|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
October 22, 2017, 05:42 PM | #26 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 5, 2010
Location: McMurdo Sound Texas
Posts: 4,322
|
The proposed legislation states "...prohibit the manufacture, possession, or transfer of any part or combination of parts that is designed and functions to increase the rate of fire of a semiautomatic rifle..."
By that definition, doing finger exercises could throw you in jail or get your trigger finger cut off.
__________________
Cave illos in guns et backhoes Last edited by TXAZ; October 22, 2017 at 06:10 PM. Reason: Smileys added to ensure the sarcasm came thru. |
October 22, 2017, 05:47 PM | #27 |
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,815
|
I sincerely doubt that finger exercises would constitute "manufacture, possession, or transfer of a part or combination of parts." Not to mention the A4, A5, A14 and A8 implications.
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. |
October 22, 2017, 06:12 PM | #28 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 5, 2010
Location: McMurdo Sound Texas
Posts: 4,322
|
Sorry Spats, I should have been more obvious in my sarcastic.
__________________
Cave illos in guns et backhoes |
October 22, 2017, 08:20 PM | #29 |
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,815
|
Fair enough, TXAZ.
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. |
October 23, 2017, 04:02 AM | #30 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 23, 2005
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 2,949
|
Quote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ddPTyoV-Irc |
|
October 23, 2017, 12:20 PM | #31 | |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,617
|
Quote:
The "rules committee" can decide you can't wear a particular shoe in the race, but they cannot decide or make a rule on how fast the runner can run.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
|
October 24, 2017, 09:25 AM | #32 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,414
|
Quote:
|
|
October 24, 2017, 09:43 AM | #33 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 2, 2013
Posts: 975
|
|
October 24, 2017, 09:54 AM | #34 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: October 20, 2007
Location: Richardson, TX
Posts: 7,523
|
Quote:
__________________
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam. This is bowling. There are rules... MARK IT ZERO!!" - Walter Sobchak |
||
October 25, 2017, 01:14 AM | #35 | |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,617
|
Quote:
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
|
October 30, 2017, 03:28 AM | #36 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 12, 2002
Location: Twin Cities, MN
Posts: 5,283
|
I'm not really sure where the "Business Insider" falls in the political spectrum but here is the headline:
Quote:
http://www.businessinsider.com/las-v...-in-congress-1 A couple things I though were noteworthy, 'smart gun' legislation was mentioned and a repeal of the 'Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA)' came up again. Both of which, IMhO are silly...we've discussed the technicalities of 'smart guns' before, no need to rehash that again. And as far as the PLCAA goes it is a sad testament to common sense that the PLCAA is needed but it IS needed to prevent frivolous lawsuits against gun companies. |
|
October 30, 2017, 07:37 AM | #37 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 2, 2013
Posts: 975
|
Quote:
|
|
October 30, 2017, 11:40 AM | #38 |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,617
|
They have tried various things to ban ammo, and to date, all they have been able to do is ban certain ammo based on bullet construction (AP, and some places ban JHP). They have not been able to ban ammo just because it is ammo.
Even the most ...interpretive.. courts recognize that the ammo for our guns is also covered under the same rights as the gun are. Which, of course, doesn't mean the anti's won't try, and keep trying...
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
October 30, 2017, 12:16 PM | #39 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 20, 2007
Location: Richardson, TX
Posts: 7,523
|
44, I mostly agree. My earlier post was made in a fit of rhetorical grumpiness.
I agree that outright ammo bans—or administrative near-bans—are seriously unlikely to pass Constitutional muster. Furthermore, IMHO the mere idea that gun bans are off-limits but ammo bans are A-OK is an obviously puerile sham, and I suspect that most gun-control advocates beyond the Politico-commentator level are intelligent enough to realize this even if they don't say it openly. I am concerned, however, with the creeping incrementalism we see with certain types of ammo (i.e. the Sporting Purposes test, and attempts to classify ammo as AP when it clearly fails to meet the legal definition). Our main focus should be to make sure that additional types of ammo do not fall under similar legal umbrellas.
__________________
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam. This is bowling. There are rules... MARK IT ZERO!!" - Walter Sobchak |
October 31, 2017, 11:41 AM | #40 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 2, 2013
Posts: 975
|
Quote:
I agree that a complete ban on ammunition is unlikely. If the courts treat ammo/reloading supplies like they treat guns, then almost anything short of a complete ban will be seen as "reasonable," and upheld. There could be bans on just online sales of ammunition/reloading supplies. After that they could put the screws to the local retailers with onerous regulations like daily inventory requirements, special cases/storage for ammo/reloading supplies, etc. For the buyer, things like limits on amount of ammunition/reloading purchases, retailer reporting to the ATF on certain ammunition purchases, etc. |
|
October 31, 2017, 02:23 PM | #41 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 7, 2009
Location: Southern California.
Posts: 254
|
ATN082268: Your post reads like the California ammo laws about to take affect.
Background checks required to purchase ammo; no mail order ammo (all sales must be face to face); ammo cannot be out on display in the gun store but must be behind the counter and not accessible to customers. All ammo sellers for more than 50 rounds require an ammunition seller's license. They also wanted to require a video of every transaction but I don't think that made it in to the law.
__________________
Clinging to my God and my guns! Luke 22:36 Quote:
|
|
November 4, 2017, 03:34 PM | #42 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 10, 2012
Location: San Diego CA
Posts: 6,872
|
I just received an email from Firearms policy coalition stating there is a new bill being introduced related to bump fire stocks HR-4168
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-...bill/4168/text Quote:
__________________
If Jesus had a gun , he'd probably still be alive ! I almost always write my posts regardless of content in a jovial manor and intent . If that's not how you took it , please try again . |
|
November 5, 2017, 12:59 AM | #43 |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,617
|
It works fine, until some unelected "agent" decides that a 10 round per minute (or even ONE round per minute) is "substantial".
Same problem as the other bill(s), it leaves the definition in the hands of the people who do the enforcement. That is neither good policy, nor good law, though it is done all too often. What is a fully automatic firearm is clearly defined. More than one shot from a single trigger pull. Very clear, a gun either does that, or it does not. Now, putting in such vague language as "a substantial increase" is asking for a judgment call. Legislators can make such a judgment, and put it into law, but they are answerable to the public at the next election. This is part of their function and their responsibility. When they pass that to an enforcement agency, they are avoiding their responsibility, and avoiding having to face the consequences of their actions. Public ire will be directed at the agency, (who gets to duck it, because they are "only doing their job as defined in law"), not the politician(s) who are actually responsible, and who should be held accountable. It's an old dodge, and its not just limited to firearms law. Consider this, Congress didn't define what could and couldn't be imported under the "sporting use" clause they wrote into law, they gave that task to the Sec of the Treasury (or their designee). Too much for their busy selves to bother with, I suppose...on the other hand, we can't vote the SecTreas out of office, if he bans something we like, just because he can.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
November 5, 2017, 06:01 AM | #44 |
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,815
|
No, doesn't change my mind. It still leaves the problem of the gov't deciding what rate of fire is acceptable. None of the business about "accelerates the rate of fire"or "substantially accelerates the rate of fire" makes a whit of difference until someone decides how many rounds per minute/second/day is acceptable.
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. |
November 5, 2017, 05:26 PM | #45 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 10, 2012
Location: San Diego CA
Posts: 6,872
|
I see your guys points but how often do we see "reasonable" in the wording of legislation or rulings . I don't know about you guys but reasonable sure seems a lot more vague and up to interpretation then substantially is in the text of this bill ????
__________________
If Jesus had a gun , he'd probably still be alive ! I almost always write my posts regardless of content in a jovial manor and intent . If that's not how you took it , please try again . |
November 6, 2017, 09:18 AM | #46 | ||
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,414
|
Quote:
|
||
November 6, 2017, 11:20 AM | #47 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 20, 2007
Location: Richardson, TX
Posts: 7,523
|
^^^ +1.
As I've said in other threads about recent bump-stock bills, if legislators are solely and truly concerned with outlawing add-ons like bump-fire devices and GatCranks, it would be fairly easy to write narrow language that talks only about the device and not the gun itself. However, as long as they're talking about rate of fire in the broad and general sense, I'm going to be seriously concerned about the future interpretation of the bill, regardless of how many weasel words they qualify it with.
__________________
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam. This is bowling. There are rules... MARK IT ZERO!!" - Walter Sobchak |
November 6, 2017, 12:38 PM | #48 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 10, 2012
Location: San Diego CA
Posts: 6,872
|
After the Texas press conference this morning . My guess is background checks are going to be a high priority . As well as what constitutes a prohibited person and how that info is shared to the NICS system . It's sounding like he should have been a prohibited person but still "legally" bought 4 firearms in 4 years .
If there is anything that may help us in the new/continuing debate is that a good guy with a gun stopped a bad guy with one . With an "assault" weapon to boot . Although I already heard one reporter bring that up and add that was just this one incident . What about all the others ? Which the logical response is to say most of those others were conducted in "gun free zones" making it unlawful to have a firearm in that area making it impossible to legally be that good guy with a gun . Because of Vegas not being very long ago . This gun control debate may have just got some refreshed legs that may make it to the finish line .
__________________
If Jesus had a gun , he'd probably still be alive ! I almost always write my posts regardless of content in a jovial manor and intent . If that's not how you took it , please try again . Last edited by Metal god; November 6, 2017 at 01:06 PM. |
November 6, 2017, 12:58 PM | #49 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 10, 2004
Location: Tioga co. PA
Posts: 2,647
|
I would be interested in where the Texas shooter got his gun. I read where he got kicked out of the Air Force with a Bad Conduct Discharge. I haven't filled out a 4473 for some time. It seems to me that getting something other than an honorable discharge was a dis qualifier. A BCD is definitely not honorable.
__________________
USNRET '61-'81 |
November 6, 2017, 01:18 PM | #50 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 20, 2007
Location: Richardson, TX
Posts: 7,523
|
rwilson452, as discussed at length in this TFL thread, there are several classes of military discharge that are below a honorable discharge but do not make someone a prohibited person. A Bad Conduct Discharge (BCD) is one of these; it is proverbially one step on the ladder above a dishonorable discharge, analogous to a serious non-domestic misdemeanor conviction, not to a felony.
As this topic doesn't directly concern legislative proposals, I suggest that we start another thread if you wish to discuss it further.
__________________
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam. This is bowling. There are rules... MARK IT ZERO!!" - Walter Sobchak |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|