Posted on 06/18/2024 5:07:18 AM PDT by where's_the_Outrage?
“ The NFA passed in 1934 could not get around this and had to rely on the taxing power of the Constitution keep the people from buying the same weapons as their employees use.”
—————-
And, not so coincidentally, the Hughes Amendment to the 1986 FOPA (Section 922(o)) prevents the collection of that tax for any full auto made after May 18,1986. So it is no longer a taxing statute, it is a ban. My point of view is that either the Hughes amendment must be overturned, allowing us to purchase newly manufactured full autos if we pay the $200 tax, or the entire NFA as it relates to full autos is unconstitutional. I, of course, prefer the latter, but I will settle for the former.
I also find it interesting that there are right now approximately 175,000 full autos in civilian hands that are on the NFA list. That number is very important, because the 2008 Heller decision indicated that the only classes of arms that could be banned were those that were BOTH dangerous AND not in common use. Fast-forward to 2016 and the Caetano decision, which had to do with Massachusetts trying to ban stun guns. The Supreme Court in that decision indicated that since there were (at that time) about 200,000 stun guns in public hands across the country, they were considered to be in common use. 175,000 autos falls a bit short of that 200,000 threshold, however, it should also be noted that the reason there aren’t more full autos in civilian hands is because of the NFA itself, and because of the Hughes Amendment. The government, if a case on this issue ever wind its way through the federal courts, can hardly argue that these weapons are not in common use when the very statutes that would be at issue in such a case would be the cause of their being far less of these devices than would otherwise be the case.
As for these crying women and girly men in LA moaning about the striking down of the bump stock ban, they clearly do not understand how the separation of powers in our Constitution works. Either that, or they simply don’t like it because they didn’t get the result that they want (IOW, they are fascists). This was not struck down on second amendment grounds, it was struck down because an executive branch agency took upon itself the power to change the law, something that only the legislative branch is capable of doing under our Constitution. The judicial branch, which appointed itself the sole arbiter of constitutionality of any laws (in Marbury v. Madison), correctly decided that the BATF(uckers) had overstepped the constitutional bounds of the Executive Branch, and struck down the offending regulation. By the way, I believe that Justice Alito was baiting the Congress. I don’t think he really and truly wants a bump stock ban to be passed and be enforceable. I believe that he wants this case decided upon second amendment grounds. Reference the paragraph above: surely, at this point in time, there are more than 200,000 bump stocks in public hands. By the time the Congress gets around to passing any such legislation (IF they do), there will be many tens or hundreds of thousands more. Congress can scream all it wants about how dangerous they are (which is pure nonsense), but they would clearly be in common use and not constitutionally capable of being banned. I believe that this is the result that Alito wants. It would be an open and shut case. As an alternative, perhaps what Alito wants is Congress on record as stating that bump stocks are included in the definition of “machine guns.“ If that is the case, we would then have a situation where you have 175,000 machine guns already on the NFA list, Edit to which will be the much larger numbers of “machine gun” bump stocks, and you are again in a position where there are more than enough “machine guns“ for them to be considered to be “in common use.“ The NFA, as applied to machine guns suddenly becomes unconstitutional. Alito is playing 3-D chess.
Na, that's the FBI's job....
LOL indeed
the capability to shoot 400-800 rounds per minute.
= = =
They mean the RATE of 400-800 rpm.
Otherwise, obtain 400-800 rounds. That may be $200-$400 plus or minus.
Then load up enough magazines so the rounds are ready.
(In CA, that is 40 to 80 mags).
Then do the ‘bump’, reloading every 10 rounds.
You will not get the 400-800 rounds off in a minute.
“We immediately know who made up the six and who were in the three without knowing anything about the case itself.”
Well, we know that one of the three doesn’t even know what a woman is..or herself for that matter..so couldn’t be expected to comprehend mechanisms and what the law says. A typical democrat.
I’m in a turning bolt precision rifle kind of mood.😎
“This past weekend, I called Central Texas Gun Works in Austin, Texas,”
This is incitement to harass the owner of Central Texas Gunworks, the plaintiff in the case. F the LA Times, they know what they are doing. The owner has already received over 50 death threats.
https://x.com/michaeldcargill/status/1802325404448878930
One more than with legal full autos (zero in modern times)...Las Vegas madman.
Go read up on the 1927 Bath School bombing and get back to me.
If bump stocks were used in abortions, they’d all be dancing and cheering about all those massacred babies.
Blah, blah, blah! The lib RATS never give up. Thankfully we still have a second amendment, even though its been watered down through the years. Originally meant to keep the citizens safe from a corrupt out of control government. Its good that the bump stock was upheld. Upstanding citizens should be have universal carry throughout the nation, bypassing state laws.
Banning them by regulatory fiat is a violation of statutory law. Which BATF agents or bureaucrats are facing trial for this violation?
Rendering the purchase of true automatic weapons prohibitively expensive by legislation is a violation of the Second Amendment. Regrettably, the Second Amendment contains no practical enforcement mechanism.
Your opinion that bump-stocks are a waste of money is irrelevant to the legal questions surrounding them.
Vegas 2017 supposedly.
I do not think they used a bump stock
Or, for Americans not the be massacred.
Depending upon which way you look at it.
Interesting and well said. I hope you are correct.
Believe me, so do I.
I do know that the pro-Constitution side should still fight any move in Congress tooth and claw. Slow it down and then kill it. I really don’t want Congress to pass any more gun laws, its a f’ing disaster every time they touch the subject, and it takes YEARS to fix what they do (if then).
Idiots
Sooooo..... that’s what they’re calling a bump stock? Looks like a typical replacement stock for those cheesy looking stocks found nowadays on some AR’s and other “low quality” firearms.
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.