Posted on 06/19/2024 2:48:03 AM PDT by CFW
Senate Democrats sought to pass legislation Tuesday banning bump stocks for firearms after the Supreme Court overruled a previous ban, but a single Republican objected on behalf of his party, effectively stalling the bill.
Backed by Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, Sen. Martin Heinrich, D-N.M., sought “unanimous consent” to pass his BUMP Act that would prohibit the devices, which modify semi-automatic weapons to fire bullets more quickly.
The New Mexico senator said he’s a firearm owner who sees no purpose for bump stocks other than to facilitate mass shootings, as in Las Vegas in 2017, when a gunman killed dozens of people at a music festival and more than 500 people were injured.
[snip]
But the bill was met with an objection from Sen. Pete Ricketts, R-Neb., blocking it from moving forward. The objection was backed by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and many other Republican senators, marking a turnaround after many of them championed a bump stock ban imposed by the Trump administration after the Las Vegas massacre.
(Excerpt) Read more at nbcnews.com ...
Valid safety regulations are not an infringement on the right to keep and bear arms. You cannot plunk tin cans in vacant lot next to a school playground during recess. Keeping you from doing so is not an infringement. Bump stocks are closer to plunking cans in a schoolyard than anything related to marksmanship, imho.
Basically the bill was a cheap ploy to smear conservatives as being in favor of mass murder, of which we will no doubt hear a chorus from the media in the coming days. I don’t think anyone really cares.
Trump was wrong. Admit it, accept it, and move on. You're defending the indefensible; that's never a good idea.
plunking [sic] cans in a schoolyard
Have you ever plinked a can anywhere? Plinking cans in a schoolyard has nothing to do with "keeping" or "bearing" arms. It's an example of USING arms in a manner that constitutes "reckless endangerment". That's a crime in most States.
Actually, the Supreme Court did not find a Second Amendment violation. The majority opinion, joined in by Thomas and Alito, merely found that the legislation that outlaws machine guns does not outlaw bumpstocks, no matter how interpreted. The court left the door wide open for the Congress to outlaw bumpstocks, should they choose to do so. They put the ball back in Congress’s court where it belongs.
Who cares? It wasn't contested on Second Amendment grounds. It was contested on the grounds that BATFE violated statutory law.
They put the ball back in Congress’s court where it belongs.
No, it doesn't belong in Congress's court. Congress is explicitly forbidden to infringe the right to keep and bear arms.
Congress outlawed full auto rifles. Whether or not they can outlaw bumpstocks is a matter that the court will have to decide, if and when it comes up. A fully automatic AR-15 is less dangerous than an AR-15 with a bumpstock.
Yeah ... one of a huge number of things Congress has done in violation of the Constitution. I suppose that "could be seen as a safety measure". Just like banning "assault weapons". Or rifles of any sort. Or pistols of any sort. Or shotguns of any sort.
A fully automatic AR-15 is less dangerous than an AR-15 with a bumpstock.
That is a very strange statement.
Outside of the Army, have you ever touched a firearm of any kind? Just curious.
democraps fulla chit mon.Bump Stocks do not make multiple firing while holding trigger ...
I thought you were on the front lines in Ukraine.
Even if it did, military weapons are exactly what the 2nd amendment is talking about protecting.
” Can I get me a huntin’ license, here?”
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.