Posted on 03/11/2018 3:55:19 PM PDT by Lazamataz
NOBODY, and I mean NOBODY could ever call me a Never Trumper. In fact, I was perhaps one of the very first Trump supporters on this forum.
However, by using his Executive Order to ban bump-stocks as machine guns -- despite the fact that they STILL PULL ONE TRIGGER FOR ONE ROUND BEING FIRED -- he has just done something in an extra-judicial manner.
Despite the clear language of the law that defines automatic weapons -- that one trigger pull discharges multiple rounds continuously -- his EO causes the language to be ignored.
Now, I get that Trump bashed the NRA, then met with them the next day. I get that. That’s chicken feed for the liberals and RINOs.
BUT
Trump banned bump stocks pretty much by Executive Order.
DO YOU REALIZE WHAT THAT MEANS?
It means the first Democrat who gets elected will ban ALL SEMIAUTOS by Executive Order. All they have to do, with this precedent, is show someone firing a semi-auto in a bump-fire method using a pants belt-loop. Voila: It's a full-auto. Therefore, it can be EO'd away.
The right thing to have done was to encourage / demand the House give him a bump stock ban bill. Then get it through the Senate. Then sign it.
But by doing what he just did, he made it possible for Dems to EO firearms away.
Do you think the Constitution means what it says or what you want it to mean?
I think it is quite possible that our Founders would agree that nuclear arms should not be possessed by non-government people or groups. But at the time the Constitution was written there is no indication that ANY arms were unsuitable for people to keep.
How does your argument regarding nuclear arms differ from those who would claim that people have no need to possess machine guns? How does it differ from those who would claim that modern police forces render the need for ANY firearms obsolete?
Would you hesitate to use a nuclear device to destroy those who threaten you or your loved ones? You would let them die rather than defend them with a nuclear device?
Imagine that California continues its lawless path in obstructing the control of our borders. If the only way the US could survive was to nuke California, do they have the right to do so? Would California have the right to use nukes to defend themselves?
Now scale the problem down. Does San Francisco have the right to use nukes to protect itself from the California government? Or vice versa? How small must a "government" become before it gains the right to defend itself with nuclear weapons?
Trump had to toss a bone to the leftists/Progs. Its the least he could do—lets hope it is no more slip sliding to the left—we don’t need a President Berny or Schumer with a Speaker Nancy P. This will not end my support for Donald Trump. All who speed this talk are Prog Trolls trying to wean Americans away from Trump so as to retake power to drain the treasury for the glory of Soros and his cabal.
The Heller decision ruled you can’t ban guns outright. They made it crystal clear. That ship has sailed. A full out and out semi-auto ban has been ruled unconstitutional by SCOTUS.
But yeah, I am very disappointed that Trump has overstepped his constitutional authority by trampling on the legislative branch with his illegal EO. Perhaps somebody will sue him to save him from himself.
An ATF rule is even WORSE than an EO. It means unelected officials in agencies can make defacto law. EPA has been doing this illegally for decades and getting away with it. If that is the case that ATF is banning bump stocks, and I don’t believe it is, then that is BEYOND criminal behavior by the ATF to create law from whole cloth far beyond the power granted to them by the Constitution.
And an EO to ban bump stocks is unconstitutional as well. The President lacks the authority to do that. Only legislature can do that.
But the general population has gotten used to lawlessness by presidents abusing the EO. DACA was a clear violation of immigration law, but the silence of the US legislature allowed him to get away with that.
Presidents have been getting away with illegal EOs for several decades now. It is disgusting.
The Heller decision stops the banning of all semi autos.
No, revolvers are not semi-automatic. Their chambers are all pre-loaded. In a semi-auto, the chamber actually empties and is automatically reloaded ready for the next shot. A revolver has 6 chambers that all start loaded and cannot be reloaded without manually removing the cartridge and replacing it, while with a semi-auto, you replace the magazine and the gun does the work to load the cartridge in the chamber.
I get your point but semi-auto refers to the loading of the cartridges, not just the ability to fire a second or third time with each trigger pull.
Q Post 919
Mar 10 2018 14:06:48 (EST) Q !UW.yye1fxo ID: 5b7643 614101
Guns are safe.
Stop falling for FAKE NEWS.
Q
Heller prohibits an outright semi-auto handgun ban. That was the entire point of Heller. DC had a defacto ban on handguns. Heller said you cannot do that.
I agree with you that a ban on any arms is infringement.
We lost that battle in 1934 and again in 1958.
Since 1934 we have not been allowed to own rifles with barrels less than 16” in length — a CLEAR infringement of our 2KBA rights. Yet the people allowed it and have never demanded overturning that infringement.
I’m not applauding more, I am just saying our pure 2KBA right no longer exists because most people can’t recognized what it is and what we lost. We will never again have pure, uninfringed second amendment rights. Never.
Otherwise, I agree completely with you.
Do you mean 1968 rather than 1958?
One of the more curious outcomes from the Heller decision is the fact that we did not lose the battle in 1934. We actually won.
The Miller Court in 1939 was asked by the government to decide two issues. The government proposed that only members of an organized Militia are protected by the Second Amendment. The second proposed issue was that the defendant Miller was not protected by the Second Amendment because his short-barreled shotgun was not useful to a Militia.
The Miller Court only addressed the second issue and thus by implication rejected the notion that only members of the organized Militia were protected. Otherwise, there would be no need to even consider the weapon itself.
Addressing the second issue, the Court remanded the case because there was no evidence presented which would allow them to decide whether the short-barreled shotgun was useful to a Militia (which again by implication would make Miller's possession of it a protected right). The decision in Miller's favor was reversed and remanded back to the lower court to decide about the weapon.
Lower courts have blatantly LIED about the Miller decision for 70 years, claiming that the Miller decision established the Second Amendment as protecting a "collective right". Until Heller, no Supreme Court had addressed those 70 years of lies.
The battle that you referred to from 1934 regarding the National Firearms Act was actually won in 2008 when the Heller decision once again refused to insist that the man Heller must be a member of a Militia to be protected.
Although not dwelling on the matter, the Heller decision did overturn the Miller Court's insistence that only Militia-useful weapons are protected. Self-defense is an additional purpose of the Second Amendment protection and thus handguns in the home, whether useful to a Militia or not, are protected.
The anti-gunners may actually be stepping into a trap by suggesting that semi-automatics are just as dangerous as machine-guns. The Court may come to realize that inventing a limit to rate of fire (given that cannons were protected at the nation's founding) may not be a legitimate function of the courts or legislature.
As an example of a similar trap, consider what just happened in Florida. They are outlawing long guns for 18 to 20 year olds, using their extreme lethality as justification.
Unfortunately for the anti-gunners, the courts just might discover that the same argument had already been used to set the minimum age for handguns to 21. It would seem that the actual argument is that 20 year olds just can't be trusted with a firearm.
A problem for the anti-gunners is that the Founders understood how to put age restrictions into the Constitution. Representatives must be at least 25. Senators must be at least 30 and the President must be at least 35.
What possible justification could the Supreme Court now find that would permit laws to deny any adult the right to keep and bear arms?
Yes. Yes we did. I'm stunned. Seriously.
We disagree. Bump or slide fire in your words "does not operate like an auto sear", so it does not convert a semi-automatic into a machinegun. Mimicking the rate of fire of a machinegun is not the same as converting into a machinegun, which by definition fires more than one shot by a single operation of the trigger. As a citizen, I follow the spirit of those laws that have legitimacy, but a judge or a government official has only the authority to enforce the letter of the law. If a law is poorly worded, the proper remedy is legislation, not reinterpretation.
I’m sorry to disagree with you, but a bump stock is not a firearm, it’s an accessory, a silly and questionable one at that. So, IMHO, there is no 2A violation
One thing about Trump is he thinks complexly and is a genius IQ. I agree banning bump stocks this way is bad, but suppose he knows it won’t pass judicial review? ATF didn’t do it for eons for a reason.
He may have told NRA to simply challenge it and knock it down. Then among voters Trump is the moderate who stood up to the NRA, but the NRA got everything it wanted too.
He is a very sharp guy, and Don Jr and Eric are our guys, and NRA members. I agree the method right now looks no good, but I will bet we end up coming out on top.
It is a tough call when it comes to taking on Trump, because he is often thinking ahead of where we are. If it was your typical RINO Cuck, I would be all over him, but Trump I am not sure we shouldn’t voice a little upset, but be ready for it to turn around for us later.
You’ve had you say now go away. You obviously don’t realize what is doing and don’t care. Hysterics gets you noticed; logic wins your argument. You have plenty of the former and none of the latter.
Request denied.
Yours is a reasonable position. Never apologize for an honest disagreement; it's what the forum is all about.
Too much emotion on a Monday morning.
That's why I posted on a Sunday afternoon.
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.