41, those websites are not unbiased information on the safety or efficacy of drugs. Those groups have agendas.

They are not rigorous. There is no review of their "science." There are no cites to any real sources (just vague references to other materials), and certainly no actual analysis of data. There is some pretty impressive jumping to conclusions.

If you are getting your science from those sorts of websites you are cheating yourself. No one here can be expected to take that stuff seriously.

And it isn't even the point of the thread, which is about the illegitimate inclusion of bump stocks in what is considered a fully automatic weapon.

This thread is not about why shooters shoot people.

You are untitled to your opinion but fail to look at the full problem.

We wouldn't be having a firearms discussion if the problem was looked at in it's full content. Just another excuse to limit firearms while the drug problem continues.

Remember Vioxx??? It is estimated to have been responsible for 500k deaths during its use before it was pulled from the market.

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:

quote:

Originally posted by 41:
I still can't believe that someone has not realized that drugs caused the minds of these individuals to become messed up and cause these shootings.

You can't possibly know that for certainty, yet you proclaim it as if scientific fact. What's up with that?

There is a lot of empirical evidence that supports this hypothesis. Too much, to ignore.

It is a real stretch to call it coincidence, given the history of these shooters and their use of the medications.

I thought this thread was about politicians and bump stocks.

Put me in the "no use of a bump stock" group but banning them is going to have little to no effect on shootings.

quote:

Originally posted by V-Tail:

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:

quote:

Originally posted by 41:
I still can't believe that someone has not realized that drugs caused the minds of these individuals to become messed up and cause these shootings.

You can't possibly know that for certainty, yet you proclaim it as if scientific fact. What's up with that?

There is a lot of empirical evidence that supports this hypothesis. Too much, to ignore.

It is a real stretch to call it coincidence, given the history of these shooters and their use of the medications.

Or maybe the people that decide that going out and killing a bunch of random people is a good idea tend to have psychiatric issues and so are more likely to have taken psychiatric medication?

Just a thought.

A simple reaction to the Vegas shooting. The powers at be won't allow the facts of the case and the preventative measures that could have been utilized to come to light as that would distract from the goal.

No different than the students in Florida being pointed at banning guns while they should be screaming at the Sheriff and FBI for gross negligence and failing to prevent the incident given numerous opportunities.

Ban Ban Ban is the agenda... I guess you have to start somewhere.

quote:

Originally posted by V-Tail:

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:

quote:

Originally posted by 41:
I still can't believe that someone has not realized that drugs caused the minds of these individuals to become messed up and cause these shootings.

You can't possibly know that for certainty, yet you proclaim it as if scientific fact. What's up with that?

There is a lot of empirical evidence that supports this hypothesis. Too much, to ignore.

It is a real stretch to call it coincidence, given the history of these shooters and their use of the medications.

I heard everyone of these guys breathed oxygen, too. Every. One. And I haven't personally seen the reports, but I'm betting they all drank water.

Too much of a coincidence to ignore.

I'm glad you started this thread, jhe. I've been thinking about this subject and it gives me the chance to write down some thoughts, right or wrong.

I'd like to examine the reclassification of bump-stocks against the background of 5th Amendment takings and what options the gov't might have with regard to reclassifying them as machineguns--and why this shouldn't work, but if it does, it could be a bonanza for current bump-stock owners.

First, I want to exclude from consideration, discussion of an entirely new category of banned firearms like "bumpstock-machineguns/machinegun-simulators," unconnected to any existing categories or precedents. I am asking for this simply for the reason that if the discussion is freed from existing precedent, then there's no telling what legislators might come up with and speculation at this juncture would be pointless.

The reason I mentioned 5th Amendment takings is, I don't see the gov't as being willing to buy back all the bump stocks that are already in circulation. California and NY didn't buy back all the banned "high capacity" magazines, but their excuse was that owners could sell them out-of-state (gov't doesn't mandate a buyer's price). Yes, owners in those states got screwed, but the free market was still at work. In the case of a national ban, that same escape valve is very much shut off. So it would seem that the gov't would have to give fair-market value for such a condemnation (maybe not property like Berman v. Parker 348 U.S. 26 (1954), but close enough?), or allow grandfathering of some sort.

To effect this grandfathering, politicians could attempt to reclassify bump-stocks as machineguns legislatively. But this has one major problem and two minor ones (one of the minor problems would be a huge boon to bumpstock owners, the other not so much).

First, legislatively, Congress could redefine MGs to include bump stocks. But this would implicate the 1986 ban. In other words, if Congress did not want to compensate bump-stock owners, it would have to temporarily re-open the machine-gun registry. In effect, Congress would have to allow the creation of a whole new batch of transferable MGs. Besides the obvious political fallout of such a maneuver, there remains two legal/technical problems to this route.

Assuming Congress was willing to open the MG rolls again how would these new bumpstock receivers be registered?

The first option, and the one that is most analogous to existing MG conventions, but yields the least benefit to current bump-stock owners is to register the bump stock itself as the MG. This would be analogous to today's transferable registered sears. The problem with this idea is mainly technical: these stocks are plastic--there is no place to engrave them with a registration number with the permanency required on other serialized parts.

The second route is to register the receiver the stock is attached to, on whichever magical date Congress decides is the cut-off. This solves the permanency factor, but opens up other questions of legal equivalency. In this case, the receiver with the bumpstock then becomes a registered receiver, at which point, the owner could remove the bumpstock, drop in a newly manufactured auto-sear and truly machine-gun away. This is possible because the bumpstock itself isn't the registered part. Because the receiver is the MG, it no longer matters whether the mechanism that allows it to shoot full auto is a DIAS, bumpstock, or an actual M16 trigger group.

I don't know if there is another way to do it under the MG classification. It doesn't seem like the easy shortcut politicians think it might be.

Based on some of the comments in this thread I'm not sure if some realize that the ATF, by order of Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who answers directly to President Trump, had ordered a review of possible ban on not only Bump Stocks, but other devices as well. A request for public comments on this proposed ban ended January 25th...before the Parkland school shooting. I think it is a fair bet that both Republicans and Democrats that supported a Bump Stock ban didn't want to push gun control right before the mid-term elections. It was far easier for President Trump to quietly order his Attorney General to push this ban through regulatory means, rather than facing the backlash through a legislative one.

Although I don't own a Bump Stock or any other similar devices, and really don't have much interest in them I'm opposed to the proposed ban. On principle alone, these mass shootings are not a gun or gun accessory issue, they are people issue, and law abiding citizens shouldn't be forced to endure infringements of their Constitutional rights based on the abuses of a few. Punish the criminal and not the tool.

Besides which, in the case of the Las Vegas shooting, we have no evidence to prove that the Bump Stock equipped guns contributed to the death and injury toll. As Sigfreund rightly points out, for all we know, the Bump Stock may have induced inaccurate shooting which may have even reduced the number of casualties.

But the potentially greater danger in attempting to ban Bump Stocks is that it could lay the ground work and precedent for future bans either under the current administration or an even more anti-2A President.

It would be impractical to ban Bump Stocks or other rate-of-fire (ROF) devices by name alone. One of the serious concerns is that the new rules would have to impose an arbitrary ROF standard. If this were to happen who would get to set that arbitrary ROF and what would it be? Would a trigger not be able to produce an ROF of 1 round per 5 seconds? 1 round every 30 seconds? 1 round every minute?

And if the ban were to be based on the ROF, well, trigger jobs/ action jobs could be on the table for consideration to be banned.

We are in potentially very dangerous territory if this Bump Stock/ ROF ban were to be implemented...and conceding a Constitutionally recognized right due, not to any effective solution to mass killings, but simply to appease the emotionally irresponsible anti-2A zealots is not a precedent that I want to set.

Not only no, but HELL NO! Not one more damn inch.

quote:

Originally posted by bigwagon:
Has anyone seen the proposed wording of the regulations that will supposedly ban bump stocks? I saw a bunch of reports over the weekend about the DOJ issuing something, but no specifics of the language they are proposing.

Indeed, the devil is in the details.

I’d love to see how they plan to regulate rubber bands, belt loops and pieces of string. Idiots.

quote:

Originally posted by Leemur:
I’d love to see how they plan to regulate rubber bands, belt loops and pieces of string. Idiots.

The plan is to use to use this to regulate/ban all repeating firearms, not just semi-automatics. Once you go down the "rate of fire" rabbit hole it does not matter how they operate, only that they repeat. Six "rapid fire" shots from a revolver are the same as six "rapid fire" shots from a semi.

Once the government decides how fast is fast, everything is on the table.

Bumpstocks still operate on a semi auto basis. One pull, one round. If they can ban that, we are cooked, just the same as universal background checks are de facto registration.

If bump stocks are banned via regulation change, without a change in the law, there will be a case that seeks to have a court declare that the regulation exceeds the scope of the machine-gun ban legislation in existence. The outcome will be highly dependent on the words used in the legislation and the regulation and how much they match. I don't know enough to opine on that.

If they do successfully class bump stocks as machine guns, I also don't know whether there is some way to avoid the 5th Amendment takings requirements. It seems like a taking to me - something that was formerly legal has now been banned. But I will confess that I am not an expert on that kind of takings law.

I don't think the machine-gun rolls could be re-opened without legislative change, given the 1986 law that prohibited us from buying a machine-gun made after 1986. (Thank you, Ronald Reagan.) But then, I don't think the proposed bump stock ban is proper without a legislative change, so what the hell do I know?

If the rolls were reopened, I would think you would make the bumpstock device the registered part. Permanently identifying one could be a problem, but it doesn't seem to make any sense to make the receiver it is attached to the registered device, since the bumpstock is the thing they want to control.

I certainly agree this regulation is very problematic as precedent and gun ban incrementalism. More generally, I think we should always resist a President who seeks to do an end-run around congress with executive action. And I am angry that Trump is promoting this after telling us he was our 2d Amendment friend.

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:

If the rolls were reopened, I would think you would make the bumpstock device the registered part. Permanently identifying one could be a problem, but it doesn't seem to make any sense to make the receiver it is attached to the registered device, since the bumpstock is the thing they want to control.

A possible analogue to this - most machine guns are registered with the receiver as the serialized, registered part, but not all of them. There are also sears and a little part called a "lightning link" that are serialized, registered machine guns and can be legally installed in a firearm that is not otherwise a machine gun to make it one.

quote:

More generally, I think we should always resist a President who seeks to do an end-run around congress with executive action.

Yes.

Article I, Section 1
All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

When it was Obama... we were all screaming that he didn't have the Constitutional authority to legislate.

It's the job of the President to execute the law as written by Congress. If he doesn't like the law he can suggest changes for Congress to enact, but he can't act as a super-legislature.

"If this happens and that happens, then that could mean that this other thing could happen and then these other things might happen, and then if all those things happen in just this certain way, WE'RE SCREWED!!

Who wants to read such stuff?

Not I

What purpose does such speculation serve?

Hell if I know

I understand the only power I have is within my sphere of influence. I think some are too quick to concede what superficially appears to be harmless. Sometimes we have to evangelize the converted for the sake of unifying to leverage our influence. As one guy, I am a negligible force. As one of hundreds or thousands, well maybe we can preserve liberty when Progressives and those they've convinced are willing to sacrifice it on the altar of security. This is not the only place I've made the point relative to bumpstocks, but it is where I've formed it.

Throw a bucketful of bleeding, freshly cut mullet to the sharks.

That'sll satisfy them and they'll go away.

quote:

Originally posted by RichardC:
Throw a bucketful of bleeding, freshly cut mullet to the sharks.

That'sll satisfy them and they'll go away.

yes , but the will be back

as a back yard bird feeder / watcher


the hawk that finds a dove under our feeders , does not come every day for another bird, but!

it does come back on a regular basis

went to the youtube to find a reason for bumpstocks.

really could not find one

while watching tv,
I saw a c.c.t.v. video of a jewelry shop getting robbed.

a 24 foot by 80 foot store and the owner was in the back room watching the monitors .

three guys enter w/ masks, two with shot guns another with a handgun.
B O O M ! one guy shoots a hole in the false ceiling.

by the time the shop owner gets to the lobby with a handgun, the bad guys have made it half way to the back counter.screaming at the counter lady

seems like the rapid fire of a bump stock might have made sense for that one scenario.

16 shots in 14 second , three bad guys at least wounded