• 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
26,290
Reaction score
16,776
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.
 

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.
 
Rucker61 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
JacksinPA said:
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.
Click to expand...

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)
 
JacksinPA said:
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)
Click to expand...

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

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
 
JacksinPA said:
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)
Click to expand...

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".
 

Thank you for that cheerful analysis. As I see it, anything that checks the madness and saves a few lives is worth it.
 
Nickyjo said:
Thank you for that cheerful analysis. As I see it, anything that checks the madness and saves a few lives is worth it.
Click to expand...

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.
 
TurtleDude said:
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
Click to expand...

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.
 
Rucker61 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Nice try. The second amendment is not absolute. It’s right there in the Supreme Court decision.
 
Nickyjo said:
Nice try. The second amendment is not absolute. It’s right there in the Supreme Court decision.
Click to expand...

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?
 
Nickyjo said:
Nice try. The second amendment is not absolute. It’s right there in the Supreme Court decision.
Click to expand...

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
 
TurtleDude said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 

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.
 
Nickyjo said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

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
 

Lamborghinis serve no useful purpose either.
 
Nickyjo said:
Thank you for that cheerful analysis. As I see it, anything that checks the madness and saves a few lives is worth it.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Nickyjo said:
Thank you for that cheerful analysis. As I see it, anything that checks the madness and saves a few lives is worth it.
Click to expand...

Are you in favor of stop and frisk laws?
 

The things you mention are not intended to kill.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…