10th circuit vacates "bump stock ban" and grants en banc hearing

[TurtleDude]

This guy used a bump stock to kill 58 people and wound over a hundred. Stephen Craig Paddock, 64


He was upset about some gambling loses apparently.

the only case I am aware of where bump stocks were used to murder. and any of us who understand firearms well, know that bump stocks most likely didn't increase the casualties

 

[Goshin]

This guy used a bump stock to kill 58 people and wound over a hundred. Stephen Craig Paddock, 64


He was upset about some gambling loses apparently.

He also had the resources (ie money) to obtain full auto weapons, legally or illegally, if bump stocks had been unavailable.

That particular incident was very much a Black Swan, a unique and unusual situation nearly impossible to foresee or prevent in advance.

France's laws did not prevent the Charlie Hebdo attackers from having full auto weapons, and a rocket propelled grenade launcher.

 

[Chomsky]

given there is only one reported case of one of the 50,000 or so bumpstock owners using a BS for criminal purposes, why do you dislike them? you do know they are purely a reaction to the democrats banning people from being able to register and own machine guns made after May 19, 1986

I think they concentrate too much fire-power in a civilian weapon, similar to the way we pseudo-regulate automatic weapons.

The problem we have is readily & economically available weapon technology has advanced to the point we're able to put substantial destructive power out on the streets, if we so desire. It's not like the days of our father's .38 Smiths & Remington Pumps. In effect, we can have a civilian arm's race of sorts.

 

[Novichok]

So frankly I don't see the commotion about AR15's. Honestly it's not the gun but the guy on the end of it. If you just look at most shootings, they are with handguns and the Virginia Tech shooting shows this.
One thing that makes gun laws hard to change is the exaggeration of the left having to do with guns. The left never wants to compromise so important issues are not dealt with. Governing has to do with compromise and getting what you want in small amounts instead of getting nothing.

We all know that the leftists are idiots in all matters - guns included. I am merely saying that gun laws are one thing and the Soros-bought DA's like Foxx in Illinois and that other moron who charged the guy with an AR-15 in St. Louis are another. You may be well within the law but that may be no defense in the leftist world. Even if you win, you are broke. That's how this rotten system works these days.

 

[TurtleDude]

I think they concentrate too much fire-power in a civilian weapon, similar to the way we pseudo-regulate automatic weapons.

The problem we have is readily & economically available weapon technology has advanced to the point we're putting substantial destructive power out on the streets. It's not like the days of our father's .38 Smiths & Remington Pumps. In effect, we have a civilian arm's race of sorts.

my view-if a political entity (city, state, federal government) is willing to arm its civilian employees with certain weapons for self defense against civilian criminals, that political entity is estopped from preventing law-abiding civilians from being able to own the same firearms type. However, many amateurs don't understand that bump stocks really don't make a semi auto "more deadly"

 

[VanceMack]

Why would anyone want an AR-15 rifle?

That was a good question the AR-15 guys have no good answer. The same applies to the concealed carry license. I have one and have no intention of carrying. There are better ways to avoid being harmed.

Who says there are no good answers as to why we own ARs?

 

[mike2810]

How does the 10th Circuit ruling effect President Trumps ban on bump stocks and the Supreme Court declining to take up the challenge case?

"The Supreme Court declined Monday to take up a legal battle over the Trump administration's ban on bump stocks, leaving the prohibition on the devices in place."

Supreme Court leaves Trump bump stock ban in place - CNNPolitics

Supreme Court turns away challenge to Trump administration's bump stock ban - CBS News

 

[Goshin]

Who says there are no good answers as to why we own ARs?

Indeed. One look at what is going on in some cities in the country is a good answer in itself.

 

[Chomsky]

my view-if a political entity (city, state, federal government) is willing to arm its civilian employees with certain weapons for self defense against civilian criminals, that political entity is estopped from preventing law-abiding civilians from being able to own the same firearms type. However, many amateurs don't understand that bump stocks really don't make a semi auto "more deadly"

FYI - I edited my earlier post for clarity.

Yeah, you told me the bolded before - and I very much agree. I think it's a great bar. No idea what it has to do with bumpstops, though.

 

[joko104]

Why would anyone want one?

Watch the video closely and you see the worthlessness and counter productive nature of a bump stock.

1. There was a jam
2. The barrel rise would cause all but the first round to go well over the top of the target.

Bump stocks are a gimmick, nothing else. Even the Marines recognized the counter productive nature of full auto - and a bump stock is FAR worse than full auto.

 

[TurtleDude]

How does the 10th Circuit ruling effect President Trumps ban on bump stocks and the Supreme Court declining to take up the challenge case?

"The Supreme Court declined Monday to take up a legal battle over the Trump administration's ban on bump stocks, leaving the prohibition on the devices in place."

Supreme Court leaves Trump bump stock ban in place - CNNPolitics

Supreme Court turns away challenge to Trump administration's bump stock ban - CBS News

well if the tenth overturns the ban and another circuit upholds it-that almost always guarantees the USSC will have to act

 

[TurtleDude]

FYI - I edited my earlier post for clarity.

Yeah, you told me the bolded before - and I very much agree. I think it's a great bar. No idea what it has to do with bumpstops, though.

the ONLY reason why bumpstocks exist is due to the passage of the Hughes Amendment in 1986-which caused the cost of civilian legal machine guns to increase ten times (average) in price

 

[mike2810]

well if the tenth overturns the ban and another circuit upholds it-that almost always guarantees the USSC will have to act

Thanks for a response. I found it interesting a lower court could overturn Trump's order when the SC ruled to leave it in place by not accepting the challenge case.

 

[Novichok]

Who says there are no good answers as to why we own ARs?

What are they? I mean the practical reasons to own an AR-15 rifle. Please don't mention making holes in a sheet of paper. I am only interested in the purpose for which all guns are made - to kill people or animals.

 

[joko104]

well if the tenth overturns the ban and another circuit upholds it-that almost always guarantees the USSC will have to act

I'm not sure this is a case I want to set precedent by the Supreme Court on gun control.

 

[joko104]

What are they? I mean the practical reasons to own an AR-15 rifle. Please don't mention making holes in a sheet of paper. I am only interested in the purpose for which all guns are made - to kill people or animals.

But you just stated the two primary practical reasons.:roll:

 

[joko104]

the ONLY reason why bumpstocks exist is due to the passage of the Hughes Amendment in 1986-which caused the cost of civilian legal machine guns to increase ten times (average) in price

2A rights are the only Bill of Rights right that the government can require you pay a tax to have such a right.

Time to return the poll tax.

 

[Court Jester]

This action is less about whether bump stocks can be banned or not, it is about a failure in the method which was attempted to regulate them without a proper legislative process. Since the AFT had previously said that based on the definitions of what the device is, and more specifically what it is NOT (it doesn't make a semi-automatic rifle into an automatic rifle); therefore, the AFT could not regulate them under the Gun Control Act of 1968. Without the congress doing the job they are supposed to do, I don't see this going anywhere.

The NRA is already on the record for saying that devices which allow for semi-automatic rifles to "act like" automatic rifles are probably worthy of additional regulations. I'm sure the NRA doesn't see "bump stocks" as the high water mark for gun rights, and in my personal view on this issue I tend to agree. First off, the device is more of a novelty / toy than anything else anyway. It serves no purpose that I can think of in any real world tactical situation--- as they are very inefficient. These devices cannot even be defended as being a function of the rifle as it was designed to be. They are NOT in the same category as semi-automatic fire, removable box magazines, or STANDARD capacity magazines (10+)------ or any normal function of the weapon system. Basically, they may be fun, but they are not practical, so how can they be defended as such? If the issue ever gets to the SCOTUS I'm sure they will be deemed worthy of regulation--- exactly as the Heller decision hinted could happen. Not for these specifically, but for weapons available to, and intended for civilians, like the AR-15, the Mini14, and all other semi automatic standard capacity pistols. All acceptable and worthy to be used by civilians for civilian purposes under our 2nd Amendment protections. This device does not in my opinion rise to that level of legal protection. It is NOT a function of the rifle as designed.

 

[Chomsky]

the ONLY reason why bumpstocks exist is due to the passage of the Hughes Amendment in 1986-which caused the cost of civilian legal machine guns to increase ten times (average) in price

Straight-up, after watching the video these things don't look very efficient or reliable. I couldn't imagine wanting one in a self-defense situation. If anything, they seem like a gimmick.

 

[Goshin]

This action is less about whether bump stocks can be banned or not, it is about a failure in the method which was attempted to regulate them without a proper legislative process. Since the AFT had previously said that based on the definitions of what the device is, and more specifically what it is NOT (it doesn't make a semi-automatic rifle into an automatic rifle); therefore, the AFT could not regulate them under the Gun Control Act of 1968. Without the congress doing the job they are supposed to do, I don't see this going anywhere.

The NRA is already on the record for saying that devices which allow for semi-automatic rifles to "act like" automatic rifles are probably worthy of additional regulations. I'm sure the NRA doesn't see "bump stocks" as the high water mark for gun rights, and in my personal view on this issue I tend to agree. First off, the device is more of a novelty / toy than anything else anyway. It serves no purpose that I can think of in any real world tactical situation--- as they are very inefficient. These devices cannot even be defended as being a function of the rifle as it was designed to be. They are NOT in the same category as semi-automatic fire, removable box magazines, or STANDARD capacity magazines (10+)------ or any normal function of the weapon system. Basically, they may be fun, but they are not practical, so how can they be defended as such? If the issue ever gets to the SCOTUS I'm sure they will be deemed worthy of regulation--- exactly as the Heller decision hinted could happen. Not for these specifically, but for weapons available to, and intended for civilians, like the AR-15, the Mini14, and all other semi automatic standard capacity pistols. All acceptable and worthy to be used by civilians for civilian purposes under our 2nd Amendment protections. This device does not in my opinion rise to that level of legal protection. It is NOT a function of the rifle as designed.

I found it hard to care much about bump stocks either way. For the most part they are silly toys that turn ammo into expensive noise, and rarely have any utility... the Vegas situation excepted but that was a very unusual situation.

The ban is silly too though. Anyone willing to commit mass murder is not going to be deterred by the bumpstock ban, and you can make one in your garage in an hour.

 

[Chomsky]

This action is less about whether bump stocks can be banned or not, it is about a failure in the method which was attempted to regulate them without a proper legislative process. Since the AFT had previously said that based on the definitions of what the device is, and more specifically what it is NOT (it doesn't make a semi-automatic rifle into an automatic rifle); therefore, the AFT could not regulate them under the Gun Control Act of 1968. Without the congress doing the job they are supposed to do, I don't see this going anywhere.

The NRA is already on the record for saying that devices which allow for semi-automatic rifles to "act like" automatic rifles are probably worthy of additional regulations. I'm sure the NRA doesn't see "bump stocks" as the high water mark for gun rights, and in my personal view on this issue I tend to agree. First off, the device is more of a novelty / toy than anything else anyway. It serves no purpose that I can think of in any real world tactical situation--- as they are very inefficient. These devices cannot even be defended as being a function of the rifle as it was designed to be. They are NOT in the same category as semi-automatic fire, removable box magazines, or STANDARD capacity magazines (10+)------ or any normal function of the weapon system. Basically, they may be fun, but they are not practical, so how can they be defended as such? If the issue ever gets to the SCOTUS I'm sure they will be deemed worthy of regulation--- exactly as the Heller decision hinted could happen. Not for these specifically, but for weapons available to, and intended for civilians, like the AR-15, the Mini14, and all other semi automatic standard capacity pistols. All acceptable and worthy to be used by civilians for civilian purposes under our 2nd Amendment protections. This device does not in my opinion rise to that level of legal protection. It is NOT a function of the rifle as designed.

Well laid-out, well deduced, well written post. I very much agree. Bumpstocks would seem to be a questionable hill to take a stand upon, given the adversarial doors it may open.

 

[TurtleDude]

This action is less about whether bump stocks can be banned or not, it is about a failure in the method which was attempted to regulate them without a proper legislative process. Since the AFT had previously said that based on the definitions of what the device is, and more specifically what it is NOT (it doesn't make a semi-automatic rifle into an automatic rifle); therefore, the AFT could not regulate them under the Gun Control Act of 1968. Without the congress doing the job they are supposed to do, I don't see this going anywhere.

The NRA is already on the record for saying that devices which allow for semi-automatic rifles to "act like" automatic rifles are probably worthy of additional regulations. I'm sure the NRA doesn't see "bump stocks" as the high water mark for gun rights, and in my personal view on this issue I tend to agree. First off, the device is more of a novelty / toy than anything else anyway. It serves no purpose that I can think of in any real world tactical situation--- as they are very inefficient. These devices cannot even be defended as being a function of the rifle as it was designed to be. They are NOT in the same category as semi-automatic fire, removable box magazines, or STANDARD capacity magazines (10+)------ or any normal function of the weapon system. Basically, they may be fun, but they are not practical, so how can they be defended as such? If the issue ever gets to the SCOTUS I'm sure they will be deemed worthy of regulation--- exactly as the Heller decision hinted could happen. Not for these specifically, but for weapons available to, and intended for civilians, like the AR-15, the Mini14, and all other semi automatic standard capacity pistols. All acceptable and worthy to be used by civilians for civilian purposes under our 2nd Amendment protections. This device does not in my opinion rise to that level of legal protection. It is NOT a function of the rifle as designed.

yet, there is no valid reason to ban them and the banning was improper and most likely unconstitutionally done

 

[TurtleDude]

Well laid-out, well deduced, well written post. I very much agree. Bumpstocks would seem to be a questionable hill to take a stand upon, given the adversarial doors it may open.

if the unconstitutional 1934 NFA and the unconstitutional 68 GCA/Hughes Amendment had been properly struck down, bumpstocks never would have existed

 

[TurtleDude]

I found it hard to care much about bump stocks either way. For the most part they are silly toys that turn ammo into expensive noise, and rarely have any utility... the Vegas situation excepted but that was a very unusual situation.

The ban is silly too though. Anyone willing to commit mass murder is not going to be deterred by the bumpstock ban, and you can make one in your garage in an hour.

^^^^this

 

[TurtleDude]

Straight-up, after watching the video these things don't look very efficient or reliable. I couldn't imagine wanting one in a self-defense situation. If anything, they seem like a gimmick.

exactly