Posted on 12/28/2018 6:52:54 AM PST by Liberty7732
“By definition then it is not an automatic or machine gun.”
Now you just have to get swamp creature Justice Roberts, the closet homo, child-trafficking, knight of malta to see it your way.
Classifying bump stocks as NFA in spite of the actual law won’t seem so moot when someone classifies all AR and AK pattern rifles as machine guns with a stroke of the pen.
This is a bad precedent, don’t kid yourself.
Incorrect.
Not consciously moving the finger, and yet the finger is moved.
OK.
However, in order to avail itself of the congressional authority to regulate bump stocks, DOJ has found it necessary to call bump stocks machine guns, which are firearms, thus opening the door to Second Amendment challenges.
Unless Dr. Gonzales believes that he can find a court that would nullify the entire NFA based on Second Amendment protections, his argument above is moot.
One could also argue that a bump stock is not a machine gun. This is inherently true, of course, as a bump stock could not, by itself, fire a bullet. If a bump stock is not a machine gun, then DOJ’s reliance on 27 C.F.R. §§ 478.11 & 479.11 would get thrown out as nonsensical. Frankly speaking, such would be the honest assessment and the most appropriate outcome of a true evaluation of the language of the governing statutes.
Completely ignoring 26 U.S. Code § 5845, where 'machinegun' is defined as "any part designed and intended solely and exclusively, or combination of parts designed and intended, for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun.
The federal government is one of enumerated powers. If a power employed by Congress in passing a law is not contained in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution; it cannot possess the authority to enact it, and there is no provision in the Constitution allowing Congress to ban bump stocks. Even the interstate commerce clause would not allow Congress to ban it.
Dr. Gonzales makes the above claim, yet even admits his error with the remark "[s]adly, though, the train allowing Congress to intrude in such intrastate activities has long since left the station and delivering such an argument before a federal magistrate would be met with nothing other than hostility." Making his argument the quintessential Straw Man.
No, the finger is held stationary on a shelf. The trigger is pushed into the finger by the off hand providing forward pressure on the stock. When the forward pressure is removed, firing stops.
Slo-mo video of a bump stock: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=67oxh-KpWeQ
When Congress passed the NFA of 1934, they didn’t ban ACTUAL machine guns. The law required a background check, and the payment of a $200.00 transfer tax on weapons like, a World War I belt fed, tripod mounted German 1908 Maxim machine gun or a Thompson sub machine gun. Neither type of weapon was banned outright.
Flash forward to 2018, and we are confronted with a ban on a piece of ABS plastic, previously ruled as NOT a MG by the very same agency that is now declaring that it is.
All those concerned about arbitrary and capricious regulation by government agencies might want to consider this hysteria carefully.
Which is not a legitimate reason to ban something.
“The shooter need only continuously grip the stock without moving the trigger finger.”
Totally irrelevant. The law is extremely specific here and this is legally irrelevant.
It is unfortunate that supporters of the 2A can’t even count on other conservatives to back them up.
I get it. Take a look at the post I was replying to and keep your finger off the trigger shipmate.
You raise a very valid point, Frank.
In 1934, Congress knew that they didn't have the Constitutional authority to ban machine guns, but they did know that they had the Constitutional authority to tax them.
That's why they implemented a then outrageous tax of $200 (the equivalent of $3,724 today) on each NFA item. The background check and fingerprint requirement isn't in the NFA, that was promulgated by ATF rulemaking, in order to "identify" the purchaser of the tax stamp.
It was of course the 1986 FOPA Hughes Amendment that closed the machine gun registry. I'd like to see that law challenged and ultimately overturned.
I'd much rather that the entire NFA be repealed along with the 1968 GCA and the 1986 FOPA.
Uh-oh! You’re in trouble now.
His trash has been moved to the blog section where it belongs.
Well, give yourself a gold star and a pat on the back, hero.
Hell yeah!
WOOHOO!
I have known personally 'Liberty7732' for about the last fifteen years, and it would be hard to find someone who has done more over that time to promote our conservative principles, in print, on television, and in local politics.
If a user breaks posting rules, there are better ways to inform them. Last I checked, we are all on the same side.
How do you feel about someone posting their blog as news?
Are you equally outraged about that bit of fraud?
Thanks, by the way, for your reasoned response.
“Incorrect.”
OK, educate me.
“The law is extremely specific here and this is legally irrelevant.”
I posted a direct quote from the Federal Register.
Please educate us as to what law is “extremely specific” and counter to the published regulation in the Federal Register.
Correct, after the initial trigger pull, further finger function is not needed.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.