National So ATF won't come knocking on our doors?

[RX-79G]

House Joint Resolution 44 passed out of committee and is on the House floor to officially have Congress disapprove of the Pistol Brace Final Ruling. there were weeks of House Judiciary Committee hearings, where Chairman Jim Jordan pointed out that Congress did not pass a law to redefine/expand the NFA terms.

Okay. That doesnt change the basic situation of how the ATF regulates. It just takea up a single ruling. Is Jordan tackling Trump's bump stock actions?

 

[CamoDeafie]

Okay. That doesnt change the basic situation of how the ATF regulates. It just takea up a single ruling. Is Jordan tackling Trump's bump stock actions?

If Fed Court decided with Cargill case; maybe Congress doesn't have to?

 

[v0lcom13sn0w]

it looks like a skit. i mean shes wearing an 8" ar500 steel gong in
her plate carrier….

 

[CamoDeafie]

it looks like a skit. i mean shes wearing an 8" ar500 steel gong in
her plate carrier….

So does the guy (her "partner?" Can't assume )

 

[Dozer99]

LEO's don't wear Army Gloves! Ever.

 

[v0lcom13sn0w]

 

[NeoBlackdog]

View attachment 1420141

Do you suppose she hung that off her nipples?

 

[ilikegunspdx]

View attachment 1420141

Maybe it's one of these.

 

[Yarome]

But my point is that individual consumers are setting themselves up for disappointment when they buy new products that are clearly designed to circumvent the intention of the law. It will only be so long before the regulators realize and adjust the regulations accordingly.


The outrage over bump stocks, oil filter can adapters and pistol braces is ridiculous.

I think what many people forget is that using an infringement law as a "baseline" to justify another incremental infringement is not valid. You're predicating that the original infringement is "legal" and just.

That's why gun control is so effective. It's not dramatic or wide sweeping... it's incremental.

Case in point... you've accepted the baseline that SBR regulations are not an infringement, so it makes sense... to you... that braces are a logical extension that shorter barreled rifles should not be shouldered without gooberment permission.

Others will contend, rightly IMHO, that SBR regulations themselves are an illegal 2A infringement, and by extension, any additions to it are also illegal infringements. But the main bone of contention is that the infringement is not even being lawfully executed. The alphabet does not have the authority to circumvent the law making process.

Meaning that... even if a pistol brace "skirts" the "spirit of the law", it is in fact not a violation and to make it so requires an act of congress to readjust those lines. Not a bureaucratic agency at the whims of the temporarily sitting president.

 

[Yarome]

Youve just explained why the government wont be able to regulate them if made legal - it is too easy now to make mods at home

As it should be! If the gooberment has absolute regulation authority it then negates the entire purpose of the 2A to begin with. Tyranny reigns supreme.

 

[RX-79G]

I think what many people forget is that using an infringement law as a "baseline" to justify another incremental infringement is not valid. You're predicating that the original infringement is "legal" and just.

That's why gun control is so effective. It's not dramatic or wide sweeping... it's incremental.

Case in point... you've accepted the baseline that SBR regulations are not an infringement, so it makes sense... to you... that braces are a logical extension that shorter barreled rifles should not be shouldered without gooberment permission.

Others will contend, rightly IMHO, that SBR regulations themselves are an illegal 2A infringement, and by extension, any additions to it are also illegal infringements. But the main bone of contention is that the infringement is not even being lawfully executed. The alphabet does not have the authority to circumvent the law making process.

Meaning that... even if a pistol brace "skirts" the "spirit of the law", it is in fact not a violation and to make it so requires an act of congress to readjust those lines. Not a bureaucratic agency at the whims of the temporarily sitting president.

This is just mumbo jumbo. I don't like the NFA, but it didn't reprogram my mind.

Either something is legal or not. SCOTUS is dismantling a bunch of stuff right now. If the conservatives feel the NFA is an illegal law, it will be gone. If not, that's a hint that 2A is no different than the rest of the BoR in that it is subject to some restrictions. You must really have to drink a lot of koolaid to truly believe that 2a was intended as a free-for-all by the people that both wrote it and were restricting guns at the time.

So I feel it is reasonable to talk about laws as if they are laws and not hallucinations.

 

[The Heretic]

If the conservatives feel the NFA is an illegal law, it will be gone.

Yeah - right - sure - you betcha

 

[Yarome]

This is just mumbo jumbo. I don't like the NFA, but it didn't reprogram my mind.

Some would beg to differ....

By your logic, anything passed into law is de facto "legal" and any expansions of it are therefore "legal". If that were true then there would be no purpose or foundation to challenge a law. Flawed from the start.

That's exactly how infringements work. Take a step forward, let the population "normalize" to the new reality then take another step forward. IOW, you drank the Kool-Aid and don't even seem to be aware of it. Exactly how they like it!

 

[CamoDeafie]

Either something is legal or not. SCOTUS is dismantling a bunch of stuff right now.

SCOTUS dismantled a bunch of stuff back in the 60s to end segregation.. and the Civil Rights Act helped... to create GCA1968 which on its own doesn't seem racist but looking at the other things at that time, the creation of a Prohibited Persons Class in which felons and ex-convicts couldn't enjoy the 2A... and the requirement of BG checks and Federal Licenses to sell firearms... think how easy was it to convict a great many blacks and Hispanics on felony charges... and consider the political climate of the 1960s and 70s... yes, gun control was always a means to control certain segments of the population.

Also; SCOTUS did help end Jim Crow laws too.... which were legal.

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

gun control was always a means to control certain segments of the population.

Quoted for truth!

 

[RX-79G]

Some would beg to differ....

By your logic, anything passed into law is de facto "legal" and any expansions of it are therefore "legal". If that were true then there would be no purpose or foundation to challenge a law. Flawed from the start.

That's exactly how infringements work. Take a step forward, let the population "normalize" to the new reality then take another step forward. IOW, you drank the Kool-Aid and don't even seem to be aware of it. Exactly how they like it!

Thank you for the NRA press release. Just keep repeating this to the choir until everything goes your way.

 

[CamoDeafie]

"a single function of the trigger." Again, from the ATF definition of a "Machine Gun".

what precisely is a "single function"?

This is how the Binary trigger design came to be. It fires once per function. Once on the pull, once on the push.

Now; Forced Reset.

Once per complete pull and forced reset.

Seems all it does is push the trigger back forward to reset and that's it. If you can hold the trigger and not allow it to reset; and it doesn't fire anymore? Just a "light" trigger is basically what it becomes, IE a hair trigger.

Nowhere in the ATF definition does it include "through the action of any external(bump stocks) or internal accessory (forced reset triggers or binary triggers) to increase the rate of fire to on par with other machine guns"

 

[Yarome]

Thank you for the NRA press release. Just keep repeating this to the choir until everything goes your way.

Wow! 2A rights are nothing more than NRA propaganda, hu? You sure chugged that kool-aid and went back for seconds, didn't ya!

Troll on.

 

[Nick Burkhardt]

Yep

 

[The Heretic]

"a single function of the trigger." Again, from the ATF definition of a "Machine Gun".

what precisely is a "single function"?

This is how the Binary trigger design came to be. It fires once per function. Once on the pull, once on the push.

Now; Forced Reset.

Once per complete pull and forced reset.

Seems all it does is push the trigger back forward to reset and that's it. If you can hold the trigger and not allow it to reset; and it doesn't fire anymore? Just a "light" trigger is basically what it becomes, IE a hair trigger.

Nowhere in the ATF definition does it include "through the action of any external(bump stocks) or internal accessory (forced reset triggers or binary triggers) to increase the rate of fire to on par with other machine guns"

From this they will go on to the competition triggers like Geiselle, et. al. because those triggers allow fast reset and fast shooting.

When bump stocks became illegal (with the blessing of the SCOTUS), the next step was FRTs and binary triggers. Then it will be adjustable competition triggers and SRTs. After that they will have regs for trigger pull weight and set triggers.