More sacrifices to the 2nd Amendment

[JoeWeber 2,720]

Just now, billvon said:

If hundreds of pilots intentionally hit thousands of crowds a year with personal aircraft, killing tens of thousands of people - yes, there might be more restrictions on them.  You might even have to get a license to fly an aircraft!  You might have to REGISTER your aircraft with the GOVERNMENT!  If things got bad enough you might even have to take a PHYSICAL to prove you were physically and mentally capable of flying an aircraft!  Why, Gestapo government agents might even occasionally check your aircraft while it's sitting there on the ramp minding its own business!

And if you did kill a few people in a crowd - purely accidentally of course - they might even take away your license and prohibit you from flying.

Fortunately we are far from that woke, dystopian future.  They'd never do that for airplanes - or guns.

Or for anyone who should have learned their lessons previously.

[BIGUN 1,297]

On 6/17/2024 at 2:22 PM, BIGUN said:

for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun,

Attached is a copy of the SCOTUS ruling and I'm scratching my head here. Turns out, the ATF filed the suit not as a part that converts the weapon to fully automatic but as, "Held: ATF exceeded its statutory authority by issuing a Rule that classifies a bump stock as a “machinegun” under §5845(b)." page 2

JUSTICE ALITO, concurring.
I join the opinion of the Court because there is simply no other way to read the statutory language. There can be little doubt that the Congress that enacted 26 U. S. C. §5845(b) would not have seen any material difference between a machinegun and a semiautomatic rifle equipped with a bump stock. But the statutory text is clear, and we must follow it. Page 24

The whole thing was a waste of time and money. 

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR, with whom JUSTICE KAGAN and JUSTICE JACKSON join, dissenting. Starting on page 25.

The most important “function” of a “trigger” is what it enables a shooter to do; what “force or mechanism” it sets “in action.” 11 Oxford English Dictionary, at 357. A “single function of the trigger” more naturally means a single initiation of the firing sequence. Regardless of what is happening in the internal mechanics of a firearm, if a shooter must activate the trigger only a single time to initiate a firing sequence that will shoot “automatically more than one shot,” that firearm is a “machinegun.” §5845(b)."

*Today’s decision to reject that ordinary understanding will have deadly consequences. Page 42.

Throughout this document, SCOTUS is telling Congress ways to make changes. Unfortunately, most will throw it in the pile of "Over and Done" and not actually read it to know how to change things. I can't help but wonder why the experts at ATF are not using this information to present to Congress and/or if a weapon SME could not approach SCOTUS and say. "If Congress amended the law to include X if that would please the court in this matter.

Ya know, to proactively work towards a solution, rather than a recurring game of volleyball - serve it up and spike."   

22-976_e29g.pdf

Edited June 20, 2024 by BIGUN

[Phil1111 1,149]

24 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

Attached is a copy of the SCOTUS ruling and I'm scratching my head here. ....

Stop scratching your head because you'll be completely bald soon. A Rubik's cube is more logical than the gyrations necessary to follow the USSC gun rulings.

[BIGUN 1,297]

41 minutes ago, Phil1111 said:

Stop scratching your head because you'll be completely bald soon.

I've been accused of being the illegitimate child of Vin Diesel and Dwayne, "The Rock."   

[kallend 2,026]

18 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

It's like the perfect word, too. Doesn't at all sound like another thing the moronic masses can blame gays for.

I'd be concerned about peripatetic hoplophiles.

[billvon 2,989]

1 hour ago, kallend said:

I'd be concerned about peripatetic hoplophiles.

Especially bellicose peripatetic hoplophiles.

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

On 6/17/2024 at 2:22 PM, BIGUN said:

I'm still not sure how it wasn't classified under the NFA. And to your point, Congress could easily do this. 

The term “machinegun” means any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger. The term shall also include the frame or receiver of any such weapon, any part designed and intended solely and exclusively, or combination of parts designed and intended, for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun, and any combination of parts from which a machinegun can be assembled if such parts are in the possession or under the control of a person.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/5845#:~:text=The term “machinegun” means any,single function of the trigger.

Because it doesn't meet the definition of 'machine gun'.

A bump stock is simulated full auto.

The gun only fires once each time the trigger is pulled. It's just that the bump stock facilitates pulling the trigger multiple times rather quickly.

There have been a variety of devices that attempted this feat. One was called the "Hell Fire". It was an adjustable spring unit that fit behind the trigger.  The spring pushed the trigger back and reset it as the recoil pushed the whole gun back.
The shooter had to hold onto the fore end and pull just the trigger back with one finger. It was not easy to work, and required either a fairly heavy 223 (light caliber) or a pistol caliber carbine.
There was a home grown version that used a heavy rubber band, with a string (often a shoe lace) that was used to hold and adjust tension. When there was a strong push to regulate 'simulated full auto devices' back in the mid-90s, one of the 'rallying cries' was 'they want to outlaw shoelaces' (really).

There's also the simple technique of holding the fore end, bracing the side of the butt against the hip and using just the finger on the trigger. Again, low powered weapons only. I knew a guy who was pretty good at that using a WW2 M1 Carbine.

In any case, all of these simulated full auto devices and techniques are still very much semi auto. The trigger has to be pulled each and every time the hammer is released.
Alito (who I really despise) is correct. The bump stock does not fit the NFA definition of 'machine gun'.
And if Congress wanted to, they could simply add the bump stock (or any other 'full auto simulating' device) to the NFA.
However, I don't expect to see this Congress actually accomplish much of anything.

[ryoder 1,590]

NYTimes has an excellent animation on this page, demonstrating how the bump stock works:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/10/04/us/bump-stock-las-vegas-gun.html

[BIGUN 1,297]

51 minutes ago, wolfriverjoe said:

Because it doesn't meet the definition of 'machine gun'.

Read further after the quoted post. 

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

38 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

Read further after the quoted post. 

You're right that I missed the additional posts.

However, that doesn't change much.

Just because the bump stock allows the shooter to make the gun fire fast, it's not a machine gun.

The mechanism of the gun hasn't changed one bit.

Back when they were being designed, the guys who came up with the bump stock sent a prototype to the BATF, asking if it was legal.
The BATF said it was. Their rationale (and I don't always agree with the BATF's rationale) was that the gun was still a semi auto, that each time the gun fired, the sear had to reset and the trigger pulled again.

If bump stocks were made illegal, would shoelaces and rubber bands be too?
Would attaching a rubber band and a shoelace to an AR type rifle become 'manufacturing a machine gun'? (yes, I'm getting a bit absurd)

Keep in mind that simple possession of the trigger, sear, auto safety sear and bolt carrier for a full auto M16, along with an AR 15 rifle constitutes 'possession of a machine gun', because they can be assembled to make one. Similarly, drilling the holes for the M16 parts into an AR receiver is the same.

I see banning bump stocks as a knee jerk reaction to a single event.

With the exception of firing into a packed crowd from a high vantage point, full auto fire isn't really much use. Lots of noise, lots of bullets flying through the air, but usually not a lot of hits. Unless the crowd is packed so tight that misses are going to hit someone else, it's a waste of ammunition.
In situations where targets need to be selected and aimed at to be hit, it's really useless.

Again, according to the letter of the law, bump stocks aren't machine guns.

If we want to stop these kinds of shootings, banning a particular part, or a particular gun won't do a whole lot.
And, since just about all of the notable shootings were done by people who had gone through the background check process and gotten the guns legally, expanding the checks won't do much either.

Maybe putting some 'teeth' into the checks, and enforcing the laws about falsifying the applications would help.

It's been pointed out that Hunter Biden's prosecution was a very rare event. The law is rarely enforced. 
Maybe it should be more often.

There have been a couple events where the shooter got their gun legally, but shouldn't have. They 'slipped through the cracks'.
Maybe those 'cracks' should be filled in, and people who are prohibited from owning guns shouldn't be able to pass the background check (and when they are found out, they should have the guns taken away and face serious consequences).

After the buying frenzy when Obama got elected, and the even bigger one after the Sandy Hook shooting, there's absolutely no way to get all of those guns out of circulation. 

I don't really have any solutions. I don't think there are any.

But banning bump stocks isn't really going to do anything.

 

[gowlerk 2,190]

1 hour ago, wolfriverjoe said:

But banning bump stocks isn't really going to do anything.

Joe, I find myself needing to ask, do you own a weapon with a bump stock or similar device?

[billvon 2,989]

3 hours ago, wolfriverjoe said:

Would attaching a rubber band and a shoelace to an AR type rifle become 'manufacturing a machine gun'? (yes, I'm getting a bit absurd)

If used to construct a fully automatic weapon - yes.  Those are illegal.

Quote

With the exception of firing into a packed crowd from a high vantage point, full auto fire isn't really much use.

It's not much use if you want to kill 100 people with 200 rounds.  If you want to kill 100 people and you have 2000 rounds, a high vantage point and pretty much any moderately dense area, it's quite useful indeed.  Or a low vantage point and known locations of people - say, a school.

Quote

But banning bump stocks isn't really going to do anything.

It's going to do the same thing as banning automatic weapons will.  If you consider that useless, then yes, banning bump stocks are equally useless.

[wmw999 2,439]

7 hours ago, gowlerk said:

Joe, I find myself needing to ask, do you own a weapon with a bump stock or similar device?

That sounds a little like the guy on FB who asked, in reference to the Ten Commandments law, which one the OP in that thread didn’t like.

Wendy P. 

[BIGUN 1,297]

10 hours ago, wolfriverjoe said:

A bump stock is simulated full auto.

>Seriously. What is simulated auto. 

9 hours ago, wolfriverjoe said:

Back when they were being designed, the guys who came up with the bump stock sent a prototype to the BATF, asking if it was legal.
The BATF said it was. Their rationale (and I don't always agree with the BATF's rationale) was that the gun was still a semi auto, that each time the gun fired, the sear had to reset and the trigger pulled again.

The ATF interpreted a "single function of the trigger" to mean a "single movement of the trigger", and since the trigger moved for each shot, the Akins Accelerator was deemed to not be a machinegun.[16] Later, in 2006, the ATF reversed course and reinterpreted the language to mean "single pull of the trigger", which reclassified the Akins Accelerator as a machinegun. The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the new interpretation in February 2009.[17] Wiki Bump Stock

>We really need a three year discussion on function vs. pull? 

9 hours ago, wolfriverjoe said:

Again, according to the letter of the law, bump stocks aren't machine guns.

According to the "letter of the Law," or combination of parts designed and intended, for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun, 

9 hours ago, wolfriverjoe said:

Maybe putting some 'teeth' into the checks, and enforcing the laws about falsifying the applications would help.

Welcome to the Gun Responsibility Act. Let's ask Congress to re-write the NFA to include that process and criteria for all weapons. 

[gowlerk 2,190]

3 hours ago, wmw999 said:

That sounds a little like the guy on FB who asked, in reference to the Ten Commandments law, which one the OP in that thread didn’t like.

Wendy P. 

I'm just curious because I know that Joe's posistion on the issue of guns in society is and has been evolving. I can see where guns can be fun to play with and automatics could be even more so for many people.

[normiss 798]

17 hours ago, wolfriverjoe said:

You're right that I missed the additional posts.

However, that doesn't change much.

Just because the bump stock allows the shooter to make the gun fire fast, it's not a machine gun.

The mechanism of the gun hasn't changed one bit.

Back when they were being designed, the guys who came up with the bump stock sent a prototype to the BATF, asking if it was legal.
The BATF said it was. Their rationale (and I don't always agree with the BATF's rationale) was that the gun was still a semi auto, that each time the gun fired, the sear had to reset and the trigger pulled again.

If bump stocks were made illegal, would shoelaces and rubber bands be too?
Would attaching a rubber band and a shoelace to an AR type rifle become 'manufacturing a machine gun'? (yes, I'm getting a bit absurd)

Keep in mind that simple possession of the trigger, sear, auto safety sear and bolt carrier for a full auto M16, along with an AR 15 rifle constitutes 'possession of a machine gun', because they can be assembled to make one. Similarly, drilling the holes for the M16 parts into an AR receiver is the same.

I see banning bump stocks as a knee jerk reaction to a single event.

With the exception of firing into a packed crowd from a high vantage point, full auto fire isn't really much use. Lots of noise, lots of bullets flying through the air, but usually not a lot of hits. Unless the crowd is packed so tight that misses are going to hit someone else, it's a waste of ammunition.
In situations where targets need to be selected and aimed at to be hit, it's really useless.

Again, according to the letter of the law, bump stocks aren't machine guns.

If we want to stop these kinds of shootings, banning a particular part, or a particular gun won't do a whole lot.
And, since just about all of the notable shootings were done by people who had gone through the background check process and gotten the guns legally, expanding the checks won't do much either.

Maybe putting some 'teeth' into the checks, and enforcing the laws about falsifying the applications would help.

It's been pointed out that Hunter Biden's prosecution was a very rare event. The law is rarely enforced. 
Maybe it should be more often.

There have been a couple events where the shooter got their gun legally, but shouldn't have. They 'slipped through the cracks'.
Maybe those 'cracks' should be filled in, and people who are prohibited from owning guns shouldn't be able to pass the background check (and when they are found out, they should have the guns taken away and face serious consequences).

After the buying frenzy when Obama got elected, and the even bigger one after the Sandy Hook shooting, there's absolutely no way to get all of those guns out of circulation. 

I don't really have any solutions. I don't think there are any.

But banning bump stocks isn't really going to do anything.

 

Show us where 55 people are slaughtered with rubber bands and see how fast that gets Lawn Jarted.

[normiss 798]

17 hours ago, wolfriverjoe said:

You're right that I missed the additional posts.

However, that doesn't change much.

Just because the bump stock allows the shooter to make the gun fire fast, it's not a machine gun.

The mechanism of the gun hasn't changed one bit.

Back when they were being designed, the guys who came up with the bump stock sent a prototype to the BATF, asking if it was legal.
The BATF said it was. Their rationale (and I don't always agree with the BATF's rationale) was that the gun was still a semi auto, that each time the gun fired, the sear had to reset and the trigger pulled again.

If bump stocks were made illegal, would shoelaces and rubber bands be too?
Would attaching a rubber band and a shoelace to an AR type rifle become 'manufacturing a machine gun'? (yes, I'm getting a bit absurd)

Keep in mind that simple possession of the trigger, sear, auto safety sear and bolt carrier for a full auto M16, along with an AR 15 rifle constitutes 'possession of a machine gun', because they can be assembled to make one. Similarly, drilling the holes for the M16 parts into an AR receiver is the same.

I see banning bump stocks as a knee jerk reaction to a single event.

With the exception of firing into a packed crowd from a high vantage point, full auto fire isn't really much use. Lots of noise, lots of bullets flying through the air, but usually not a lot of hits. Unless the crowd is packed so tight that misses are going to hit someone else, it's a waste of ammunition.
In situations where targets need to be selected and aimed at to be hit, it's really useless.

Again, according to the letter of the law, bump stocks aren't machine guns.

If we want to stop these kinds of shootings, banning a particular part, or a particular gun won't do a whole lot.
And, since just about all of the notable shootings were done by people who had gone through the background check process and gotten the guns legally, expanding the checks won't do much either.

Maybe putting some 'teeth' into the checks, and enforcing the laws about falsifying the applications would help.

It's been pointed out that Hunter Biden's prosecution was a very rare event. The law is rarely enforced. 
Maybe it should be more often.

There have been a couple events where the shooter got their gun legally, but shouldn't have. They 'slipped through the cracks'.
Maybe those 'cracks' should be filled in, and people who are prohibited from owning guns shouldn't be able to pass the background check (and when they are found out, they should have the guns taken away and face serious consequences).

After the buying frenzy when Obama got elected, and the even bigger one after the Sandy Hook shooting, there's absolutely no way to get all of those guns out of circulation. 

I don't really have any solutions. I don't think there are any.

But banning bump stocks isn't really going to do anything.

 

Let's take the same approach to border protection then.

 

[gowlerk 2,190]

At one time children learned to hide under desks for air raids. Now they are being taught how to keep from bleeding out if shot.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/06/25/health/gun-violence-stop-the-bleed-children-gupta/index.html

[billvon 2,989]

12 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

At one time children learned to hide under desks for air raids. Now they are being taught how to keep from bleeding out if shot.

Having a man with makeup read to kids - "It's an ABOMINATION!  It's shoving sexuality down our children's THROATS!"

Teaching kids to stop bleeding on a bloody mannequin body part - "Well, that's just common sense."

[BIGUN 1,297]

51 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

Now they are being taught how to keep from bleeding out if shot.

After you get past the CNN slant - it has been an on-going "Stop the Bleed" program. Within the article cited, "Anderson said. 'This course should not be affiliated with gun violence. This is about helping people that are bleeding in any scenario.' "

I sometimes think they do this so when called on it - they can say, "Well, we put that quote in there." Knowing damn well it was buried so deep most won't read it. 

Before you jump on me - there's two things to acknowledge. 1) I once climbed up Sky's ass about the US as a Banana Republic. When the now leading cause of death in children over car accidents is a fucking gun. We have a problem that everyone talks about, but NEITHER side is actually doing a damn thing about it - it becomes a political cycle talking point. 2) You know my position on the Gun Responsibility Act.  

Now, if you'll excuse me, Bill thinks I need to go stop a clown from reading to kids.   

Edited June 25, 2024 by BIGUN
car

[gowlerk 2,190]

2 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

After you get past the CNN slant - it has been an on-going "Stop the Bleed" program.

I plead guilty, I did not read more than the first paragraph or so. CNN definitely caters to an audience almost as much as FOX does. It's front page is mostly all Trump all of the time. 

[BIGUN 1,297]

7 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

CNN definitely caters to an audience almost as much as FOX does.

Truth. I use the Google news feed so I can see & sort thru the silliness of extremism. After a bit of "programmatic" selection - it becomes manageable. 

[normiss 798]

56 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

At one time children learned to hide under desks for air raids. Now they are being taught how to keep from bleeding out if shot.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/06/25/health/gun-violence-stop-the-bleed-children-gupta/index.html

Growing up in an Air Force family and being stationed on nuclear capable bases, we always laughed at the duck and cover drills. Hiding under a piece of plywood attached to thin steel, right next to a wall of glass.

We knew what was up, even as little kids.

I can't imagine an active shooter drill. 

[BIGUN 1,297]

1 hour ago, normiss said:

I can't imagine an active shooter drill. 

I wouldn't have imagined the need. 

P.S. Active Shooter Drills suck. An active shooter shouldn't even make it on the school grounds before getting dumped. 

[billvon 2,989]

49 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

P.S. Active Shooter Drills suck. An active shooter shouldn't even make it on the school grounds before getting dumped. 

Agreed.  Unfortunately, as Uvalde demonstrated, even armed resource officers, and armed populace and armed fast-response police are not sufficient to stop a determined active shooter.