HighLine Firearms
Southwest Firearms
Advertise on Northwest Firearms
Sporting Systems
Oregon Rifleworks
Defensive Arts
DSG Arms
Low Price Guns
J&B Firearm Sales
Simply Triggers
Buster Beaver Cerakote
Gun Deals
Messages
12,290
Reactions
30,115
Yuppers!

Now, I've made some doozy errors posting up stuff which I had "thought" were correct. Folks pointed out such as errors, most not as politely as I did in this fellows case above.

I learned, thanked whomever (or the group if so). Apologized for posting said erroneous info, and went on with my day.

If it was technical info that was erroneous, I locked it down. So that others would not make an agregious error due to my poor thought process in posting such.
It is seemingly far worse as time goes on. I am constantly seeing wild stuff with a link to what "looks" to be some kind of legit news source. No more just some blog. When I see one that sounds "off" and start searching the norm seems to be it can not be found anywhere else. First red flag that its just something made up :confused:
 

bbbass

Messages
13,704
Reactions
29,576
It bothered me the way it was done. Shouldn't be legal by EO, and there aren't supposed to be "rules" that they can just make up along the way. Congress makes the laws, subject to the Constitution.

You are not alone in that opinion.

However,

"Rulemaking" is done under the authority Congress gives Fed Depts within the laws they pass creating the dept. Additionally, EO are lawful if the Chief Executive (POTUS) is ordering a Fed Dept to do something that is constitutional. (A good bad example is DACA, IIRC, being created by the O'bummer admin w/o congressional authority, then a Fed judge prohibiting Trump from changing a policy that was ginned up by a former Pres. The crux is that the admin has limited control over policy of immigration, but none over citizenship.)

The question should be, is the ATF rule on bumpstocks within its authority given by Congress, and is it constitutional.

Full disclosure: I served two terms in an OR state dept creating rules and regs for the then new certification of home inspectors. Our authority was given in the law requiring certification of home inspectors that was passed by Legislature. I was concerned at the first meeting. I asked. I read it. I therefore learned and know how rulemaking authority is given. Yes, they can just "make up" rules, provided it is within the authority given by those laws you mentioned.
 
Last Edited:
Messages
7,581
Reactions
15,238
You are not alone in that opinion.

However,

"Rulemaking" is done under the authority Congress gives Fed Depts within the laws they pass creating the dept. Additionally, EO are lawful if the Chief Executive (POTUS) is ordering a Fed Dept to do something that is constitutional. (A good bad example is DACA, IIRC, being created by the O'bummer admin w/o congressional authority, then a Fed judge prohibiting Trump from changing a policy that was ginned up by a former Pres. The crux is that the admin has limited control over policy of immigration, but none over citizenship.)

The question should be, is the ATF rule on bumpstocks within its authority given by Congress, and is it constitutional.

Full disclosure: I served two terms in an OR state dept creating rules and regs for the then new certification of home inspectors. Our authority was given in the law requiring certification of home inspectors that was passed by Legislature. I was concerned at the first meeting. I asked. I read it. I therefore learned and know how rulemaking authority is given. Yes, they can just "make up" rules, provided it is within the authority given by those laws you mentioned.
Thanks for your insight. I'm OK with administrative rules, but rules that become de facto law have no place in our Republic. Whether that is supported by law or not, it crosses my line.

Re-reading this, I can see where it might be taken as insulting. It's not intended to be.
 
Messages
2,399
Reactions
5,795
Yeah, I dares ya to cross that line!:mad:

Rc4d0d55cce602823afdbfb454acd11db.jpg
 
Messages
2,399
Reactions
5,795
Simple google search could answer your questions.

He dropped the NRA ( don't blame him) then supported the ATF in anti gun legislation including some very concerning views and remarks supporting anti gun legislation by EO in the Bumpfire stock BS. I was wrong on the timeline. Was trump admin time.

Best link I had was to ARFCOM but their stuff is all jacked up so here is a fun little reddit thing of opinions.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Firearms/comments/74ktpx

I cannot in good conscience support someone that supports unconditional anti gun legislation by EO or using the unconstitutional NFA against legal gun owners and their accessories. In the case of the Bumpfire stocks it's literally just a bubblegumty stock. Doesn't magically do anything to a firearm and Jerry is faster with a good trigger anyways. And more accurate. They are just a good way to burn ammo.
I would like to point out the wording "May Have Come Out" in your link. May have is an assumption made by someone looking to garner attention!:s0155: In this case, negative attention towards Hickock45.
 

Ruger Rich

Messages
987
Reactions
2,086
The thread you linked to above debunked your own premise.

I don't like to call folks unintelligent, because they may be in error, and simply not realize they have been erroneous.

Now, folks whom knowingly are in error, but not being honest enough to admit such once they know there errors? Fools.

I don't suffer fools gladly.

Here are a few videos worth your while to watch, to allow you to make your own opinion. Then decide if what you posited above may be in error.





The last video presented is excellent: Media vs "Gun Culture". I feel that is exactly the way to present our position to "anti's". It never sounded radical, it used logic and common sense. He never raised his voice nor made exageratted gestures. He was a mature person with what most would consider a very normal worthwhile profession. The issue is getting someone to watch a 30 minute video opposing their views. I don't have an easy answer. I'm glad I watched it all and I made sure to save it. I agree that Biden will not dump on 2A. Faith perhaps and a yearning for what is right. I also left the NRA a while ago. Their cause is near and dear to my heart but when the corruption becomes that obvious and outspoken I just can not financially support them. Change and I'm back.
 

bbbass

Messages
13,704
Reactions
29,576
Thanks for your insight. I'm OK with administrative rules, but rules that become de facto law have no place in our Republic. Whether that is supported by law or not, it crosses my line.

Re-reading this, I can see where it might be taken as insulting. It's not intended to be.

That's ok... I get it.

But think about it.... Congress can barely agree on anything. The laws they write don't contain all the myriad rules needed to run the depts they create and manage what they are created to manage. And we probably wouldn't want them writing all the rules anyway since they usually have no expertise in the area the dept is charged with managing. And that is how the swamp is created, out of the need to have somebody to run those depts. And running those depts is the job of the Executive Branch, hence EOs by the Chief Executive.

So if I understand you correctly, you would have these depts make rules, but there would be no way to enforce the rules. You would say that Congress should give them no authority. Hmmmm. Seems like it would be useless to have them, since they would be bureaucracies that are merely think tanks to write papers and opinions. Rules become suggestions. Like the Building dept saying they don't want you tho build your house within 1' of your neighbor. No way to enforce that.

I think it's better if depts run like that just don't exist in the first place. Keep Congress out of our biz. Perhaps as I suggested earlier, the answer lies in having Congress dissolve those depts, for surely they are worthless if they can't manage the tasks/behavior/areas they are charged with managing.

What about state depts? Should they be creating rules? If not, who creates the rules? Does a society living within a state even need rules?

(this was also not intended to be insulting... I'm just trying to see where your boundaries are for rulemaking)
 
Last Edited:
Messages
7,581
Reactions
15,238
That's ok... I get it.

But think about it.... Congress can barely agree on anything. The laws they write don't contain all the myriad rules needed to run the depts they create and manage what they are created to manage. And we probably wouldn't want them writing all the rules anyway since they usually have no expertise in the area the dept is charged with managing. And that is how the swamp is created, out of the need to have somebody to run those depts. And running those depts is the job of the Executive Branch, hence EOs by the Chief Executive.

So if I understand you correctly, you would have these depts make rules, but there would be no way to enforce the rules. You would say that Congress should give them no authority. Hmmmm. Seems like it would be useless to have them, since they would be bureaucracies that are merely think tanks to write papers and opinions. Rules become suggestions. Like the Building dept saying they don't want you tho build your house within 1' of your neighbor. No way to enforce that.

I think it's better if depts run like that just don't exist in the first place. Keep Congress out of our biz. Perhaps as I suggested earlier, the answer lies in having Congress dissolve those depts, for surely they are worthless if they can't manage the tasks/behavior/areas they are charged with managing.

What about state depts? Should they be creating rules? If not, who creates the rules? Does a society living within a state even need rules?

(this was also not intended to be insulting... I'm just trying to see where your boundaries are for rulemaking)
Great, then how do we get them to stop grossly overstepping their bounds? The ATF, EPA and IRS come immediately to mind as examples.
 
Last Edited:

bbbass

Messages
13,704
Reactions
29,576
Great, then how do we get them to stop grossly overstepping their bounds? The ATF, EPA and IRS come immediately to mind as examples.

Two words

Congressional

Oversight


I know, I know, it's not likely to happen. But that's how it works... get enough people to put enough pressure on your Congressman to get something done. They do respond to public pressure in the polls, media, etc. Problem in Oregon is Merkely and Wyden make that effort hopeless. Those of us that live in OR can only cry about it.
 
Messages
7,581
Reactions
15,238
Messages
198
Reactions
417
General question, not directed at anyone:
Do you embrace the "not a weapon of war" argument, or are you wary of it?

IMO - it's a bad argument: "AR-15's are okay because they are not a weapon of war."

2A protects a citizen right to arms for 2 fundamental reasons:
1 - an armed citizenry creates a peaceful deterrent to the ambitions of tyrants.
2 - an armed citizenry can take up arms in defense of liberty when the deterrent doesn't work.

The purpose is to protect a right to fighting arms.

Why argue that AR-15's (or any other gun) should be okay because it is not a fighting arm?
 
Need to give them your email address to unlock the thing.
I don't get that about foxnews. I was able to view the video no problem by just clicking on it. Other videos they ask me to sign in through cable or something. So no idea why the operate that way. Same thing with their articles. They will have a headline about something and reference a photo but when you open the article there's no photo. There may be a hyperlink about key words related to the photo or subject but nothing related to the subject in the headline.
 

Howard1955

Messages
4,736
Reactions
28,478
General question, not directed at anyone:
Do you embrace the "not a weapon of war" argument, or are you wary of it?

IMO - it's a bad argument: "AR-15's are okay because they are not a weapon of war."

2A protects a citizen right to arms for 2 fundamental reasons:
1 - an armed citizenry creates a peaceful deterrent to the ambitions of tyrants.
2 - an armed citizenry can take up arms in defense of liberty when the deterrent doesn't work.

The purpose is to protect a right to fighting arms.

Why argue that AR-15's (or any other gun) should be okay because it is not a fighting arm?
“And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?... The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If...if...We didn't love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation.... We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.”



― Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn , The Gulag Archipelago 1918–1956

8ED15507-797E-47B0-9AC9-698B4AD35C69.jpeg

I think you’re right, and it’s important for us to retain arms. The arguments over what kinds of weapons we might have are silly.

We can (hopefully) learn from history, and not allow ourselves to be disarmed.

But.. Simply being armed is not a complete answer to tyranny, or to the catastrophe that tyranny can bring upon a nation.

We need to be organizing ourselves as best we can, to form self-sufficient communities. The Amish seem to be pretty good at this, and if things truly go bad we too will need to be able to produce food, have a doctor in the group, etc.

At this point, I’m not sure we all get along with each other well enough to organize into self-sufficient communities. It looks more like an “every man for himself” setup, with a whole lot of guns in a whole lot of hands.

If an enemy were to completely shut down the supply chains we all rely on, the resulting fight over food and other necessities would make our lives... difficult, to say the least.
 
Messages
7,581
Reactions
15,238
General question, not directed at anyone:
Do you embrace the "not a weapon of war" argument, or are you wary of it?

IMO - it's a bad argument: "AR-15's are okay because they are not a weapon of war."

2A protects a citizen right to arms for 2 fundamental reasons:
1 - an armed citizenry creates a peaceful deterrent to the ambitions of tyrants.
2 - an armed citizenry can take up arms in defense of liberty when the deterrent doesn't work.

The purpose is to protect a right to fighting arms.

Why argue that AR-15's (or any other gun) should be okay because it is not a fighting arm?
When it really comes down to it, the first clause of the amendment makes its purpose clear: to defend the State. You need "weapons of war" to do that. This is why the NFA is unconstitutional. Try explaining that to someone who knows little about guns and hasn't read the Constitution since high school, and you may quickly lose the main topic down a rabbit hole.
 
Copeland Custom Gunworks
NW Custom Firearms
Southwest Firearms Forum
Cerberus Training Group
DSG Arms
Project Appleseed
Advertise on Northwest Firearms
Sporting Systems

Latest Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Top