Varmint
NES Member
I was speaking more of the arguments against automatic weapons, if you believe those, cops have no business carrying M4s.
-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
-
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS June Giveaway ***Keltec SUB2000***
5th circuit court of appeals accepts appeal of bumpstock ban en banc (update ban struck down, post 26)
- Thread starter Hoover
- Start date
I was speaking more of the arguments against automatic weapons, if you believe those, cops have no business carrying M4s.
I know
But there is little reason for squad level suppression fire to be utilized by law enforcement in all but the once in a career situations that most never see, especially outside a SWAT situation.
The only real legitimate reason I can see for a fully automatic firearm would be a tie breaker at the end of a competition. Everyone fires from the 10 yard line, smallest grouping takes the prize.
Outside of that, it's fun if you can afford it. I want them back because it's a move in the right direction as far as 2A goes, not because I think they are 'useful' in any capacity outside of Texas hog hunting.
Varmint
NES Member
There are some guns like an MP5 I’d like available but also when we inevitably have to depose this government by force, suppressive fire will be useful.
Laws won't matter then, what's your point?
Varmint
NES Member
Laws won't matter then, what's your point?
Hopefully Four Seasons will start stocking HK416s when SHTF.
Doesn't the Miller case from the '30's say that firearms need to have a military purpose or reason?
Ditto.
Glockster30
NES Member
The 1939 US v. Miller case was such a mess that it allowed both sides to claim victory. The 2008 DC v. Heller decision protected an individual right to RKBA "unconnected with service in a militia..."
Last edited:
Goliathan
NES Member
Miller itself doesn't require guns to have a military purpose in order to be considered protected, only that such guns would be protected for their use in the "common defense." That doesn't mean it's the ONLY possible condition for protection, as the Heller decision pointed out.
I guess I read these wrong somehow:
"Or the government lawyer in US. v Miller argued that short-barreled shotguns aren’t commonly used in military."
"From Heller:
"Miller stands only for the proposition that the Second Amendment right, whatever its nature, extends only to certain types of weapons."
"We may as well consider at this point (for we will have to consider eventually) what types of weapons Miller permits. Read in isolation, Miller’s phrase “part of ordinary military equipment” could mean that only those weapons useful in warfare are protected. That would be a startling reading of the opinion, since it would mean that the National Firearms Act’s restrictions on machineguns (not challenged in Miller) might be unconstitutional, machineguns being useful in warfare in 1939.""
www.northeastshooters.com
"Or the government lawyer in US. v Miller argued that short-barreled shotguns aren’t commonly used in military."
"From Heller:
"Miller stands only for the proposition that the Second Amendment right, whatever its nature, extends only to certain types of weapons."
"We may as well consider at this point (for we will have to consider eventually) what types of weapons Miller permits. Read in isolation, Miller’s phrase “part of ordinary military equipment” could mean that only those weapons useful in warfare are protected. That would be a startling reading of the opinion, since it would mean that the National Firearms Act’s restrictions on machineguns (not challenged in Miller) might be unconstitutional, machineguns being useful in warfare in 1939.""
Supreme Court - NYSRPA v. Bruen - Megathread
Disapointing, but the chances of SCOTUS granting Cert in this case before the final decision of the en banc 4th circuit was slim to none, and obviously Slim just left town. So how long do the lawyers here think the 4th circuit will drag their feet?
www.northeastshooters.com
pastera
NES Member
I've called that out previouslyI guess I read these wrong somehow:
"Or the government lawyer in US. v Miller argued that short-barreled shotguns aren’t commonly used in military."
"From Heller:
"Miller stands only for the proposition that the Second Amendment right, whatever its nature, extends only to certain types of weapons."
"We may as well consider at this point (for we will have to consider eventually) what types of weapons Miller permits. Read in isolation, Miller’s phrase “part of ordinary military equipment” could mean that only those weapons useful in warfare are protected. That would be a startling reading of the opinion, since it would mean that the National Firearms Act’s restrictions on machineguns (not challenged in Miller) might be unconstitutional, machineguns being useful in warfare in 1939.""
Supreme Court - NYSRPA v. Bruen - Megathread
Disapointing, but the chances of SCOTUS granting Cert in this case before the final decision of the en banc 4th circuit was slim to none, and obviously Slim just left town. So how long do the lawyers here think the 4th circuit will drag their feet?
Heller clarified this as the 2nd protects those arms that are commonly used for lawful puposes.
At the time of the NFA machineguns were commonly used for nefarious purposes with no information on their commonality among lawful owners.
Now we have reliable estimates of arms in circulation and can clearly show that they are vastly more common for lawful purposes.
Garys
NES Member
it is a miracle, all the bump stocks that were lost in tragic boating accidents have washed up on shore
All Bump Stocks Lost In Boating Accidents Back In 2017 Miraculously Wash Up On Shore
In one of the most remarkable miracles in human history, the thousands of bump stocks that went missing seven years ago in boating accidents all simultaneously washed ashore and have been reunited with their owners.
"Wow, my bump stock washed ashore! And just a day after the Supreme Court ruling overturning the ban!" said local man Omar Gonzales. "What's even crazier, my neighbor Bill also lost his in a boating accident in 2017, and his bump stock also washed ashore this morning. It's a miracle!"
Across the nation, tens of thousands of Americans reported similar shocking experiences. "It's the darndest thing," said local man John Robinson. "Every single one of my buddies at the gun club said their bump stock washed ashore today, still in great condition. What kind of natural phenomenon does that? It's almost as weird as when everyone I knew lost their bump stocks in boating accidents back in 2017. What an amazing coincidence."
At publishing time, experts had warned that Biden's attempt to ban AR-15s could lead to another horrific epidemic of boating accidents.
All Bump Stocks Lost In Boating Accidents Back In 2017 Miraculously Wash Up On Shore
In one of the most remarkable miracles in human history, the thousands of bump stocks that went missing seven years ago in boating accidents all simultaneously washed ashore and have been reunited with their owners.
"Wow, my bump stock washed ashore! And just a day after the Supreme Court ruling overturning the ban!" said local man Omar Gonzales. "What's even crazier, my neighbor Bill also lost his in a boating accident in 2017, and his bump stock also washed ashore this morning. It's a miracle!"
Across the nation, tens of thousands of Americans reported similar shocking experiences. "It's the darndest thing," said local man John Robinson. "Every single one of my buddies at the gun club said their bump stock washed ashore today, still in great condition. What kind of natural phenomenon does that? It's almost as weird as when everyone I knew lost their bump stocks in boating accidents back in 2017. What an amazing coincidence."
At publishing time, experts had warned that Biden's attempt to ban AR-15s could lead to another horrific epidemic of boating accidents.
Like everything the SCOTUS has done lately. Mifepristone is OK, but left open for further suits/laws against it. Bumpstocks are OK, but leave the possibility open of rewriting the law. SCOTUS is just dodging everything lately, and avoiding really making a solid decision.
Except that they already have. Florida did a bump stock ban (and 3 day waiting period w/o Carry Permit) after Parkland. In NH, bumpstocks are almost pointless anyway. All of the club ranges already prohibit rapid and fully-auto fire as it is. Maybe useful at an indoor range that allows FA, but other than that.... (Ironically, the one range near us in western NH that allowed full-auto/rapid fire was over the border in VT, which has its own bump stock ban so even that is out now.)
Garys
NES Member
Two samples don't prove anything. NH is purple and heading blue ever so quickly. VT is well on it's way to being blue and I won't be surprised if they implement some sort of permit process over the next few years.
The majority of red states will change nothing.
The entire point of Cargill was that Congress, not the BATFE creates the laws. Which was Alito's point.
The majority of red states will change nothing.
The entire point of Cargill was that Congress, not the BATFE creates the laws. Which was Alito's point.
The problem therein is what I was talking about: SCOTUS has given Congress near free reign to decide what people are allowed to possess. Congress could pass a permanent AWB tomorrow and SCOTUS will sit on their hands because it was passed by the branch of gov't that decides who sits on the bench, how many sit on it, and if they desire can impeach them.
Basically, SCOTUS is rubber stamping any law Congress makes no matter how much it violates the 2nd Amendment.
pastera
NES Member
And those temper tantrums have resulted in multiple cases that are working their way through the courts
Read the opinion and make your own determination.
My thought is that yes, it does cover FRTs since it speaks to the specific technical functions of the trigger.
However, the self reseting action of an FRT is a distinction from a regular bumpstock (akin to a slam fire shotgun)
Anyone see this stupidity where the governor of NY, after the bump stock ruling, incorrectly said that the Buffalo shooter had use an bump stock? It was a tweet on X. They had to backpetal and then deleted the tweet. She seems to want to use anything even if it's not true to further the agenda.
Link to article
Link to article
Garys
NES Member
Garys
NES Member
You really don't understand what's going on. Alito was poking a stick into the eyes of lazy and cowardly politicians who were afraid of the consequences of passing a law to ban bump stocks. Even President Trump acted like a politician in this instance.
They turfed this down to the ATF to make them do the dirty work. As with Charlie Baker, they let other people be the bad guys and could claim that they couldn't do anything.
Alito knows full well that Congress won't pass a bump stock ban, especially this close to an election for President, all of Congress, and 1/3 of the Senate.
SCOTUS is rubber stamping nothing, you're reading a lot into his statement that simply says that lazy politicians can't just let bureaucrats do the job of Congress.
I wonder what this means for the "Cheveron" doctrine moving forward.
They turfed this down to the ATF to make them do the dirty work. As with Charlie Baker, they let other people be the bad guys and could claim that they couldn't do anything.
Alito knows full well that Congress won't pass a bump stock ban, especially this close to an election for President, all of Congress, and 1/3 of the Senate.
SCOTUS is rubber stamping nothing, you're reading a lot into his statement that simply says that lazy politicians can't just let bureaucrats do the job of Congress.
I wonder what this means for the "Cheveron" doctrine moving forward.
CrackPot
NES Member
the definition of machine gun means that you need a green card to possess a bump stock.
The language in chap 110 of the acts of 2017 that appears to be nowhere incorporated in MGL is that no person shall purchase, sell or offer for sale a bump stock (or trigger crank).
The actual possession in MA appears to be lawful as long as you have a machine gun license. As to how you acquire one, that would be an exercise left to the reader.
And if one did purchase, sell or offer for sale a bump stock, what would the potential penalty be? Given where it resides and has no context to provide a penalty, does the statement in Chap 110 of the acts of 2017 have any practical impact?
Last edited:
HorizontalHunter
NES Member
Even thought we are funding both sides of the fight, and each fight takes years I will say that it is great…………..while we have a conservative Supreme Court.
The reality is these absurd laws that are clearly unconstitutional will continue to be written, and we will continue to have to fight them, until there is some sort of penalty, or other consequence, to the politicians who generate these laws. How we can accomplish this is beyond me.
Look at Hawaiis’ response to the Bruen decision. Basically they told the Supreme Court to GFYS…..So now what???? Short of sending in the national guard, not happening, or a revolt what is the remedy?
VTski4x4
NES Member
pastera
NES Member
But the Mass definition of bumpstock doesn't cover a forced reset trigger
FRTs do not use recoil to generate the reciprocating action
pastera
NES Member
Armed Attorneys - looks like they are interpreting Alito’s concurrence the same way that I did.
View: https://youtu.be/gGM9Qc8iFpA?feature=shared
