Bassbob
Emissary
What is your take on binary triggers ?
For the record, although I have zero interest in bump stocks, binary triggers or full auto, I believe banning any of them, including full auto "Machine guns" is unconstitutional.
U.S. Appeals Court Strikes Down Bump Stock Band
- Thread starter Recusant
- Start date
- Status
For the record, although I have zero interest in bump stocks, binary triggers or full auto, I believe banning any of them, including full auto "Machine guns" is unconstitutional.
WellArmed
Master Class
You do know that there is written plain text law that explicitly describes and states what a machine gun is correct? Do you also know that the an AR/AK with a bumpstock installed clearly does not fit the definition of what a machine gun is, correct? Yet you support the ATF bypassing Congress and unilaterally making up law because you feel like something should be illegal even though it's perfectly legal according to the letter of the law. The trigger is being pulled and reset on each iteration of the bump stocks being fired, so that in itself makes it NOT a machine gun. Words and text should have meaning, but I guess they no long matter in this day and age, so who cares about facts and the Constitution right? You certainly don't appear to.
- Using your same logic, I assume you believe pistol braces, bullpubs, the Mossberg Shockwave, 80% receivers, binary triggers,and last but not least, the "gun show loophole" aka private firearm sales should all unilaterally be deemed illegal by the ATF without having to go through Congress because they all "circumvents" the law?
- I reckon you believe AR/AK pistols with or without a bracelet should be illegal to carry in states that don't allow the carry of loaded rifles openly, in a vehicle, or at state parks because it "circumvents" the law, correct?
All of the aforementioned are perfectly legal according to text of the NFA, NICS, and federal and/or state laws; therefore, it theoretically should take an act of state legislature or Congress to make them perfectly illegal. With that said, if you answered "no" to question one or two listed above, then you're being a hypocrite and not applying the same unconstitutional logic that you've applied to your rationale for why bumpstocks should be illegal.
Last edited:
Blackfeather
Custom
Yep, that was my point.
WellArmed
Master Class
They feel like those are useless, they waste ammo, private citizens don't "need" them, so they all should be illegal and result in 5 to 10 years in federal prison on the tax payer's dime. You know, the same logic antis use for why "assault rifles," "weapons of war," "high capacity magazines," "silencers," and 50bmg rifles which is because they feel like "no one needs them."
Bassbob
Emissary
I feel like they ( meaning full auto, binary and bump stocks) are useless. FOR ME. Just a good way to waste ammo. Not at all useful in any self defense ( as well as most combat) applications. Nevertheless I don't think they should or can be banned without violating the constitution and our civil rights.
Sld1959
Ronin
After reading thru this thread one thing is most apparent.
Why would someone in The United States supposedly championing the Second Amendment get angry, call names, attempt to bully, deride, intimidate someone who is simply expressing thier opinion using the right to free speech.
If you disagree have a friendly discussion, we are not children, there is no place for trying to uphold one freedom while trampling another, that is for politicians to do.
Now off my soapbox, will leave this mess of a thread to those who care more than I.
Why would someone in The United States supposedly championing the Second Amendment get angry, call names, attempt to bully, deride, intimidate someone who is simply expressing thier opinion using the right to free speech.
If you disagree have a friendly discussion, we are not children, there is no place for trying to uphold one freedom while trampling another, that is for politicians to do.
Now off my soapbox, will leave this mess of a thread to those who care more than I.
HayesGreener
Ronin
I am a strong advocate of all of the Bill of Rights. Very few have done more than I have to promote exercise of the 2nd Amendment. I have expressed my opinions in the matter, to which I am entitled based upon my experience. Collegial debate on such matters is productive. Yet you choose to resort to personal attacks and name calling, which is never productive.
Last edited:
WellArmed
Master Class
I understand that, and see no problem with you feeling that way and having that opinion; however, just about all law enforcement, Special Forces, and militaries on the planet disagree with your perfectly valid opinion. A lot of your fellow private gun owners also disagree. They all see full auto, binary triggers, and bump stocks as being useful respectively.
Some people think AR/AK pistols, night sights, pistol red dots, the Mossberg Shockwave, ported barrels, tacicool slide serrations, etc are pointless/useless and others find use in them. At least you and I don't believe that everyone else should be prohibited from using or owning something they personally find useful for no other reason than we think it's useless.
WellArmed
Master Class
First off, I'd like to clarify a couple of things. I never called anyone any names. I aggressively attacted arguments and not anyone personally. Next, I never stated or eluded to you or anyone else is not being able to or entitled to express their opinions.
When I first came to this forum, I started a thread complaining and venting about Springfield not selling spare parts, many in this same thread aggressively cut into my argument and gave me hell. I didn't feel personally attacked, bullied, or whatever because they were simply passionately debating and expressing their opinions while staying on topic even if there were many snarky jabs.
This is a forum and we are debating differences of opinions. You stated your opinion, and I only countered what you stated. If the problem is not with what I stated but rather my "tone," I apologize if you feel attacked.
Based on the points I brought up to counter your opinion, what do you disagree with?
Last edited:
Bassbob
Emissary
Not as many as you think. Even most infantry combat troops aren't generally carrying full auto. Burst yes, but full auto is primarily useful for cover fire given by machine gunners. That aside it has limited usefulness.
TacticalPirate
Master Class
Respectfully, why do you think an arbitrary Prohibition era law meant to trump up charges against bootlegging mobsters (empowered and created by the US government via a repealed amendment that prohibited the sale, distribution and consumption of most alcohol) for weapon possession charges because corruption allowed them to evade prosecution for producing alcohol should continue to circumvent the second amendment and not to be challenged or treated as absolute, particularly since technology is evolutionary?
Rate of fire is not nor has it ever been regulated, the 1934 NFA served one single distinct purpose, and was even acknowledged in its day to be standing upon constitutionally questionable grounds by its advocates in the senate that were looking for an avenue to make any sort of criminal charges stick to elusive organized crime members, from tax evasion to gun possession.
“Congress found these firearms to pose a significant crime problem because of their frequent use in crime, particularly the gangland crimes of the era such as the St. Valentine’s Day Massacre.” This is from the BATFE website, and is the exact same argument used by many anti-gun DA's in gang infested metros against handgun ownership. In fact, the original draft of the NFA tried to prohibit the use and possession of handguns and withdrew the proposal when they found it would be met with about as much fury as Prohibition itself. Thompson machine guns were targeted, because it was a novelty item of great expense at the time, and only the wealthy black market fueled mob could afford their two hundred dollar price tag in significant numbers if at all. So it was surmised this was the perfect item of minimal public disruption to try and prohibit, and it was made the mascot of the mafia by Hollywood, and coverage of the St. Valentine's Day Massacre in 1929.
And even after all that, because congress knew an outright ban flew in the face of "shall not be infringed", congress had to finagle a de facto ban under the guise of a tax. Essentially hitting mobsters caught without a tax stamp for their Thompson's or short shotguns with a form of tax evasion and subsequently unlawful possession of a firearm.
Subsequently, there are no readily available records of the NFA curbing organized crime or leading to successful convictions of mobsters that didn't pay a tax stamp. So all it did was price out ordinary citizens from the full flower of their second amendment rights, first with a tax, and 50 years later with the Hughes Amendment, which piggybacked upon the NFA and wouldn't have been part of the 1986 Firearms Owners Protection Act without the existence of the 1934 NFA.
Silencers were also made NFA items by powerful conservation lobbyists with the Bronx Zoo who argued that hunters were too accurate and not sporting since they weren't scattering herds after making lethal shots with muted rifle cracks. This added fuel to the congressional fire on adding suppressors to the NFA. Another reason that many consider is that during the Great Depression members of the government thought people were poaching off federal land in order to provide food for their families—an act that was possible because of their use of silencers. This claim was not substantiated by congress, but more an assumption.
And the Fifth circuit and soon the Supreme Court challenge your understanding of what a machine gun is. As seen in the text of their bump stock ruling:
https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opin.../pub/20/20-51016-CV2.pdf
Pages 17-21 shreds ATF's "single pull" language means the same as "single function".
"The statutory definition of machinegun utilizes a grammatical construction that ties the definition to the movement of the trigger itself, and not the movement of a trigger finger. Nor do we rely on grammar alone. Context firmly corroborates what grammar initially suggests by demonstrating that Congress knew how to write a definition that is keyed to the movement of the trigger finger if it wanted to. But it did not. The Government offers nothing to overcome this plain reading, so that we are obliged to conclude that the statutory definition of machinegun unambiguously turns on the movement of the trigger and not a trigger finger."
The military courts also long ago found bump stocks were not machine guns:
US Military Court Smacks Down Feds, Rules Bump Stocks Are Not Machine Guns
'This Executive-Branch change in statutory interpretation aimed to outlaw bump stocks prospectively, without a change in existing statutes.'
www.westernjournal.com
The mess comes from trying to regulate what isn't even an issue. If you think bump stocks are machine guns, well guess what, over 1.3 million were in circulation and scarcely any turned in. And no criminal charges filed against a soul over the manufacturing or possession of them which is at odds with machine gun possession and manufacturing post May of 1986. Without an SOT license if these are machine guns then criminal statutes apply, yet they do not.
But now former manufacturers get to sue the ATF for punitive damages and lost inventory.
And by any reasonable measurement they were in common use in numbers (something pertinent post Heller decision by the Supreme Court) with a single alleged and very controversial criminal usage in their entire history.
There are also hundreds of thousands of far more effectual FRTs in circulation that are now guaranteed a similar path to legally dunking on the ATF.
So no, the NFA may be an antiquated law on the book, but its constitutionality and merits are very much not beyond repeal and challenge. Especially as gun tech and society evolves.
We know the NFA didn't bring down organized crime that the government created with Prohibition.
We know silencers aren't uniquely lethal and were outlawed on spurious grounds and people should have them in mass again for ear protection and neighborly hunting conduct.
We know SBR's aren't uniquely deadly.
And we know handguns would've been NFA items had they not been common use that would cost politicians votes, and to this day are the top culprit of gang violence but will never have any federal movement against them because of how ubiquitous they are.
The modern semi auto "assault weapon" scare is very similar to the origin of the weapons placed upon the NFA, used as a scapegoat to crime in general on account of a few sensational crimes that were a drop in the bucket of homicide.
But in the post Bruen decision, West Virginia vs EPA decision, and Cargill vs Garland decision, the NFA is on its last leg.
That which is not explicitly outlined in its text is forbidden from prohibition by government, and it still may come to a reckoning as all together unconstitutional, as the precepts of the 1939 United States vs. Miller decision are being eroded bit by bit, both legislatively and judicially over the last 84 years.
After all, the interstate commerce clause it uses to assert regulating and taxing NFA items is currently being challenged by the Texas Suppressor law, which says suppressors manufactured in Texas and that don't cross state lines aren't technically NFA items. If the Supreme Court allows that Texas law to stand then any meaningful NFA regulation of lawful suppressors will be null and void, and that same precedent would apply to every NFA item made within a state that doesn't leave.
Last edited:
rmc51
Master Class
TacticalPirate
Master Class
Three round burst weapons were abandoned when the M4 was adopted to replace the M16A4 as the primary service rifle in line units.
As the M16 variant rifles have gradually left the arsenal, very few select fire weapons in the American arsenal are three round burst instead of full auto.
Eugene Stoner also hated the three round burst, as studies showed it was inaccurate and that a four or five round burst was more efficient and on target if a burst mode was going to be desired.
So ironically three round burst was arguably more wasteful and less accurate than full auto.
Fast forward to around the 38 minute mark.
Last edited:
rmc51
Master Class
rmc51
Master Class
Respectfully, why do you think an arbitrary Prohibition era law meant to trump up charges against bootlegging mobsters (empowered and created by the US government via a repealed amendment that prohibited the sale, distribution and consumption of most alcohol) for weapon possession charges because corruption allowed them to evade prosecution for producing alcohol should continue to circumvent the second amendment and not to be challenged or treated as absolute, particularly since technology is evolutionary?
Rate of fire is not nor has it ever been regulated, the 1934 NFA served one single distinct purpose, and was even acknowledged in its day to be standing upon constitutionally questionable grounds by its advocates in the senate that were looking for an avenue to make any sort of criminal charges stick to elusive organized crime members, from tax evasion to gun possession.
“Congress found these firearms to pose a significant crime problem because of their frequent use in crime, particularly the gangland crimes of the era such as the St. Valentine’s Day Massacre.” This is from the BATFE website, and is the exact same argument used by many anti-gun DA's in gang infested metros against handgun ownership. In fact, the original draft of the NFA tried to prohibit the use and possession of handguns and withdrew the proposal when they found it would be met with about as much fury as Prohibition itself. Thompson machine guns were targeted, because it was a novelty item of great expense at the time, and only the wealthy black market fueled mob could afford their two hundred dollar price tag in significant numbers if at all. So it was surmised this was the perfect item of minimal public disruption to try and prohibit, and it was made the mascot of the mafia by Hollywood, and coverage of the St. Valentine's Day Massacre in 1929.
And even after all that, because congress knew an outright ban flew in the face of "shall not be infringed", congress had to finagle a de facto ban under the guise of a tax. Essentially hitting mobsters caught without a tax stamp for their Thompson's or short shotguns with a form of tax evasion and subsequently unlawful possession of a firearm.
Subsequently, there are no readily available records of the NFA curbing organized crime or leading to successful convictions of mobsters that didn't pay a tax stamp. So all it did was price out ordinary citizens from the full flower of their second amendment rights, first with a tax, and 50 years later with the Hughes Amendment, which piggybacked upon the NFA and wouldn't have been part of the 1986 Firearms Owners Protection Act without the existence of the 1934 NFA.
Silencers were also made NFA items by powerful conservation lobbyists with the Bronx Zoo who argued that hunters were too accurate and not sporting since they weren't scattering herds after making lethal shots with muted rifle cracks. This added fuel to the congressional fire on adding suppressors to the NFA. Another reason that many consider is that during the Great Depression members of the government thought people were poaching off federal land in order to provide food for their families—an act that was possible because of their use of silencers. This claim was not substantiated by congress, but more an assumption.
And the Fifth circuit and soon the Supreme Court challenge your understanding of what a machine gun is. As seen in the text of their bump stock ruling:
https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opin.../pub/20/20-51016-CV2.pdf
Pages 17-21 shreds ATF's "single pull" language means the same as "single function".
"The statutory definition of machinegun utilizes a grammatical construction that ties the definition to the movement of the trigger itself, and not the movement of a trigger finger. Nor do we rely on grammar alone. Context firmly corroborates what grammar initially suggests by demonstrating that Congress knew how to write a definition that is keyed to the movement of the trigger finger if it wanted to. But it did not. The Government offers nothing to overcome this plain reading, so that we are obliged to conclude that the statutory definition of machinegun unambiguously turns on the movement of the trigger and not a trigger finger."
The military courts also long ago found bump stocks were not machine guns:
US Military Court Smacks Down Feds, Rules Bump Stocks Are Not Machine Guns
'This Executive-Branch change in statutory interpretation aimed to outlaw bump stocks prospectively, without a change in existing statutes.'
The mess comes from trying to regulate what isn't even an issue. If you think bump stocks are machine guns, well guess what, over 1.3 million were in circulation and scarcely any turned in. And no criminal charges filed against a soul over the manufacturing or possession of them which is at odds with machine gun possession and manufacturing post May of 1986. Without an SOT license if these are machine guns then criminal statutes apply, yet they do not.
But now former manufacturers get to sue the ATF for punitive damages and lost inventory.
And by any reasonable measurement they were in common use in numbers (something pertinent post Heller decision by the Supreme Court) with a single alleged and very controversial criminal usage in their entire history.
There are also hundreds of thousands of far more effectual FRTs in circulation that are now guaranteed a similar path to legally dunking on the ATF.
So no, the NFA may be an antiquated law on the book, but its constitutionality and merits are very much not beyond repeal and challenge. Especially as gun tech and society evolves.
We know the NFA didn't bring down organized crime that the government created with Prohibition.
We know silencers aren't uniquely lethal and were outlawed on spurious grounds and people should have them in mass again for ear protection and neighborly hunting conduct.
We know SBR's aren't uniquely deadly.
And we know handguns would've been NFA items had they not been common use that would cost politicians votes, and to this day are the top culprit of gang violence but will never have any federal movement against them because of how ubiquitous they are.
The modern semi auto "assault weapon" scare is very similar to the origin of the weapons placed upon the NFA, used as a scapegoat to crime in general on account of a few sensational crimes that were a drop in the bucket of homicide.
But in the post Bruen decision, West Virginia vs EPA decision, and Cargill vs Garland decision, the NFA is on its last leg.
That which is not explicitly outlined in its text is forbidden from prohibition by government, and it still may come to a reckoning as all together unconstitutional, as the precepts of the 1939 United States vs. Miller decision are being eroded bit by bit, both legislatively and judicially over the last 84 years.
After all, the interstate commerce clause it uses to assert regulating and taxing NFA items is currently being challenged by the Texas Suppressor law, which says suppressors manufactured in Texas and that don't cross state lines aren't technically NFA items. If the Supreme Court allows that Texas law to stand then any meaningful NFA regulation of lawful suppressors will be null and void, and that same precedent would apply to every NFA item made within a state that doesn't leave.
A little long read, but
Thank you, TP
Keystone19250
SAINT
I have worked very hard to ensure I respect others opinions however I believe my posts at the beginning of this thread turned it sideways very quickly, what I didn’t expect to the level some would go to directly and indirectly blast me for posting my opinion.
Then on top of that to one individual I decided to defend my position and the fact that opinions are free speech my post was deleted for being argumentative. Oh well.
I will say this Hays despite someone calling you a hypocrite then saying he didn’t call anyone names……? Sad.
HayesGreener
Ronin
Most laws are subject to some interpretation by the agencies responsible for enforcement. Differences of opinion as to what the laws mean fill the appeals court dockets. Unless the legislature acts first, I have little doubt that this case will reach the U.S. Supreme Court in due time and then it will be settled law.
Net Engineer
Master Class
You poked the libertarian hornets nest @Keystone19250, easy to do, we’re a prickly bunch when it comes to mentioning the word “ban” or “mandate” with respect to government imposition on the citizenry.
The only thing to remember is, even the SC has overturned and changed its determination a number of times. The library of Congress I believe tracks this. So unfortunately nothing seems to ever be truly settled, even at this level. Sure a ruling now is good, but that doesn’t mean it won’t come back up.
Keystone19250
SAINT
We’re? Are you saying I’m not part of that……..You poked the libertarian hornets nest @Keystone19250, easy to do, we’re a prickly bunch when it comes to mentioning the word “ban” or “mandate” with respect to government imposition on the citizenry.
“prickly citizenry bunch”??
I am just as much a pro 2A supporter on this forum as anyone else and just because I have an opinion on something no matter what it is, my right to having it and expressing it is part of another right called the freedom of speech.
Did I realize I was poking the hornets nest? absolutely however I thought,
“And how ridiculous of me” that all of my rights would be respected.
I do want to apologize to @Recusant for taking his thread in what ended up being probably a direction he didn’t intend it to go and frankly I learned a lesson that for the most part I’ll keep my opinions to myself.
I’m done here.
- Status