• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Gun rights group says it will sue over bump stock ban

JacksinPA

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Dec 3, 2017
Messages
21,425
Reaction score
12,210
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
https://thehill.com/regulation/421928-gun-rights-group-says-it-will-sue-over-bump-stock-ban

Gun Owners of America and its foundation said Tuesday they will challenge the Trump administration’s new ban on bump stocks and seek a court order to block the rule.

After the Department of Justice (DOJ) issued a final rule Tuesday to ban the device, which allows a semi-automatic weapon to be fired much more rapidly, the gun rights group said it will challenge the rule in court.
=======================================
These people are taking this 2nd A. stuff too far out of reality. Bump stocks serve no useful purpose.
 

Rucker61

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
15,702
Reaction score
6,730
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
https://thehill.com/regulation/421928-gun-rights-group-says-it-will-sue-over-bump-stock-ban

Gun Owners of America and its foundation said Tuesday they will challenge the Trump administration’s new ban on bump stocks and seek a court order to block the rule.

After the Department of Justice (DOJ) issued a final rule Tuesday to ban the device, which allows a semi-automatic weapon to be fired much more rapidly, the gun rights group said it will challenge the rule in court.
=======================================
These people are taking this 2nd A. stuff too far out of reality. Bump stocks serve no useful purpose.

They turn money into noise, and that's a legally acceptable use. It's not about the bump stocks, though; it's about an unconstitutional action by the executive branch.
 

JacksinPA

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Dec 3, 2017
Messages
21,425
Reaction score
12,210
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
They turn money into noise, and that's a legally acceptable use. It's not about the bump stocks, though; it's about an unconstitutional action by the executive branch.

After Las Vegas, I think the overriding issue is public safety. You can legally buy machine guns from the right dealer with the right permits but these bump stocks are an unregulated equivalent of a machine gun.
 

Rucker61

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
15,702
Reaction score
6,730
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
After Las Vegas, I think the overriding issue is public safety. You can legally buy machine guns from the right dealer with the right permits but these bump stocks are an unregulated equivalent of a machine gun.

Public safety doesn't override rights or grant unconstitutional powers. The Vegas shooter could have done as much damage with a pair of Mini-14s or M1As and 10 round magazines. Heck, someone practiced enough with SMLEs could have killed more people in the same amount of time.
 

JacksinPA

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Dec 3, 2017
Messages
21,425
Reaction score
12,210
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Public safety doesn't override rights or grant unconstitutional powers. The Vegas shooter could have done as much damage with a pair of Mini-14s or M1As and 10 round magazines. Heck, someone practiced enough with SMLEs could have killed more people in the same amount of time.

You have a right to yell FIRE in a crowded movie theater but public safety will get you arrested, and worse if anyone is injured or killed as a result. Same thing: the public safety of the many trumps the personal rights of the few. (pun intended)
 

RF667799

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 23, 2015
Messages
5,390
Reaction score
2,099
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
You have a right to yell FIRE in a crowded movie theater but public safety will get you arrested, and worse if anyone is injured or killed as a result. Same thing: the public safety of the many trumps the personal rights of the few. (pun intended)

Likewise, you really aren't allowed to shoot people just because you have a bump stock.
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
263,222
Reaction score
81,333
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
https://thehill.com/regulation/421928-gun-rights-group-says-it-will-sue-over-bump-stock-ban

Gun Owners of America and its foundation said Tuesday they will challenge the Trump administration’s new ban on bump stocks and seek a court order to block the rule.

After the Department of Justice (DOJ) issued a final rule Tuesday to ban the device, which allows a semi-automatic weapon to be fired much more rapidly, the gun rights group said it will challenge the rule in court.
=======================================
These people are taking this 2nd A. stuff too far out of reality. Bump stocks serve no useful purpose.

neither do anti gun organizations. the problem is-gun banners say the same thing about most, if not all guns. and if you want to get rid of bump stocks-repeal or overturn the Hughes Amendment
 

Rucker61

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
15,702
Reaction score
6,730
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
You have a right to yell FIRE in a crowded movie theater but public safety will get you arrested, and worse if anyone is injured or killed as a result. Same thing: the public safety of the many trumps the personal rights of the few. (pun intended)

Do you see the difference between a use restriction and a possession restriction? My ability to yell "fire" in a crowded movie theater is completely uninhibited by the government. If your last statement was true, any gun restriction would be lawful .

Besides, under Brandenberg v Ohio, if someone yells fire in a theater, "government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action".
 

Nickyjo

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 12, 2016
Messages
18,815
Reaction score
5,701
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Public safety doesn't override rights or grant unconstitutional powers. The Vegas shooter could have done as much damage with a pair of Mini-14s or M1As and 10 round magazines. Heck, someone practiced enough with SMLEs could have killed more people in the same amount of time.

Thank you for that cheerful analysis. As I see it, anything that checks the madness and saves a few lives is worth it.
 

Rucker61

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
15,702
Reaction score
6,730
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
Thank you for that cheerful analysis. As I see it, anything that checks the madness and saves a few lives is worth it.

We should let the government monitor all communications and search any domicile or vehicle at will. Warrantless detentions of those deemed suspicious or prone to danger should be legal, too.
 

RF667799

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 23, 2015
Messages
5,390
Reaction score
2,099
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
neither do anti gun organizations. the problem is-gun banners say the same thing about most, if not all guns. and if you want to get rid of bump stocks-repeal or overturn the Hughes Amendment

There aren't relatively a lot of people who own bump stocks so they are a vulnerable population.

Sadly, even though some of the arguments in support of those vulnerable people are sound, I fear those arguments will be turned against gun owners in general in the next bit of incrementalism.
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
263,222
Reaction score
81,333
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
There aren't relatively a lot of people who own bump stocks so they are a vulnerable population.

Sadly, even though some of the arguments in support of those vulnerable people are sound, I fear those arguments will be turned against gun owners in general in the next bit of incrementalism.

there aren't any real sound arguments for banning something that one out of many thousands was misused. The bannerrhoids are pandering to the sheep and trying to pass a law that may well be interpreted to allow bans on semi autos in general.
 

Nickyjo

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 12, 2016
Messages
18,815
Reaction score
5,701
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
We should let the government monitor all communications and search any domicile or vehicle at will. Warrantless detentions of those deemed suspicious or prone to danger should be legal, too.

Nice try. The second amendment is not absolute. It’s right there in the Supreme Court decision.
 

Rucker61

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
15,702
Reaction score
6,730
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
Nice try. The second amendment is not absolute. It’s right there in the Supreme Court decision.

Care to quote more of this Supreme Court Decision? I'm interested in the part that says if we just wants to stop the madness and save lives then we can make any gun control law.

Under which provision is the executive branch empowered to change a law?
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
263,222
Reaction score
81,333
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Nice try. The second amendment is not absolute. It’s right there in the Supreme Court decision.

that was Dicta designed to get an erratic egotist Kennedy on board. and it really doesn't support gun bans but rather the federal 18 USC 922 restrictions on convicted felons etc from owning firearms or STATE LAWS (no longer relevant with McDonald) that restrict firearms use or carrying
 

RF667799

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 23, 2015
Messages
5,390
Reaction score
2,099
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
there aren't any real sound arguments for banning something that one out of many thousands was misused. The bannerrhoids are pandering to the sheep and trying to pass a law that may well be interpreted to allow bans on semi autos in general.

That precedent is what I was referring to. Simply horrible. Of course, I'm of the mind that the precedent that has it a gun can be banned...or even the prospective owner forced to jump through hoops... because of rate of fire is horrible too.
 

Nickyjo

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 12, 2016
Messages
18,815
Reaction score
5,701
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Care to quote more of this Supreme Court Decision? I'm interested in the part that says if we just wants to stop the madness and save lives then we can make any gun control law.

Under which provision is the executive branch empowered to change a law?

I don’t think it said that. My impression is that it recognized the second a as about individual rights, but left open the possibility of some regulation. That’s all.
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
263,222
Reaction score
81,333
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
I don’t think it said that. My impression is that it recognized the second a as about individual rights, but left open the possibility of some regulation. That’s all.

mainly at a state level BEFORE the second amendment was incorporated by the 14th and now applies to the states. In fact some scholars noted that Scalia only put that DICTA in the decision because Stevens had lobbied Kennedy to vote against gun rights and Scalia did this to keep the Erratic Kennedy on board. Others have noted Scalia basically fleshed out the farthest limits that the federal government could interfere with the second amendment in that dicta and anything beyond that was unconstitutional.
 

Nickyjo

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 12, 2016
Messages
18,815
Reaction score
5,701
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
mainly at a state level BEFORE the second amendment was incorporated by the 14th and now applies to the states. In fact some scholars noted that Scalia only put that DICTA in the decision because Stevens had lobbied Kennedy to vote against gun rights and Scalia did this to keep the Erratic Kennedy on board. Others have noted Scalia basically fleshed out the farthest limits that the federal government could interfere with the second amendment in that dicta and anything beyond that was unconstitutional.

Thanks for the info. So what, if anything, can the government do to regulate firearms inlight of all this?
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
263,222
Reaction score
81,333
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Thanks for the info. So what, if anything, can the government do to regulate firearms inlight of all this?

I honestly don't think the federal government should have much, if any say in what private citizens own in terms of arms that are bearable and are not area weapons. States have more leeway and certainly can criminalize the improper or unsafe USE of firearms which is really what we need to enforce. As to the import of foreign firearms-that is the gray area where the commerce clause might well give the federal government some proper powers of regulation but the federal government telling someone in Ohio they cannot make a machine gun for sale in Ohio is clearly bogus
 

Maccabee

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 7, 2016
Messages
5,526
Reaction score
1,371
Location
Florida.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
https://thehill.com/regulation/421928-gun-rights-group-says-it-will-sue-over-bump-stock-ban

Gun Owners of America and its foundation said Tuesday they will challenge the Trump administration’s new ban on bump stocks and seek a court order to block the rule.

After the Department of Justice (DOJ) issued a final rule Tuesday to ban the device, which allows a semi-automatic weapon to be fired much more rapidly, the gun rights group said it will challenge the rule in court.
=======================================
These people are taking this 2nd A. stuff too far out of reality. Bump stocks serve no useful purpose.

Lamborghinis serve no useful purpose either.
 

PleasantValley

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2017
Messages
4,098
Reaction score
1,991
Location
Henderson, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Thank you for that cheerful analysis. As I see it, anything that checks the madness and saves a few lives is worth it.

Then lead the charge to BAN psych drugs, water sports, Tylenol, Tide Pods, spray paint, distilled petroleum products, chemical fertilizers, Drano, and a thousand other products if you believe banning them will save only a few lives.
People get killed by all kinds of weird things every day. Some, like Tylenol and aspirin are well-known killers.
You wll have a very long list indeed if you want to save only a few lives before you get to guns. They are way down on the list.

I don't mean you, but usually people that say that have an anti-gun agenda and are not really interested in saving a few lives. They just want to ban guns.
 

Chillfolks

DP Veteran
Joined
May 6, 2016
Messages
10,990
Reaction score
5,330
Location
VA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Thank you for that cheerful analysis. As I see it, anything that checks the madness and saves a few lives is worth it.

Are you in favor of stop and frisk laws?
 

Nickyjo

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 12, 2016
Messages
18,815
Reaction score
5,701
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Then lead the charge to BAN psych drugs, water sports, Tylenol, Tide Pods, spray paint, distilled petroleum products, chemical fertilizers, Drano, and a thousand other products if you believe banning them will save only a few lives.
People get killed by all kinds of weird things every day. Some, like Tylenol and aspirin are well-known killers.
You wll have a very long list indeed if you want to save only a few lives before you get to guns. They are way down on the list.

I don't mean you, but usually people that say that have an anti-gun agenda and are not really interested in saving a few lives. They just want to ban guns.

The things you mention are not intended to kill.
 
Top Bottom