Trump Supporters Silent as President More Successful at Attacking 2nd Amendment Than Obama

[edpc]

Oh bullshit. Everyone knows that the restriction on full auto are so obtuse almost no one outside of a museum can own and use one.

No, all it requires is the Class III ATF stamp, passing the background check and tens of thousands for one weapon. There’s a full auto M4 for sale in Gun World on Main St in Hilliard, OH for $19K, if you’ve got the cash and patience to wait 1 year for the ATF application process.

[Elderberry]

The GCA68 really caused NFA weapon prices to escalate.

In the late 70s  once could get:

MAC10 $200
S&W 76 $300
Thompson $800

Now:

MAC10 $8,000
S&W 76 $13,000
Thompson $20,000

Plus the $200 tax.

[NavyCanDo]

Mindlessly stupid article written by the Addicted to Outrage crowd. The ONLY thing in play here is Bump Stocks. It's an item 99% of gun owners didn't know existed prior to the shooting and makes a gun fully automatic which not even the NRA supports.....

NRA's Wayne LaPierre and Chris Cox Issue Joint Statement

The NRA believes that devices designed to allow semi-automatic rifles to function like fully-automatic rifles should be subject to additional regulations.


https://home.nra.org/joint-statement

Count me as one of 99% of gun owners and a NRA member that never heard of bump stocks or seen them advertised or written about in piles of guns magazines we have read. I have no issues with special licensing required  for fully automatics weapons as the law now stands, and I hahe no issues for outlawing ways people can skirt the law as bump stocks do.

[Frank Cannon]

No, all it requires is the Class III ATF stamp, passing the background check and tens of thousands for one weapon. There’s a full auto M4 for sale in Gun World on Main St in Hilliard, OH for $19K, if you’ve got the cash and patience to wait 1 year for the ATF application process.

Yeah. Not obtuse at all. 

[Elderberry]

                                                                                   

                                                                                                    The Trump Effect

https://www.americas1stfreedom.org/articles/2018/10/5/the-trump-effect/

by Wayne LaPierre, Executive Vice President - Friday, October 5, 2018

If you’re reading this magazine, it tells me something about you. As an America’s 1st Freedom reader, you are among the most politically astute and politically active of NRA members—proven supporters of the Second Amendment. There’s no doubt you have stood in the trenches fighting for our freedom on many occasions, and there’s no doubt you are ready to do so again.

That’s especially important at this very moment. Right now, you—along with other NRA members—are all that stand between our precious liberties and an all-out onslaught on our freedom should gun-banners achieve victory in November’s all-important election.

Despite what you might hear in the so-called “mainstream” media, President Donald Trump has done great things to turn the tide back in favor of America’s law-abiding gun owners, following eight years of Barack Obama’s anti-gun regime. With nothing but roadblocks from so-called progressives and a Trump-hating media, he has turned back anti-gun executive orders, helped push forward pro-gun plans and legislation, and appointed federal judges—from the lower courts all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court—that will protect the Constitution and the Second Amendment.

Most recently, he made another outstanding choice in nominating Brett Kavanaugh for the U.S. Supreme Court. Not surprisingly, Kavanaugh has an impressive record that demonstrates his strong support for the Second Amendment. Is it any wonder he is so hated by the liberal and socialist Left?

While Trump’s appointments to the U.S. Supreme Court have been the most visible, an even bigger impact will likely be made by the judges he has appointed to lower federal courts across the land. To date, the president has appointed nearly 150 federal judges, most of them to the U.S. Court of Appeals and U.S. District Courts. About 50 of those appointees have been confirmed, leaving nearly 100 yet to be considered by the U.S. Senate. Like Trump’s Supreme Court nominees, the vast majority of these men and women believe in upholding the Constitution. In effect, in just two years, the president has already reshaped the courts for a generation. Imagine the long-term effect if Hillary Clinton had been able to make these appointments!

In truth, judges are only the tip of the iceberg on what has been accomplished to protect the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding Americans. Trump hadn’t been in office for two months when he signed legislation repealing Obama’s last-ditch slap in the face to some gun owners on Social Security.

The Social Security Administration (SSA) rulemaking was issued in the waning weeks of Obama’s presidency, and it targeted those receiving disability insurance or Supplemental Security Income based on SSA’s listed mental disorders and who were appointed a “representative payee” to help them manage their benefits. The agency—for the first time in its history—sought to portray these individuals as “mental defectives” who were prohibited from acquiring or possessing firearms under federal law. It had planned to notify them of their prohibited status and to report them to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS).

Making matters worse, the beneficiaries would have had no ability to argue about their suitability to possess firearms before their rights were lost. Instead, they would have been reduced to filing a petition for “restoration” of their rights. Congress and Trump saw through the ruse and immediately rescinded the ruling.

The bureaucratic tone concerning the federal government’s restriction on the sale of firearm suppressors also quickly changed under the new Trump administration. Less than a month after he took office, a “white paper” written by Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) Associate Deputy Director and Chief Operating Officer Ronald Turk outlined several changes that ATF could make to decrease the burdens placed on gun owners and the firearm industry while maintaining public safety.

Titled “Options to Reduce or Modify Firearms Regulations” and dated Jan. 20, 2017, the document covered a raft of issues that NRA has previously worked to address, and it vindicated NRA’s long-held contentions about the dubious efficacy of many firearm regulations.

More at link above

[edpc]

Yeah. Not obtuse at all. 

Except the Vegas shooter, Pollock, had the financial means and time, since he acquired everything over ears and planned the attack well in advance.

[ABX]

Oh bullshit. Everyone knows that the restriction on full auto are so obtuse almost no one outside of a museum can own and use one.

Really? Tell that to the firearm trust I'm in.

[To-Whose-Benefit?]

That is utterly false. Even the Second Amendment text itself requires those who keep and bear arms to be "well-regulated," and the Fifth requires the protection against unnecessary loss of "life, liberty and property," which unrestricted firearms certainly threatens.

They may not be able to ban firearms, but they can indeed restrict them to a limited extent.

Another person who can't read English.

The 1934 NFA itself is in violation of the 2A.

Start with repealing that, rulemaking on this to restrict is complete and utter Crap.

[Smokin Joe]

That is utterly false. Even the Second Amendment text itself requires those who keep and bear arms to be "well-regulated," and the Fifth requires the protection against unnecessary loss of "life, liberty and property," which unrestricted firearms certainly threatens.

They may not be able to ban firearms, but they can indeed restrict them to a limited extent.

The well regulated are the Militia (the army). not the People, whose right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
This came up in the debate over whether there should be a Federal army at all (see: The Federalist Papers).

One, of course was necessary to settle (if need be) disputes between the armies (militias) of the several states, and to prevent invasion of the states of the federation. However, the Founders saw it necessary to prevent the Army from taking over, as they had just overthrown a government imposed by military governors on many of the colonies.

By what means would the Army be kept under civil control? By the force of arms, if necessary, of the people, who even lacking martial training would overwhelm any effort by the military to impose tyranny by sheer force of numbers, armed with their personal weapons.

Now, let's read the Second Amendment again:

A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

It is the people who regulate (control) the Militia (Army), by virtue of being armed.

The only infringement on the Right to Keep and Bear arms was one of what you could afford.

Similarly, the restrictions of the Fifth Amendment are restrictions placed on the legitimate abilities and powers of Government. The people were already restrained by criminal laws against murder, stealing, and such, but the government could theoretically pass a law which made it okay to steal from the people (an argument against "civil asset forfeiture", which, imho, is a clear violation of the Fifth (and Fourth) Amendments or round them up and imprison or kill them.
The Bill of Rights isn't there to impose restrictions on the Rights of the People, but to ensure those Rights are protected from the Government.

[Smokin Joe]

Agreed

Does that mean the government can come along and cut off fingers?

The bump stock doesn't eliminate the need to pull the trigger for each round fired (unlike full auto which continues to cycle as long as the trigger is held down and is mechanically designed to do so). The bump stock only makes firing a semiautomatic more efficient. The firearm is still functioning as a semi-automatic, it is just that the rate of trigger pull has been optimized.

With this precedent, anyone who can pull that trigger at the rate (well, what are we talking here? how fast is 'too fast'?)  of 2, 3, 5, even 10 times per second, could have their fingers removed by an overzealous BATFE who declares them to be an accessory which allowed a semi automatic rifle to achieve a rate of fire similar to full auto.

The rifle is still a semiautomatic rifle. It is just being cycled more efficiently. This is overreach. 

[Smokin Joe]

Making it harder for someone to get the effect of full auto is not pointless.

No, the point is to infringe on a class of weapons not previously imposed on. Not pointless at all for those who would restrict a fundamental right.

As for preventing crime, let us not forget that criminals seem to get what they want anyway, as if a firearms violation is going to stop them from committing murder and mayhem if that is what they want to do. The restrictions are only effective on those who have no criminal intent. All too typically, government is going after the wrong people so others can feel 'safer' when in reality, nothing will have been achieved except another chip out of our rights.

[Smokin Joe]

I don't care what he was doing. He had a bump stock that made his weapon illegal and killed a shitpile of people with it.

Do you support the use of bump stocks or any other devices that convert semi auto to full? Do you think full auto should be legal?

Stop with the bullshit right there.
It didn't convert a  semiautomatic firearm to full auto.
If the rifle was semi-automatic, the rifle was still a semi-automatic.
All a bump fire device/technique does is to make one more efficient at pulling the trigger, optimizing rate of fire (not control, and not the ability to hit a specific target).

Paddock was shooting at a large group of people. With that many tightly packed targets he was bound to hit someone.
Had he been a particularly skilled shooter, selecting individual targets, he might have been even more diabolically effective.

There remain a lot of questions about that incident, at least in my mind, and I am sure I am not alone.

[Smokin Joe]

The bump stock didn't make his rifle illegal.  What he did with it made it bad but still not illegal. Bump stocks were legal at the time and should continue to be because...
 
Bump stocks do not make semi-auto guns full auto. You still have to press the trigger each time to expel each round.  Bump stocks (and rubber bands or belt loops or even really fast trigger fingers) do not change the design of the gun.  They use the recoil energy to help you pull the trigger for the next round.  A bump stock is an inert piece of plastic incapable of firing anything by itself yet it has been classified as a firearm by ATF and this executive order in order to ban them by executive action. As a piece of law it's an abomination - nowhere in the Constitution does it say it's OK to make law by calling a thing something it's not then banning it by executive fiat - and thus adds yet another hurdle to the 22,000 other hurdles that surround the Constitutional right "that shall not be infringed". 
 
For the record, they are legal.  It just takes a $200 tax and up to a year for .gov to decide if they want to let you have it. 

As an aside, I work in a gun store.  This has come up more than a few times in the few days it's been out there.  It's not going over well with the faithful.  The phrase "more gun laws than Obama" comes up several times a day.

Lest we forget, the law which made fully automatic and select fire weapons more expensive was signed by Republicans, eliminating new full auto capable firearms from the possession of the average American. For some reason, Republicans seem to pass the most infringing laws on the RKBA, maybe because of the perception that they are "our guys". If Democrats had come up with the same stuff, it would have been fought tooth and nail.

[Smokin Joe]

Bullshit. Bump stocks allow the shooter to empty a magazine as fast as the action on the gun will allow. The result is the same as full auto.

Well as an aside the people who frequent your gun store are stupid azzholes. Some gimmick that is not even a part of a gun is being banned and they are acting like it is the Clinton gun ban? Give me an effing break.

If it was like the Clinton ban, it would have a sunset clause.  But Lloyd Bentsen decreed a number of firearms " destructive devices" effectively making them far more difficult to own (subject to NFA rules). So we have seen this M.O. before. The same thing was done with auto sears, declaring them a machine gun part and able to be regulated the same as a machine gun. In fairness, the auto sears, properly installed (with a few other parts and alterations) DID alter the firearm to make it full auto capable.

A bump stock just makes it easier to cycle a semiautomatic firearm more efficiently, closer to its theoretical rate of fire. It does not alter the fact that the firearm remains a semiautomatic.

I am curious as to what rate of fire is to be prohibited? If one can achieve such with only the rifle and their fingers, are your hands forfeit? I was faster with an old Mossberg bolt action shotgun than a couple of semi-autos in the duck blind. With a little practice, I could be pretty quick with a rifle, too. But I'm not hunting people.

There are laws against that.