I never owned a bump stock and never had much of an interest in doing so. With a firearm capable of a high rate of fire, by whatever means the rate of fire is accomplished, said rate of fire isn't measured in rounds per minute, but dollars per second. Now, however, I think I'll get one as soon as they become available and reasonably priced. Just because I can.

This just in, new ATF ruling declares any firearm ever held by Jerry Miculek is a defacto “machine gun” and subject to NFA rules. Expands ruling to all firearms of a type and style that JM has held or might hold. Regardless of who holds or possesses them.



Makes about as much sense as the bump stock rule.

We won-sort of. The problem is the fear instilled by these initial decisions. Given the difficulty and expense of getting this overturned, how many businesses are actually going to sell these devices? A lot of the stores I frequent stopped selling braced pistols to avoid getting stuck with an inventory of them, and I doubt that will change for years. These incremental fixes are great, but we really need to repeal some laws such as the NFA and GCA, and disband the ATF. Until we do, they and other agencies will continue to flex their power over us.

We should hear decision on Chevron case any day now which could have major implications for ATF.

https://www.scotusblog.com/202...-to-discard-chevron/

It has been nearly 40 years since the Supreme Court indicated in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council that courts should defer to an agency’s reasonable interpretation of an ambiguous statute. After more than three-and-a-half hours of oral argument on Wednesday, it seemed unlikely that the rule outlined in that case, known as the Chevron doctrine, will survive in its current form. A majority of the justices seemed ready to jettison the doctrine or at the very least significantly limit it.

The court’s ruling could have ripple effects across the federal government, where agencies frequently use highly trained experts to interpret and implement federal laws. Although the doctrine was relatively noncontroversial when it was first introduced in 1984, in recent years conservatives – including some members of the Supreme Court – have called for it to be overruled.

The plea to overturn the Chevron doctrine came to the court in two cases challenging a rule, issued by the National Marine Fisheries Service, that requires the herring industry to bear the costs of observers on fishing boats. Applying Chevron, both the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit upheld the rule, finding it to be a reasonable interpretation of federal law.

Youtuber Brandon Herrera found even more good news buried in the minority opinion in the bump stock SCOTUS decision starting at 6 min 10 sec:


The rest of the video is good too but its the same thing Sigforum said

First and foremost, the ATF should not be allowed to rule make laws, and rule the country. It is an agency, not a governing body.

This will be unpopular, however, I don't see the need for anyone to have a bump stock. From a militia standpoint defending freedom against foreign or domestic attack it is as effective as "spray and pray."

Do I see a need to go to the range or the back 40 and rattle off ammo as fast as possible? No, playing "Rambo" isn't on my bucket list.

For shooting fish in a barrel, see Los Vegas.

Before you reply see my first line.
1) The ban was and is unconstitutional. Thus it is good that it is goon
2) Striking down "the Chevron deference" was and is the most important Supreme Court ruling in since '84.

quote:

Originally posted by SOTAR:
First and foremost, the ATF should not be allowed to rule make laws, and rule the country. It is an agency, not a governing body.

This will be unpopular, however, I don't see the need for anyone to have a bump stock. From a militia standpoint defending freedom against foreign or domestic attack it is as effective as "spray and pray."

Do I see a need to go to the range or the back 40 and rattle off ammo as fast as possible? No, playing "Rambo" isn't on my bucket list.

For shooting fish in a barrel, see Los Vegas.

Before you reply see my first line.
1) The ban was and is unconstitutional. Thus it is good that it is goon
2) Striking down "the Chevron deference" was and is the most important Supreme Court ruling in since '84.

Your points seem illogical. From a small unit tactics viewpoint (relevant for defending against foreign & domestic enemies) "covering fire" is foundational. I'd prefer a M249 over a bump stock for sure, but if your argument is that imprecise high volume fire is not needed for combat you are decidedly incorrect. The vast majority of rounds fired in combat aren't hitting targets.

Also, and I don't mean this to sound rude, you personally not seeing a need for a bump stock is irrelevant and plays into the anti-gunner narrative that weapon augmentations should be justified. I also don't own and won't own a bump stock, but we should make common cause with freedom. This is one place we've gone wrong in the firearm community is tolerating fuds who are all for guns provided they're the make/model favored by the fud. We need to embrace freedom for all, accepting that the choices of others won't always be our own.

Good thread read from Mike Lee:

https://x.com/BasedMikeLee/status/1806703944862687736

"Need" has nothing to do with anything. Play right into the commies' hand. How about this? I personally see no need for anyone to have any magazines holding more than 10 rounds. Sounds familiar? Next thing you know, you're owning bolt actions only. Then, before you wake up, you're holding rocks with both hands.

If Congress wants to ban bump stocks they can. A law banning them as conducive to inaccurate fire during which a "sportsman" may hit things they did not intend and thus being "unsafe" might actually pass constitutional muster.

But the point is CONGRESS has to act. Not the ATF.

For the purposes of deniability and reelection, Congress has been shirking and delegating their responsibilities for decades.

SCOTUS has told Congress unequivocally, NO MORE. DO YOU FUCKING JOBS.

quote:

Originally posted by arabiancowboy:
We need to embrace freedom for all, accepting that the choices of others won't always be our own.

It’s not necessary for the Constitution or other law/legal decision to protect any practice or right that everyone approves of.

And I could fill several single-spaced typewritten pages (remember those?) with lists of things I see no reason for other people to own or do. I’m pretty sure that every member here would find more than a few of my things very objectionable. Fortunately for all of us, what others think we “need” has no bearing on the things we own or what we do with our lives.

quote:

Originally posted by stoic-one:
Good thread read from Mike Lee:

https://x.com/BasedMikeLee/status/1806703944862687736

Oh, is that so, Mike Lee?!

Funny how Mike Lee is specifically named in the last paragraph in this informative article at Treehouse which explains in detail who actually writes the legislation, and it ain’t YOU, Mike -

“This helps to understand when Mike Lee or Ted Cruz are “pitching” a “bill they’ve written”, it’s a gimmick -a ruse- a fundraising ploy, nothing more. That’s why the bills they talk about (ie. El Chappo, Clean Repeal etc.) never actually materialize…. they are raising campaign money, not legislation.”

Legislation and Lobbyists…

Like too many in congress, a few of Mike Lee’s DNA strands are composed of deceit, fraud and lies.

“It’s a big club and we ain’t in it.”

quote:

Originally posted by arabiancowboy

…. From a small unit tactics viewpoint (relevant for defending against foreign & domestic enemies) "covering fire" is foundational. I'd prefer a M249 over a bump stock for sure, but if your argument is that imprecise high volume fire is not needed for combat you are decidedly incorrect. The vast majority of rounds fired in combat aren't hitting targets.

Also, and I don't mean this to sound rude, you personally not seeing a need for a bump stock is irrelevant and plays into the anti-gunner narrative that weapon augmentations should be justified. I also don't own and won't own a bump stock, but we should make common cause with freedom. This is one place we've gone wrong in the firearm community is tolerating fuds who are all for guns provided they're the make/model favored by the fud. We need to embrace freedom for all, accepting that the choices of others won't always be our own.

Agreed 100% and further believe that the American citizenry does, in fact, NEED machine guns. Not only was this bump stock ban unconstitutional, but so is the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986, which prohibited the registration of new machine guns. The intention of the founders, and certainly based upon relevant terminology of the day and meaning if the term “arms”, the 2nd Amendment absolutely allows for the citizenry to possess weapons of the same type that a soldier might field in a war.

I also agree that it doesn’t matter what anyone else thinks that I need. I don’t need a bump stock, nor do I really need a machine gun, BUT I want a bunch of machine guns, and may at some point buy some bump stocks to support companies that were wrongfully screwed over. Honestly, any restriction on possession of firearms by a law abiding citizen is unconstitutional and I am vehemently opposed to laws restricting possession of any firearm by a law abiding citizen.