JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
Don't forget. You are trying to apply logic and reason to government. :D
It made perfect sense when you consider the goals of the Powers That Be, and those serving them:

Goal #1: Increase and preserve your power. One requirement is to remove power from the governed. Disarming the governed is part of that requirement. Making laws/rules numerous and confusing serves that purpose (religion does this too). It doesn't matter that the laws/rules are contradictory (or redundant) or do not accomplish their stated purpose, as long as the laws/rules accomplish the goal. The PTB control the executive and the judicial, and they have a lot of lawyers/judges & bureaucrats to use/interpret those laws/rules to their end. To them, it is all the better that the governed have issues understanding the laws/rules.

Goal #2: See Goal #1
 
Here's the thing, even though the Supreme Court ruled that bump stock bans are unconstitutional they are still illegal in some states that have banned them so that means that the Supreme Court ruling is irrelevant to those particular states? And if that is the case, even if the Supreme Court rules that assault weapons bans are unconstitutional, it won't mean anything in the states that have assault weapon bans. Nothing will change for the people in those states and the "people" will still be under the iron curtain.
 
Here's the thing, even though the Supreme Court ruled that bump stock bans are unconstitutional they are still illegal in some states that have banned them so that means that the Supreme Court ruling is irrelevant to those particular states? And if that is the case, even if the Supreme Court rules that assault weapons bans are unconstitutional, it won't mean anything in the states that have assault weapon bans. Nothing will change for the people in those states and the "people" will still be under the iron curtain.
Everyone wants states rights until the states exercise their rights
 
Here's the thing, even though the Supreme Court ruled that bump stock bans are unconstitutional they are still illegal in some states that have banned them so that means that the Supreme Court ruling is irrelevant to those particular states? And if that is the case, even if the Supreme Court rules that assault weapons bans are unconstitutional, it won't mean anything in the states that have assault weapon bans. Nothing will change for the people in those states and the "people" will still be under the iron curtain.
Well......Abortion.

Oooops, I better STOP there.

1718471656747.png

Aloha, Mark
 
Everyone wants states rights until the states exercise their rights
That's basic.🤣 That desire obviously doesn't include a state having a blank check to pass illegal and/or unconstitutional laws. It's still America.

Unfortunately, for each state there will have to be enough people wanting bump stocks to put together enough money to overturn their state laws. At least it would be an open and shut case for any challenge, though.
 
Here's the thing, even though the Supreme Court ruled that bump stock bans are unconstitutional they are still illegal in some states that have banned them so that means that the Supreme Court ruling is irrelevant to those particular states? And if that is the case, even if the Supreme Court rules that assault weapons bans are unconstitutional, it won't mean anything in the states that have assault weapon bans. Nothing will change for the people in those states and the "people" will still be under the iron curtain.
Yup - true. Those states actually passed a law instead of trying to re-interpret an existing law - so those laws will stay in effect until such time as someone tries to bring a lawsuit against them, and even then...
 
Now its basically up to Congress to pass an amendment(s) to NFA to include whatever they want (Assault weapons/ semiautomatics, bump stocks, enhanced trigger firing devices/speed triggers, etc), and if they can remove "dangerous and unusual weapons" language and insert "dangerous,.socially harmful weapons"... :rolleyes:
 
Here's the thing, even though the Supreme Court ruled that bump stock bans are unconstitutional they are still illegal in some states that have banned them so that means that the Supreme Court ruling is irrelevant to those particular states? And if that is the case, even if the Supreme Court rules that assault weapons bans are unconstitutional, it won't mean anything in the states that have assault weapon bans. Nothing will change for the people in those states and the "people" will still be under the iron curtain.
Except that the Bill of Rights is the supreme law of the land, which supersedes state law. (Well, it's supposed to...)
 
Except that the Bill of Rights is the supreme law of the land, which supersedes state law. (Well, it's supposed to...)
I don't think this bump stock case was argued on 2 grounds at all. I think justice kavanaugh? asked him directly "you aren't arguing this on 2A grounds"? If you listen to the hearing and he said no. This is a separation of powers case. Let's be happy that ATF's overeach has been reigned in and it sets a foundation for more of the same in the future. Chevron deference will hopefully go away in a couple weeks' time and between the 2 the ATFs power will be greatly diminished.
 
Now its basically up to Congress to pass an amendment(s) to NFA to include whatever they want (Assault weapons/ semiautomatics, bump stocks, enhanced trigger firing devices/speed triggers, etc), and if they can remove "dangerous and unusual weapons" language and insert "dangerous,.socially harmful weapons"... :rolleyes:
True - but it is a lot harder for Congress to pass any laws than it is for the POTUS to tell an agency to do his wishes - which is why there are so many executive orders.
 
Exactly; this case wasn't really a 2A case at all. It was about executive over-reach.

Many are not going to see that though. The ironic thing is that there are people out there making political hay out of it, as an example of why we really need to stop Trump from being able to appoint any more right-wing supreme court judges that are stopping "reasonable regulations that save lives". The irony being of course that they reversed a Trump regulation.

I know this will upset some here, but personally I can't really fault him for doing what he did, at the time he did it. In a purely pragmatic sense, I just can't say that it was the wrong thing to do at that particular moment. I won't say that it was right either, but it did help to defuse the anti-gun mood at the time. In the long run, it has also helped to set a precedent that that's not the way to do things.
 
Bottom line is it's going to be a lot harder for a future POTUS to push through anti-gun "rules" like Trudeau has done.

Our founding fathers are who we can thank for that. Some damn bright people they were. Separating the 3 branches and building in checks and balances. Not to mention the 2A. Without that the anti's would have taken our guns long ago imo. They will never stop trying though as long as they are ignorant of guns and susceptible to being manipulated by politicians. What happened in WA is the worst case we have so far imo. One political group in urban area bans guns in the entire state.
 
One political group in urban area bans guns in the entire state.
Not unlike one political group of 535 in an urban area (DC) that managed to ban certain features on guns nationwide in 94 :rolleyes: it is great that Congress allowed it to sunset and that it never came across a POTUS to be signed to be renewed.



And as difficult as it would be to enact gun control in Congress this term; its always on the table. See the House passing AWB 2.0 even though it died in Senate.

Edit. We don't have any direct challenge in the Courts post-Bruen, against NFA, GCA, or even FOPA/Hughes Amendment.
 
LOL.......when a particular Supreme Court Justice doesn't even know what a woman is. How could you expect that she would know what a Machine Gun is?

Yup......she was one of the three dissenting.

View: https://youtu.be/IU6KRDGEzvs?si=1G4bwDp4CF9A4ecR


Aloha, Mark

PS....note the use of the term : "Commonly available firearm".

Yup....an admission that the AR15 is a "common firearm".
 
Last Edited:
True - but it is a lot harder for Congress to pass any laws than it is for the POTUS to tell an agency to do his wishes - which is why there are so many executive orders.
True. As intended! The entire premise of laws is to provide stability/continuity and bind all people to a common standard. Protecting our general safety and ensure our rights as citizens against abuse... even from gooberment itself.


Edit. We don't have any direct challenge in the Courts post-Bruen, against NFA, GCA, or even FOPA/Hughes Amendment.
Quite true. There are so many other fish in the frying pan drawing away attention and resources trying to "put out fires" some of the core issues haven't been broached. Stomping out campfires is easier than cutting down the forest.
 
Except that the Bill of Rights is the supreme law of the land, which supersedes state law. (Well, it's supposed to...)
Sadly a LOT of people seem to never see that the Bill Of Rights only means what some black robe tells you it means. People keep showing them they are willing to let black robes tell them what it means so they do get the gov they deserve :(
 
Wa gun law guy in that video makes it sound like it's illegal to have SBRs in WA. See timestamp below. Sounds to me like he is more worried about how he appears than being legally correct. Someone correct me if I'm wrong but I thought SBRs were legal in WA. To be correct he should take the time to explain that, not say they are illegal and just leave it at that. Again though, someone correct me if I'm wrong. I seem to recall several SBR applications under the brace rule in WA.

IMG_7253.jpeg
 

Upcoming Events

New Classified Ads

Back Top