EXecutive Order . . . Could you support this?

[Rogue Valley]

Nope. He had none. Care to prove otherwise?

No, but he did accessorize his weapons to increase the rate of fire. A bump stock allows a weapon to fire at nearly the rate of a machine gun without technically converting it to a fully automatic firearm.

 

[Aberration]

As I understand it, an EO, among other things, is meant to clarify an ambiguous law.



And I hope you didn’t miss that I suggested it would give Congress an opportunity to act formally... like if bump stocks were restricted in the EO stating their intended use constituted an automatic fire weapon that should be regulated under the same regs as machine guns.. and I’d add to make it even clearer, that it would automatically sunset in six months. That would give Congress ample time to act if they so chose.

No. An EO is just to direct executive agencies how to enforce a law. And the law is not ambiguous at all. It’s extremely specific.

Any such EO would violate the law. As the law specifically defines a machine gun.

26 U.S. Code § 5845 - Definitions

(b) Machinegun
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.


This is exactly why the ATF determined the bump fire stock was legal under the law. The key part, a single function of the trigger. Meaning I pull the trigger, and only one round fires. That’s exactly what happens with a bump fire stock. The bump fire stock just capitalizes on recoil moving the firearm from your finger, and you push the firearm forward onto the finger engaging the trigger again. You can do the exact, and that’s not hyperbole, same thing without a bump fire stock just by floating the stock off your shoulder.

In fact when a novice shooter accidentally lets off multiple rounds, that’s what happens. When you hear about novice shooters blowing their brains out with large revolvers like 500 S&W that’s exactly what happens.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Aberration]

No, he had a DOZEN...

No, he had not a single one.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Maccabee]

No, but he did accessorize his weapons to increase the rate of fire. A bump stock allows a weapon to fire at nearly the rate of a machine gun without technically converting it to a fully automatic firearm.

So do rubberbands.

 

[TurtleDude]

No, but he did accessorize his weapons to increase the rate of fire. A bump stock allows a weapon to fire at nearly the rate of a machine gun without technically converting it to a fully automatic firearm.

several top revolver shooters can approach 450 RPM rates of fire which is faster than some automatic weapons. I can shot 15 shots out of a SAIGA 12 G shotgun in 3.5 seconds and when loaded with some buck shot loads that is over 400 lethal projectiles in 3.5 seconds. with 3 or four shotguns that's over 4000 such pellets in under a minute.

 

[TurtleDude]

No, he had not a single one.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

he's been edified on that topic dozens of times but keeps claiming otherwise

 

[AYSM]

How would the government address something that doesn't violate the law?

I would imagine with some sort of algorithm that would look for anomalies, actions that might suggest a lead up to a potential illegal act such as what occurred.
They do it all the time on other issues...it's a simple programming function I would imagine...followed up by fewer agent hours than they are currently expending...doing so wouldn't violate the law...just add to the political firestorm.

A friend of mine was visited by the FBI because she happened to have rented a house somewhere around a year prior to Tim McVeigh spending a short time in the same house after she had long since moved.

It's what they do...research before and after a crime has/may/may not be(en) committed...it should be due to reasonable suspicion...such as a big spike in purchases...anybody not intending harm and who is not otherwise committing a crime really shouldn't have anything to worry about.

 

[apdst]

I would imagine with some sort of algorithm that would look for anomalies, actions that might suggest a lead up to a potential illegal act such as what occurred.

They do it all the time on other issues...it's a simple programming function I would imagine...followed up by fewer agent hours than they are currently expending...doing so wouldn't violate the law...just add to the political firestorm.

A friend of mine was visited by the FBI because she happened to have rented a house somewhere around a year prior to Tim McVeigh spending a short time in the same house after she had long since moved.

It's what they do...research before and after a crime has/may/may not be(en) committed...it should be due to reasonable suspicion...such as a big spike in purchases...anybody not intending harm and who is not otherwise committing a crime really shouldn't have anything to worry about.

That would be unconstitutional as hell.

 

[AYSM]

That would be unconstitutional as hell.

They'd have to give it a catchy name like The Patriot Act...a constitutional argument in these Trumpian times leaves a bit of ironic taste.

 

[apdst]

They'd have to give it a catchy name like The Patriot Act...a constitutional argument in these Trumpian times leaves a bit of ironic taste.

Such surveillance would violate the 4th and 5th Amendments. You would be throwing probable cause out the window.

 

[AYSM]

Such surveillance would violate the 4th and 5th Amendments. You would be throwing probable cause out the window.

In what way?

Seems to me the probable cause for any surveillance would be what the data indicated. How does follow-up necessarily violate either the 4th or 5th? Seems to me you're getting a bit premature with that.

 

[apdst]

In what way?

Seems to me the probable cause for any surveillance would be what the data indicated. How does follow-up necessarily violate either the 4th or 5th? Seems to me you're getting a bit premature with that.

Probable cause is based on suspicion of a crime. Owning guns isn't a crime. There's no way to establish probable cause based on legal activity.

 

[Rucker61]

In what way?

Seems to me the probable cause for any surveillance would be what the data indicated. How does follow-up necessarily violate either the 4th or 5th? Seems to me you're getting a bit premature with that.

How is buying some number of guns probable cause for suspected criminal activity?

 

[AYSM]

Probable cause is based on suspicion of a crime. Owning guns isn't a crime. There's no way to establish probable cause based on legal activity.

How is buying some number of guns probable cause for suspected criminal activity?

G'mornin' guys,

I think you are viewing my point from a bit of an extreme position...what I mean is...I'm suggesting that a spike in legal purchases might be worth some curiosity...so they do a little leg work...infiltrate...perhaps have someone ask around a bit...general stuff...nothing that violates anyone's 4th amendment rights...we ain't gonna be kickin' in anybody's door anytime soon.

Does anybody not believe stuff like this happens all the time...how do they prevent crimes?

5th? Somebody who should talk with him when not under oath is merely collecting hearsay, but research might not even lead to a need for any question to arise.

Now, let's say there are matters that might bring about evidence that could lead to a potential crime being plotted...

then...

proceed with warrant's and such but as you say...you gotta protect a persons constitutional due process protected by the 4th and the 5th...make the case, stop the crime, save the lives of 58 innocent people and one nut-bar

...or wonder what happened after the fact...

I wish I knew more about the time-line...it lead's to the motive...at present what bits and pieces made public don't give up much to go on but,
damn sure there was plenty of smoke out there long before he filled the room with it.

 

[apdst]

G'mornin' guys,

I think you are viewing my point from a bit of an extreme position...what I mean is...I'm suggesting that a spike in legal purchases might be worth some curiosity...so they do a little leg work...infiltrate...perhaps have someone ask around a bit...general stuff...nothing that violates anyone's 4th amendment rights...we ain't gonna be kickin' in anybody's door anytime soon.

Does anybody not believe stuff like this happens all the time...how do they prevent crimes?

5th? Somebody who should talk with him when not under oath is merely collecting hearsay, but research might not even lead to a need for any question to arise.

Now, let's say there are matters that might bring about evidence that could lead to a potential crime being plotted...

then...

proceed with warrant's and such but as you say...you gotta protect a persons constitutional due process protected by the 4th and the 5th...make the case, stop the crime, save the lives of 58 innocent people and one nut-bar

...or wonder what happened after the fact...

I wish I knew more about the time-line...it lead's to the motive...at present what bits and pieces made public don't give up much to go on but,
damn sure there was plenty of smoke out there long before he filled the room with it.

The government doesn't have the authority to question anything I do without probable cause.

 

[AYSM]

The government doesn't have the authority to question anything I do without probable cause.

I hope you didn't write that without laughing because that's what I did when I read it

I guess we can start defunding census taker jobs...sure will save in lot's of paperwork too...saves tree's, I'm liking it...hell, no more questions...just issue everybody a CCW, no questions asked...with a picture...use it as a voter ID...how far you wanna go with your no questions asked policy?

 

[apdst]

I hope you didn't write that without laughing because that's what I did when I read it

I guess we can start defunding census taker jobs...sure will save in lot's of paperwork too...saves tree's, I'm liking it...hell, no more questions...just issue everybody a CCW, no questions asked...with a picture...use it as a voter ID...how far you wanna go with your no questions asked policy?

You actually believe that law enforcement can investigate an American citizen without probable cause? :lamo

 

[AYSM]

You actually believe that law enforcement can investigate an American citizen without probable cause? :lamo

Oh, heavens no...they would never investigate a tip or lead or research or anomalies or any other damn thing without a warrant having established "probable cause"...that's why we have problems in the world today...the sons of bitches sit on their asses playing poker, waiting for 911 calls reporting "shots fired" instead of investigating leads..."Houston, we have a problem."


opcorn2:

 

[PIPEWRENCH]

No. I am against using EOs in the place of legislation, regardless of who is signing them or if I agree with the intent.

Exactly. We can do without the King circumventing our legislative branch. I could not stand King Obama and Trump will lose my support if he starts the same nonsense.

 

[apdst]

Oh, heavens no...they would never investigate a tip or lead or research or anomalies or any other damn thing without a warrant having established "probable cause"...that's why we have problems in the world today...the sons of bitches sit on their asses playing poker, waiting for 911 calls reporting "shots fired" instead of investigating leads..."Houston, we have a problem."


opcorn2:

Yeah, that damn Constitution...huh?

 

[Mr Person]

I seriously doubt such an order would be constitutional. But then, I'm not sure there is much caselaw on the boundaries of EOs.

 

[Mr Person]

You actually believe that law enforcement can investigate an American citizen without probable cause?

In practical reality, it happens all the time. So long as the police don't have their cameras on, there are two outcomes:

1. They conduct an illegal search and find something. They then make up a story to provide probable cause. The defendant does not testify at the suppression hearing because if he did, the prosecution would be allowed to ask him any questions about the case, not just about the search. The police did find something, so the judge believes them.

2. They conduct an illegal search and find nothing. Nothing happens because there generally won't be much of any damages and it is very difficult, on purpose, to sue the government for police actions. There are various immunities for police officers.

Occasionally, a good judge will get suspicious and suppress something. But in simple reality, they get away with a lot. They've even been caught making up CIs ("confidential informants") that never existed because a judge will eventually get suspicious and order the identity disclosed.




What happens on paper is not what happens in real life.





Oh, right, and did you hear about what Obama did with the NSA?

 

[AYSM]

In response to..."You actually believe that law enforcement can investigate an American citizen without probable cause?"...directed at me...

In practical reality, it happens all the time. So long as the police don't have their cameras on, there are two outcomes:

1. They conduct an illegal search and find something.
2. They conduct an illegal search and find nothing.


What happens on paper is not what happens in real life.

Your response regarding illegal searches, while true in some cases in all likelihood, is irrelevant to the point regarding collection of information that does not include search and seizure.

As to your comment, "What happens on paper is not what happens in real life."...

Well...yeah

As to Obama...nothing would surprise me...did it have to do with bump stocks?

 

[Mr Person]

In response to..."You actually believe that law enforcement can investigate an American citizen without probable cause?"...directed at me...



Your response regarding illegal searches, while true in some cases in all likelihood, is irrelevant to the point regarding collection of information that does not include search and seizure.

As to your comment, "What happens on paper is not what happens in real life."...

Well...yeah

As to Obama...nothing would surprise me...did it have to do with bump stocks?

I wasn't really intending to respond to the entire conversation, just adpst's ridiculous notion that law enforcement cannot investigate without PC. I only focused on unlawful investigations that they get away with anyway.

Of course, I might also have mentioned that so long as a stop is not unlawful, then they are certainly free to ask people questions about things as a general matter. Provided, of course, the information is not protected by statute. It's part of canvassing any scene.

If whatever data you are referring to can be gotten freely, then there wouldn't be any problem getting it and analyzing it. If the holder of the data did not want to provide it or was barred by statute from providing it, they'd have to get a warrant or subpeona.

 

[AYSM]

I wasn't really intending to respond to the entire conversation, just adpst's ridiculous notion that law enforcement cannot investigate without PC. I only focused on unlawful investigations that they get away with anyway.

Of course, I might also have mentioned that so long as a stop is not unlawful, then they are certainly free to ask people questions about things as a general matter. Provided, of course, the information is not protected by statute. It's part of canvassing any scene.

If whatever data you are referring to can be gotten freely, then there wouldn't be any problem getting it and analyzing it. If the holder of the data did not want to provide it or was barred by statute from providing it, they'd have to get a warrant or subpeona.

Thank you for clarifying context...it goes directly to my point...I'm not understanding why the concept seems so hard to grasp.