
If it shoots too fast, ban it!
If it shoots too slow (muzzleloaders), ban it!

Do note the common theme...

If it shoots, ... ban it!
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old November 20, 2017, 12:37 PM   #8
ATN082268
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 2, 2013
Posts: 753
Quote:
Originally Posted by JWT View Post
If we could ban Congress the U S would be a much better place. A bunch of grandstanding, do nothing, egotistical liars. They are interested solely in their own betterment.

I've never heard such a concise statement about politicians...
ATN082268 is online now  
Old November 20, 2017, 04:28 PM   #9
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 17,882
Quote:
A bunch of grandstanding, do nothing, egotistical liars.
I have to disagree with this, in part, at least.

If they DID NOTHING, we wouldn't have the mess we have today.

And while politician bashing is a time honored tradition and often true, it adds nothing substantial to the discussion.

back on the topic of muzzle loaders, I read the article and watched the video, and a couple of interesting points arose. One of the big ones (from the video) is how clearly the people proposing the laws do not understand the things they are seeking to ban.

Two points in particular seemed to be the reason that NOW they want to ban muzzleloaders, first, it seems someone wants to, or is making a "silencer" for muzzle loaders, taking advantage of a "loophole" in the law, and second, that being .50 caliber somehow makes them a terrible weapon of mass destruction.

Now, there have been .50 caliber, and LARGER muzzle loaders since the invention of muzzle loaders, and here we are talking about those modern weapons of mass muzzle loading destruction that have only been around for about the last 600 years!

Boggles my mind that only NOW have they discovered a danger...

Apparently they think everything .50 caliber is equal to the .50BMG round, at the least. I do hope no one tells them that the 12ga (yes, that's right, the very one duckhunters and POLICE use every day) is actually over .70 caliber!!!
They'll probably wet themselves is they knew that...

now, back to the silencer "loophole". I got to thinking about this, and realized, the amazing thing is, that no one had ever tried it before.

Consider, under current Federal law, muzzleloaders are NOT firearms. State laws are different, but the Fed decided, decades ago, muzzle loaders were too antique, and therefore are exempt from modern firearms law. Legally, to the Fed, they are not firearms.

SO, a "silencer" on a muzzle loader is not a device designed to alter the sound of a firearm. Because its not ON a "firearm" under Fed law.

I, personally would not want to be the test case, but it is curious to me why no one explored this before...

it seems like it would be a regulated item, after all, all one would have to do is show how the muzzle loader silencer could be mounted on a firearm, and therefore, falls under the NFA 1934.

HOWEVER, I can also see the counter argument, as the silencer law is based on intent, not actual function. And since the intent is not to use the device on a firearm (under the Fed definition of such) the case can be argued.

Of course, it is a battle of semantics and definition of terms, but then, that's what most of our law is, now isn't it??
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old November 21, 2017, 08:45 PM   #10
raimius
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 27, 2008
Posts: 1,810
44AMP, it is fairly simple. Make the suppressor integral to a muzzle loading rifle (federally not a firearm), and it is not possible for it to be used on a (federally defined) firearm. Car mufflers are not banned by the NFA either, since they are not attached to firearms.
raimius is offline  
Old November 22, 2017, 07:31 AM   #11
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 12,247
Michael Bloomberg's pet group Moms Demand Action is currently hemorrhaging leadership due to infighting, so he's thrown his money behind Giffords' latest rebranding. There's a chilling quote on their strategy here:

Quote:
We can sit back and bring these issues up after something horrible happens, or maybe we can just take a fresh look and … anticipate what might be used in the next shooting and try to create a regulatory structure that makes it harder for criminals to use them.
Fortunately, there's no real outrage surrounding muzzleloaders and AR-15 pistol braces, so there's no emotional leverage for them to use. Still, they've made their strategy clear, and we need to watch for regulations on this stuff being added to other bills.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old November 22, 2017, 09:28 AM   #12
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 7,335
I find it . . . . perhaps ironic, most certainly hypocritial, that the antigun groups have spent decades arguing that muzzleloaders are the ONLY firearm protected by the 2A and, suddenly, that's a "loophole."
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some.
Spats McGee is offline  
Old November 22, 2017, 09:52 AM   #13
rwilson452
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 10, 2004
Location: Tioga co. PA
Posts: 2,585
They might be shocked to learn that most of the muzzle loaders used in the revolution were about .75 caliber. The home grown rifles averaged around .36 but don't tell them that. A lot of the arms used by the regular army were captured Brown Bess from the British or supplied by the French. Big bore.
__________________
USNRET '61-'81
rwilson452 is offline  
Old November 22, 2017, 03:26 PM   #14
TracerTesterman
Junior member
 
Join Date: November 9, 2017
Posts: 59
I always found it amusing, that in NC black powder firearms aren't considered to be... firearms.

It's not like we fought a bunch of wars with them or anything.
TracerTesterman is offline  
Old November 22, 2017, 04:52 PM   #15
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 12,247
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spats McGee View Post
I find it . . . . perhaps ironic, most certainly hypocritial, that the antigun groups have spent decades arguing that muzzleloaders are the ONLY firearm protected by the 2A and, suddenly, that's a "loophole."
"Loophole" is defined by them as, "anything we haven't gotten around to yet." They made a deliberate concession when authoring the Brady Act, that it would only apply to transfers from dealers to nonlicensees. It wouldn't have passed otherwise.

Then, before the ink was dry on the President's signature, Schumer started calling the exemption of prior transfers a loophole. The simple rule of thumb is this: as soon as the word "loophole" crawls past their lips, try are utterly lying.
Tom Servo is offline  
Old November 22, 2017, 10:19 PM   #16
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 7,335
Oh, I get that. I just see the word "loophole" a little differently. To me, it means "legal."
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some.
Spats McGee is offline  
Old November 22, 2017, 10:53 PM   #17
PoiDog
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 1, 1999
Location: IL
Posts: 299
I guess all of those Amish gangbangers are doing drive-by shootings with their horse drawn carriages using black powder guns.

It's for the children!!
PoiDog is offline  
Old November 23, 2017, 09:29 AM   #18
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 12,247
Quote:
To me, it means "legal."
That's the thing, though. There aren't really any loopholes in our federal gun laws.

Federal law explicitly exempts muzzleloaders at 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(3):

Quote:
(A) any weapon (including a starter gun) which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive; (B) the frame or receiver of any such weapon; (C) any firearm muffler or firearm silencer; or (D) any destructive device. Such term does not include an antique firearm.
That doesn't meet the definition of "loophole," whether it be legal or Mirriam Webster.

It just makes a better soundbite to say "we're removing a loophole" than to say "we're reversing a longstanding exemption that we originally agreed to."
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old November 23, 2017, 11:00 AM   #19
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 19,248
This certainly should be banned:

https://www.traditionsfirearms.com/p...on-.50-caliber

NO one needs a 50 cal cannon.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Old November 23, 2017, 12:25 PM   #20
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 17,882
No one needs people who want to ban things based on their idea of what someone else needs!

I've always thought that the very concept that things "no one needs" should be illegal is the very opposite of Liberty and Freedom.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old November 23, 2017, 01:03 PM   #21
ATN082268
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 2, 2013
Posts: 753
Quote:
Originally Posted by 44 AMP View Post
No one needs people who want to ban things based on their idea of what someone else needs!

I've always thought that the very concept that things "no one needs" should be illegal is the very opposite of Liberty and Freedom.
True. Only the very short sighted try to ban something because, "no one needs it." Those people will find out soon enough that something they like is now banned because, "no one needs it." Who wants to live is a dystopian society like Equilibrium or Minority Report?
ATN082268 is online now  
Old November 24, 2017, 07:46 AM   #22
LogicMan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 16, 2013
Posts: 257
You will be hard-pressed to find a more deceitful, lying, dishonest, misleading group of people than the gun control lobby.
LogicMan is offline  
Old November 29, 2017, 03:53 PM   #23
DaleA
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 12, 2002
Location: Twin Cities, MN
Posts: 3,968
Quote:
No one needs...
I've sometimes fantasized that during a gun debate after the anti folk self-righteously proclaim, with derision dripping from their voice:
"No one needs an ASSAULT WEAPON to hunt deer."
That the pro-gun folk would start softly chanting "no one needs, no one needs" and then one after another folk would stand up and name stuff off like,
"Red Meat! It clogs arteries!"
"Private Planes! They're playtoys of the rich!"
"Private Swimming Pools! They're death traps!"
"Motorcycles! They're two-wheeled death traps!"
"Bicycles that cost more than $200!"
"Sailboats! They're playtoys of the rich!"
"Alcohol! Oh, yeah, we tried that but ban it anyway, except for wine!"
"Children! The planet's over crowded!"

I'd like to see the same thing happen when the anti folk get on their 'Just One Life' kick.
DaleA is offline  
Old November 30, 2017, 12:41 PM   #24
doofus47
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 9, 2010
Location: live in a in a house when i'm not in a tent
Posts: 2,214
Spats_McGee
Quote:
I find it . . . . perhaps ironic, most certainly hypocritial, that the antigun groups have spent decades arguing that muzzleloaders are the ONLY firearm protected by the 2A and, suddenly, that's a "loophole."
Dang! Spats beat by just... this.. much
__________________
I'm right about the metric system 3/4 of the time.
doofus47 is offline  
Old November 30, 2017, 05:34 PM   #25
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 17,882
"No one needs..."

forget playtoys of the rich, when someone brings up "no one needs" and therefor it should be banned, hit them where they live.

Ask them how much money they make.

(ok, yes, one can shot holes in this argument, but once it's out there, people will think about it...)

Ask them how much money they make, and are they willing to surrender everything over minimum wage??

Since the state has seen fit to set minimum wages, then it follows that the state recognizes the set minimum as the minimum amount a person NEEDS.

OR, calculate the value of all state "minimum assistance" such as welfare and food stamps, etc. That is another "minimum needs" level set by the state.

SO, if "no one needs" something, and therefore it should be banned, ALL the money that they make ABOVE minimum wage should be banned, and therefore surrendered to the govt, right????

Anything else is a double standard, right??

SO, if they object to giving up their money (above what is "needed") then, at the very least, you can accuse them of supporting an double standard!!!

Basic human needs are very small, enough calories to prevent starvation and enough shelter (including clothing) to prevent death from exposure. Over and above that, its ALL a matter of wants.

When some idiot brings it up, and thinks it is ok to ban something because he thinks I don't "need" it, remind them that if they can do that, then I can ban something I don't think they "need", after all, its only fair, right??

Or, if you don't want to use minimum wage, use something else. ANYTHING that they like, and enjoy, because, after all no one needs...xxxxxx...
I can use my personal income. It's less than $25K a year. I manage to live on it, (though not as well as I might wish, but I do manage) THEREFORE, NO ONE needs more money than that. Right?

And by their own argument, things no one "needs" should be taken away by the government. So, when they give up their cash, I'll consider giving up my "assault weapon".

Consider....

Yes, it is a flawed and sarcastic argument, but since they don't seem to feel they are constrained to follow the rules of logic, why shouldn't we, on occasion feed them back the same level of argument they use??

And yes, expect them to counter with the claim that "my money doesn't kill anyone!!!"

well, NEITHER DOES MY GUN!!!!
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:31 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2018 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.08985 seconds with 8 queries