NRA will allow Republicans to consider additional gun regula
Forum rules
Be Civil. Go Hokies.
Be Civil. Go Hokies.
- ip_law-hokie
- Posts: 19133
- Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:20 pm
- Alma Mater: Manchester
- Location: New York, NY
NRA will allow Republicans to consider additional gun regula
NRA Backs Additional Regulations on Rapid-Fire Gun 'Bump Stocks' - NBC News
https://apple.news/A8WbkH_13RUu_oznHZwa3rw
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
https://apple.news/A8WbkH_13RUu_oznHZwa3rw
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
With their Cap’n and Chief Intelligence Officer having deserted them, River, Ham and Joe valiantly continue their whataboutismistic last stand of the DJT apology tour.
Re: NRA will allow Republicans to consider additional gun re
ATF, not congress.
- ip_law-hokie
- Posts: 19133
- Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:20 pm
- Alma Mater: Manchester
- Location: New York, NY
Re: NRA will allow Republicans to consider additional gun re
I understand the ATF has previously ruled the devices legal. So it appears to be an implicit call for legislation to me. Though you are correct that the statement referred to the BATF.USN_Hokie wrote:ATF, not congress.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
With their Cap’n and Chief Intelligence Officer having deserted them, River, Ham and Joe valiantly continue their whataboutismistic last stand of the DJT apology tour.
-
- Posts: 1412
- Joined: Fri Aug 23, 2013 12:44 am
Re: NRA will allow Republicans to consider additional gun re
yes, they want Trump to overrule the Obama decision in 2010 to allow bump stocks.
Re: NRA will allow Republicans to consider additional gun re
What part of regulations don't you understand? The ATF has made technical rulings and changed their minds years later a hundred times. That's what this is about.ip_law-hokie wrote:I understand the ATF has previously ruled the devices legal. So it appears to be an implicit call for legislation to me. Though you are correct that the statement referred to the BATF.USN_Hokie wrote:ATF, not congress.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
- Posts: 13399
- Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 1:25 pm
Re: NRA will allow Republicans to consider additional gun re
As I understand the explanation of what they are, most handy folks can make one in about 10 minutes, thank god for regulation.ip_law-hokie wrote:NRA Backs Additional Regulations on Rapid-Fire Gun 'Bump Stocks' - NBC News
https://apple.news/A8WbkH_13RUu_oznHZwa3rw
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I just want to know how they are going to regulate 3d printed AR-15's with a freaking bayonet, or sharks with laser beams on their heads!!!
- ip_law-hokie
- Posts: 19133
- Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:20 pm
- Alma Mater: Manchester
- Location: New York, NY
Re: NRA will allow Republicans to consider additional gun re
Sorry, I'm not following your last sentence, cwtcr.cwtcr hokie wrote:As I understand the explanation of what they are, most handy folks can make one in about 10 minutes, thank god for regulation.ip_law-hokie wrote:NRA Backs Additional Regulations on Rapid-Fire Gun 'Bump Stocks' - NBC News
https://apple.news/A8WbkH_13RUu_oznHZwa3rw
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I just want to know how they are going to regulate 3d printed AR-15's with a freaking bayonet, or sharks with laser beams on their heads!!!
With their Cap’n and Chief Intelligence Officer having deserted them, River, Ham and Joe valiantly continue their whataboutismistic last stand of the DJT apology tour.
-
- Posts: 13399
- Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 1:25 pm
Re: NRA will allow Republicans to consider additional gun re
it is already possible to 3d print a one shot pistol, only a matter of time until the nerds figure out how to print an actual machine gun, full auto, with a bayonet and a bump stock.....how do you regulate that since the printer is in some private place and nobody knows what is being created? enact any and all stupid regs and laws, the moron in vegas had bombs in his car, so if the gun plan failed I think he had an even more deadlier back up plan. Good luck trying to stop someone that is hell bent on killing, it is very difficultip_law-hokie wrote:Sorry, I'm not following your last sentence, cwtcr.cwtcr hokie wrote:As I understand the explanation of what they are, most handy folks can make one in about 10 minutes, thank god for regulation.ip_law-hokie wrote:NRA Backs Additional Regulations on Rapid-Fire Gun 'Bump Stocks' - NBC News
https://apple.news/A8WbkH_13RUu_oznHZwa3rw
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I just want to know how they are going to regulate 3d printed AR-15's with a freaking bayonet, or sharks with laser beams on their heads!!!
- ip_law-hokie
- Posts: 19133
- Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:20 pm
- Alma Mater: Manchester
- Location: New York, NY
Re: NRA will allow Republicans to consider additional gun re
Thanks for post. I respectfully disagree with the notion that regulations that are presently called for should not be implemented because one could speculate that they may prove difficult to enforce in the future.cwtcr hokie wrote:it is already possible to 3d print a one shot pistol, only a matter of time until the nerds figure out how to print an actual machine gun, full auto, with a bayonet and a bump stock.....how do you regulate that since the printer is in some private place and nobody knows what is being created? enact any and all stupid regs and laws, the moron in vegas had bombs in his car, so if the gun plan failed I think he had an even more deadlier back up plan. Good luck trying to stop someone that is hell bent on killing, it is very difficultip_law-hokie wrote:Sorry, I'm not following your last sentence, cwtcr.cwtcr hokie wrote:As I understand the explanation of what they are, most handy folks can make one in about 10 minutes, thank god for regulation.ip_law-hokie wrote:NRA Backs Additional Regulations on Rapid-Fire Gun 'Bump Stocks' - NBC News
https://apple.news/A8WbkH_13RUu_oznHZwa3rw
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I just want to know how they are going to regulate 3d printed AR-15's with a freaking bayonet, or sharks with laser beams on their heads!!!
With their Cap’n and Chief Intelligence Officer having deserted them, River, Ham and Joe valiantly continue their whataboutismistic last stand of the DJT apology tour.
-
- Posts: 11220
- Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 12:29 am
Re: NRA will allow Republicans to consider additional gun re
Laws are intended for the law abiding and for those on the edge. Laws have no meaning to those beyond the fringe.cwtcr hokie wrote:it is already possible to 3d print a one shot pistol, only a matter of time until the nerds figure out how to print an actual machine gun, full auto, with a bayonet and a bump stock.....how do you regulate that since the printer is in some private place and nobody knows what is being created? enact any and all stupid regs and laws, the moron in vegas had bombs in his car, so if the gun plan failed I think he had an even more deadlier back up plan. Good luck trying to stop someone that is hell bent on killing, it is very difficultip_law-hokie wrote:Sorry, I'm not following your last sentence, cwtcr.cwtcr hokie wrote:As I understand the explanation of what they are, most handy folks can make one in about 10 minutes, thank god for regulation.ip_law-hokie wrote:NRA Backs Additional Regulations on Rapid-Fire Gun 'Bump Stocks' - NBC News
https://apple.news/A8WbkH_13RUu_oznHZwa3rw
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I just want to know how they are going to regulate 3d printed AR-15's with a freaking bayonet, or sharks with laser beams on their heads!!!
- ip_law-hokie
- Posts: 19133
- Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:20 pm
- Alma Mater: Manchester
- Location: New York, NY
Re: NRA will allow Republicans to consider additional gun re
Laws can help reduce the availability of products to those beyond the fringe. That is the point that several of us are missing.133743Hokie wrote:Laws are intended for the law abiding and for those on the edge. Laws have no meaning to those beyond the fringe.cwtcr hokie wrote:it is already possible to 3d print a one shot pistol, only a matter of time until the nerds figure out how to print an actual machine gun, full auto, with a bayonet and a bump stock.....how do you regulate that since the printer is in some private place and nobody knows what is being created? enact any and all stupid regs and laws, the moron in vegas had bombs in his car, so if the gun plan failed I think he had an even more deadlier back up plan. Good luck trying to stop someone that is hell bent on killing, it is very difficultip_law-hokie wrote:Sorry, I'm not following your last sentence, cwtcr.cwtcr hokie wrote:As I understand the explanation of what they are, most handy folks can make one in about 10 minutes, thank god for regulation.ip_law-hokie wrote:NRA Backs Additional Regulations on Rapid-Fire Gun 'Bump Stocks' - NBC News
https://apple.news/A8WbkH_13RUu_oznHZwa3rw
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I just want to know how they are going to regulate 3d printed AR-15's with a freaking bayonet, or sharks with laser beams on their heads!!!
Also, with respect to gun control in particular, I don't understand the notion that because a law will not be 100% effective, one cannot consider the marginal gains that can be achieved.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
With their Cap’n and Chief Intelligence Officer having deserted them, River, Ham and Joe valiantly continue their whataboutismistic last stand of the DJT apology tour.
- ip_law-hokie
- Posts: 19133
- Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:20 pm
- Alma Mater: Manchester
- Location: New York, NY
Re: NRA will allow Republicans to consider additional gun re
I'm not familiar with how the ATF has operated in the past, so I will gladly defer to you on that. In my experience with administrative law, once a governmental body has interpreted their own regulation, either a court must rule that the agency's interpretation is arbitrary and capricious, or Congress generally has to act in order to get the agency to change their position and codify the preferred view as law. But my experience is limited to one particular governmental agency.USN_Hokie wrote:What part of regulations don't you understand? The ATF has made technical rulings and changed their minds years later a hundred times. That's what this is about.ip_law-hokie wrote:I understand the ATF has previously ruled the devices legal. So it appears to be an implicit call for legislation to me. Though you are correct that the statement referred to the BATF.USN_Hokie wrote:ATF, not congress.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Do you find the distinction between requesting (ordering perhaps in this case) that an agency's interpretation of a regulation be changed, and having Congress make this clear in a public forum to be meaningful? It seems that the NRA would have difficulty criticizing a legislator for enacting, as law, the same position that it advocated before the BATF. I do understand that laws can contain other provisions, but the general point remains.
Also, it appears to me that there is a strong argument against taking away a "right" from the public (i.e, the right to purchase bump stocks) without Congressional approval. Congress is accountable to the public, governmental bureaucrats not as much. It seems the NRA posture here would conflict with this general principle.
With their Cap’n and Chief Intelligence Officer having deserted them, River, Ham and Joe valiantly continue their whataboutismistic last stand of the DJT apology tour.
- HokieHam
- Posts: 26654
- Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 2:50 pm
- Location: Kicking over crayons in a safe space for libruls....
Re: NRA will allow Republicans to consider additional gun re
Marginal gains means less freedom for the law abiding......that is the point you are missing.ip_law-hokie wrote:Laws can help reduce the availability of products to those beyond the fringe. That is the point that several of us are missing.133743Hokie wrote:Laws are intended for the law abiding and for those on the edge. Laws have no meaning to those beyond the fringe.cwtcr hokie wrote:it is already possible to 3d print a one shot pistol, only a matter of time until the nerds figure out how to print an actual machine gun, full auto, with a bayonet and a bump stock.....how do you regulate that since the printer is in some private place and nobody knows what is being created? enact any and all stupid regs and laws, the moron in vegas had bombs in his car, so if the gun plan failed I think he had an even more deadlier back up plan. Good luck trying to stop someone that is hell bent on killing, it is very difficultip_law-hokie wrote:Sorry, I'm not following your last sentence, cwtcr.cwtcr hokie wrote:As I understand the explanation of what they are, most handy folks can make one in about 10 minutes, thank god for regulation.ip_law-hokie wrote:NRA Backs Additional Regulations on Rapid-Fire Gun 'Bump Stocks' - NBC News
https://apple.news/A8WbkH_13RUu_oznHZwa3rw
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I just want to know how they are going to regulate 3d printed AR-15's with a freaking bayonet, or sharks with laser beams on their heads!!!
Also, with respect to gun control in particular, I don't understand the notion that because a law will not be 100% effective, one cannot consider the marginal gains that can be achieved.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
"if you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face-forever."
ip believes you can dial in a 78 year old man who suffers from deminishing mental function
Re: NRA will allow Republicans to consider additional gun re
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."ip_law-hokie wrote: Laws can help reduce the availability of products to those beyond the fringe. That is the point that several of us are missing.
Also, with respect to gun control in particular, I don't understand the notion that because a law will not be 100% effective, one cannot consider the marginal gains that can be achieved.
The purpose of the 2nd amendment is not to protect you from any bad outcome. The purpose of the second amendment is to not infringe on peoples' ability to protect themselves. You're arguing for rational basis scrutiny, which you should know isn't applicable to fundamental rights.
As with abortion, this issue really comes down to a simple question. In this case: Do you believe in the individual right to personal self-defense? You appear to disagree with the 2nd Amendment. For those who disagree, a more honest argument would be to re-write/erase the 2A.
Re: NRA will allow Republicans to consider additional gun re
It's obvious that the board's lawyer, like Obama, does not believe in the BoR.HokieHam wrote:Marginal gains means less freedom for the law abiding......that is the point you are missing.ip_law-hokie wrote: Laws can help reduce the availability of products to those beyond the fringe. That is the point that several of us are missing.
Also, with respect to gun control in particular, I don't understand the notion that because a law will not be 100% effective, one cannot consider the marginal gains that can be achieved.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
- ip_law-hokie
- Posts: 19133
- Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:20 pm
- Alma Mater: Manchester
- Location: New York, NY
Re: NRA will allow Republicans to consider additional gun re
No, I appreciate that point. I just think the marginal gain justifies the less freedom.HokieHam wrote:Marginal gains means less freedom for the law abiding......that is the point you are missing.ip_law-hokie wrote:Laws can help reduce the availability of products to those beyond the fringe. That is the point that several of us are missing.133743Hokie wrote:Laws are intended for the law abiding and for those on the edge. Laws have no meaning to those beyond the fringe.cwtcr hokie wrote:it is already possible to 3d print a one shot pistol, only a matter of time until the nerds figure out how to print an actual machine gun, full auto, with a bayonet and a bump stock.....how do you regulate that since the printer is in some private place and nobody knows what is being created? enact any and all stupid regs and laws, the moron in vegas had bombs in his car, so if the gun plan failed I think he had an even more deadlier back up plan. Good luck trying to stop someone that is hell bent on killing, it is very difficultip_law-hokie wrote:Sorry, I'm not following your last sentence, cwtcr.cwtcr hokie wrote: As I understand the explanation of what they are, most handy folks can make one in about 10 minutes, thank god for regulation.
I just want to know how they are going to regulate 3d printed AR-15's with a freaking bayonet, or sharks with laser beams on their heads!!!
Also, with respect to gun control in particular, I don't understand the notion that because a law will not be 100% effective, one cannot consider the marginal gains that can be achieved.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
With their Cap’n and Chief Intelligence Officer having deserted them, River, Ham and Joe valiantly continue their whataboutismistic last stand of the DJT apology tour.
Re: NRA will allow Republicans to consider additional gun re
Below is what I'm talking about. A case-by-case review by the ATF Technical Branch for each product. This is the one for the stupid slidefire "bump fire" stock the killer used:ip_law-hokie wrote:I'm not familiar with how the ATF has operated in the past, so I will gladly defer to you on that. In my experience with administrative law, once a governmental body has interpreted their own regulation, either a court must rule that the agency's interpretation is arbitrary and capricious, or Congress generally has to act in order to get the agency to change their position and codify the preferred view as law. But my experience is limited to one particular governmental agency.USN_Hokie wrote:
What part of regulations don't you understand? The ATF has made technical rulings and changed their minds years later a hundred times. That's what this is about.
Do you find the distinction between requesting (ordering perhaps in this case) that an agency's interpretation of a regulation be changed, and having Congress make this clear in a public forum to be meaningful? It seems that the NRA would have difficulty criticizing a legislator for enacting, as law, the same position that it advocated before the BATF. I do understand that laws can contain other provisions, but the general point remains.
Also, it appears to me that there is a strong argument against taking away a "right" from the public (i.e, the right to purchase bump stocks) without Congressional approval. Congress is accountable to the public, governmental bureaucrats not as much. It seems the NRA posture here would conflict with this general principle.
It's not a new regulation, just a technical review of the product and a determination of whether it meets the technicalities of the law.
As a small government proponent like myself, I'm sure you would agree that the best laws/regulations are made at the lowest/most local level possible. We don't need a law written by an 84yr old jewish lady from California which just creates another mess for the ATF to try and interpret.
- HokieHam
- Posts: 26654
- Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 2:50 pm
- Location: Kicking over crayons in a safe space for libruls....
Re: NRA will allow Republicans to consider additional gun re
And that's where I vehemently disagree, because you empower the law breakers.No, I appreciate that point. I just think the marginal gain justifies the less freedom.
"if you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face-forever."
ip believes you can dial in a 78 year old man who suffers from deminishing mental function
Re: NRA will allow Republicans to consider additional gun re
The government can't use rational basis to infringe upon a fundamental right. Not even the 9CA would argue that.ip_law-hokie wrote: No, I appreciate that point. I just think the marginal gain justifies the less freedom.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
- ip_law-hokie
- Posts: 19133
- Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:20 pm
- Alma Mater: Manchester
- Location: New York, NY
Re: NRA will allow Republicans to consider additional gun re
Owning an automatic weapon is not a fundamental right. Owning a bump stock is not a fundamental right. Just as owning a surface to air missile is not a fundamental right. We are just arguing the margins - not a constitutional question.USN_Hokie wrote:The government can't use rational basis to infringe upon a fundamental right. Not even the 9CA would argue that.ip_law-hokie wrote: No, I appreciate that point. I just think the marginal gain justifies the less freedom.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
With their Cap’n and Chief Intelligence Officer having deserted them, River, Ham and Joe valiantly continue their whataboutismistic last stand of the DJT apology tour.
-
- Posts: 11220
- Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 12:29 am
Re: NRA will allow Republicans to consider additional gun re
The unlawful can always get what they want.ip_law-hokie wrote:Laws can help reduce the availability of products to those beyond the fringe. That is the point that several of us are missing.133743Hokie wrote:Laws are intended for the law abiding and for those on the edge. Laws have no meaning to those beyond the fringe.cwtcr hokie wrote:it is already possible to 3d print a one shot pistol, only a matter of time until the nerds figure out how to print an actual machine gun, full auto, with a bayonet and a bump stock.....how do you regulate that since the printer is in some private place and nobody knows what is being created? enact any and all stupid regs and laws, the moron in vegas had bombs in his car, so if the gun plan failed I think he had an even more deadlier back up plan. Good luck trying to stop someone that is hell bent on killing, it is very difficultip_law-hokie wrote:Sorry, I'm not following your last sentence, cwtcr.cwtcr hokie wrote:As I understand the explanation of what they are, most handy folks can make one in about 10 minutes, thank god for regulation.ip_law-hokie wrote:NRA Backs Additional Regulations on Rapid-Fire Gun 'Bump Stocks' - NBC News
https://apple.news/A8WbkH_13RUu_oznHZwa3rw
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I just want to know how they are going to regulate 3d printed AR-15's with a freaking bayonet, or sharks with laser beams on their heads!!!
Also, with respect to gun control in particular, I don't understand the notion that because a law will not be 100% effective, one cannot consider the marginal gains that can be achieved.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
And past experiences have shown little or no gains on tge margins. So you have to way your rights vs.marginal, if any, benefits. That's a no brainer since no law works 100%.
Re: NRA will allow Republicans to consider additional gun re
An AR is not an automatic weapon. An AR with a "bump stock" is not legally an automatic weapon. An AR-15 is constitutionally protected based on the definition provided in Heller v. DC. You have argued for banning ARs. You don't need that stupid stock to bump fire an AR-15 (or almost any semi-auto...which are constitutionally protected). You are trying to apply rational basis against a fundamental right.ip_law-hokie wrote:Owning an automatic weapon is not a fundamental right. Owning a bump stock is not a fundamental right. Just as owning a surface to air missile is not a fundamental right. We are just arguing the margins - not a constitutional question.USN_Hokie wrote:The government can't use rational basis to infringe upon a fundamental right. Not even the 9CA would argue that.ip_law-hokie wrote: No, I appreciate that point. I just think the marginal gain justifies the less freedom.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
- RiverguyVT
- Posts: 30316
- Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:30 pm
Re: NRA will allow Republicans to consider additional gun re
The NRA is a civil rights organization.
So I put (the dead dog) on her doorstep!
Salute the Marines
Soon we'll have planes that fly 22000 mph
"#PedoPete" = Hunter's name for his dad.
Salute the Marines
Soon we'll have planes that fly 22000 mph
"#PedoPete" = Hunter's name for his dad.
Re: NRA will allow Republicans to consider additional gun re
If I recall correctly, you have the same stance on drugs? Good luck trying to stop someone from using drugs so what's the point of regulation. I'm too lazy to search the boards, but I'm sure that's your opinion. I commend your consistency and logic.cwtcr hokie wrote:it is already possible to 3d print a one shot pistol, only a matter of time until the nerds figure out how to print an actual machine gun, full auto, with a bayonet and a bump stock.....how do you regulate that since the printer is in some private place and nobody knows what is being created? enact any and all stupid regs and laws, the moron in vegas had bombs in his car, so if the gun plan failed I think he had an even more deadlier back up plan. Good luck trying to stop someone that is hell bent on killing, it is very difficultip_law-hokie wrote:Sorry, I'm not following your last sentence, cwtcr.cwtcr hokie wrote:As I understand the explanation of what they are, most handy folks can make one in about 10 minutes, thank god for regulation.ip_law-hokie wrote:NRA Backs Additional Regulations on Rapid-Fire Gun 'Bump Stocks' - NBC News
https://apple.news/A8WbkH_13RUu_oznHZwa3rw
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I just want to know how they are going to regulate 3d printed AR-15's with a freaking bayonet, or sharks with laser beams on their heads!!!
People who know, know.
Re: NRA will allow Republicans to consider additional gun re
Fake news. Remember, it's too soon to talk about gun control. Or is it, it's not the right time to talk about gun control? Regardless, that's despicable for anyone to use a tragedy to try and force gun regulations. I'd imagine member in the NRA are irate over this.ip_law-hokie wrote:NRA Backs Additional Regulations on Rapid-Fire Gun 'Bump Stocks' - NBC News
https://apple.news/A8WbkH_13RUu_oznHZwa3rw
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
People who know, know.