Support NeoGAF

[whytemyke]

Overreach? You mean sensible reach, guns nuts hate sensible reach.

I'm using their language. Don't worry, I'm on the side of gun regulation.

 

[pirateluigi]

Banning bump stocks doesn't matter. If a psycho wants to hurt people with automatic fire, all they had to do is lookup a YouTube video on how a simple modification can make a rifle full auto.

Terrorists will always find a way around laws and use whatever they can to inflict massive damage. Look at what happened in France, Germany etc. Guns were illegal yet look what happened. Look at the damage a truck can do. The focus shouldn't be on laws. They don't care about them.

This is the worst talking point.

The VAST majority of firearm deaths are not these premeditated shootings. They are crimes of passion, suicides, accidents, and robberies gone wrong. Situations where someone wouldn't go out of their way to look for illegal modifications but would use what they already have. Modifications like bump stocks make those spur of the moment psychotic breaks exponentially more dangerous.

 

[shandy706]

It would ban commonly owned firearm accessories, you're right. Specifically

Spoiler

bump stocks

What commonly owned accessories?

I mean, is it banning a large number of accessories that don't let you fire at a higher rate.. or is it just banning bump stocks. I'd focus on those and get it passed. Don't put any verbiage in there that covers general accessories.

We need to get started somewhere...get it done. We'll never get anywhere trying to make wide sweeps right away.

 

[Binabik15]

Firearm accessories. Just causally saying that, like picking what watch you are going to wear.

Just gross.

Can't have that tiny inconvenience of pulling a trigger several times when hunting animals or on the range. And why shouldn't the finish of someone's gun with foregrip, flashlight and exented mags match their shoes when strolling down heavily populated streets?!


PS: Fuck the NRA and all bought politicians and BUT MUH GUNS dumbfucks.

 

[F34R]

The bill is so open ended, it's ridiculous to say the least.

To amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit the manu-
facture, possession, or transfer of any part or combina-
tion of parts that is designed and functions to increase
the rate of fire of a semiautomatic rifle but does not
convert the semiautomatic rifle into a machinegun, and
for other purposes.

Read the bill.
https://curbelo.house.gov/uploadedfiles/finalbumpstockban.pdf

They need to put definitions in the bill. What's the definition of the rate of fire for a semiauto gun? The way it is right now, ANYTHING that increases the rate of fire on a semiautomatic gun will be illegal. Increases what rate? If I fire faster than someone else? If I use my belt loop to bump fire, that'll be illegal. A stick from the woods, bump fire with that, illegal. A match trigger, illegal. No. They need to get their shit together and actually research what they are wanting to do with this and properly write it out. Oh, yeah, the end.. "and for other purposes". Let's not say what that is so "we the government" can just throw whatever we want in there when we want.

No thanks.

 

[StarCreator]

What commonly owned accessories?

I mean, is it banning a large number of accessories that don't let you fire at a higher rate.. or is it just banning bump stocks. I'd focus on those and get it passed. Don't put any verbiage in there that covers general accessories.

We need to get started somewhere...get it done. We'll never get anywhere trying to make wide sweeps right away.

You realize you can click the spoiler tagged text to unhide it, right?

Here's the full text of one of the amendments being opposed.

To amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit the manufacture, possession, or transfer of any part or combination of parts that is designed and functions to increase the rate of fire of a semiautomatic rifle but does not convert the semiautomatic rifle into a machinegun, and for other purposes.

 

[Dude Abides]

What commonly owned accessories?

I mean, is it banning a large number of accessories that don't let you fire at a higher rate.. or is it just banning bump stocks. I'd focus on those and get it passed. Don't put any verbiage in there that covers general accessories.

We need to get started somewhere...get it done. We'll never get anywhere trying to make wide sweeps right away.

It doesn't cover general accessories, just those that are "designed or function[] to accelerate the rate of fire of a semi-automatic rifle but not convert the semiautomatic rifle into a machine gun."

It explicitly mentions trigger cranks.

https://www.feinstein.senate.gov/pu...71B98A52.automatic-gunfire-prevention-act.pdf

Seems reasonable to me. No reason to ban bump stocks but leave untouched other stuff that accomplishes the same function.

But gun wackos gonna wacko.

The bill is so open ended, it's ridiculous to say the least.



Read the bill.
https://curbelo.house.gov/uploadedfiles/finalbumpstockban.pdf

They need to put definitions in the bill. What's the definition of the rate of fire for a semiauto gun? The way it is right now, ANYTHING that increases the rate of fire on a semiautomatic gun will be illegal. Increases what rate? If I fire faster than someone else? If I use my belt loop to bump fire, that'll be illegal. A stick from the woods, bump fire with that, illegal. A match trigger, illegal. No. They need to get their shit together and actually research what they are wanting to do with this and properly write it out. Oh, yeah, the end.. "and for other purposes". Let's not say what that is so "we the government" can just throw whatever we want in there when we want.

No thanks.

Component, device, attachment, accessory. So your belt loop is out. And "for other purposes" is just boilerplate introduction of the goals of the bill, not in the text of the bill itself.

But see my comment re gun paranoiacs above.

 

[StarCreator]

The bill is so open ended, it's ridiculous to say the least.



Read the bill.
https://curbelo.house.gov/uploadedfiles/finalbumpstockban.pdf

They need to put definitions in the bill. What's the definition of the rate of fire for a semiauto gun? The way it is right now, ANYTHING that increases the rate of fire on a semiautomatic gun will be illegal. Increases what rate? If I fire faster than someone else? If I use my belt loop to bump fire, that'll be illegal. A stick from the woods, bump fire with that, illegal. A match trigger, illegal. No. They need to get their shit together and actually research what they are wanting to do with this and properly write it out. Oh, yeah, the end.. "and for other purposes". Let's not say what that is so "we the government" can just throw whatever we want in there when we want.

No thanks.

The definition of a semiautomatic rifle is already covered in Title 18:

(28) The term “semiautomatic rifle” means any repeating rifle which utilizes a portion of the energy of a firing cartridge to extract the fired cartridge case and chamber the next round, and which requires a separate pull of the trigger to fire each cartridge

That literally defines the rate of fire as one bullet per trigger pull. Increasing the rate simply means allowing multiple bullets to be fired without a separate pull of the trigger.

 

[TylerD]

This is not surprising even if they mentioned something about "looking in to regulating bump stocks". They were just paying lip service and they had no intention of actually supporting anything. The first rule of the NRA and that fucker LaPierre is to vehemently oppose anything absolutely ANYTHING that can be related to gun control or restricting any "rights" of gun owners.

Watch this and learn: Gunned Down: The Power of the NRA http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/gunned-down/

 

[F34R]

It doesn't cover general accessories, just those that are "designed or function[] to accelerate the rate of fire of a semi-automatic rifle but not convert the semiautomatic rifle into a machine gun."

It explicitly mentions trigger cranks.

https://www.feinstein.senate.gov/pu...71B98A52.automatic-gunfire-prevention-act.pdf

Seems reasonable to me. No reason to ban bump stocks but leave untouched other stuff that accomplishes the same function.

But gun wackos gonna wacko.



Designed and functions to. So your belt loop is out. And "for other purposes" is just boilerplate introduction of the goals of the bill, not in the text of the bill itself.

But see my comment re gun paranoiacs above.

You don't understand how the government works very well eh? Look, when you put something to use, you have designed that method to work in a way that you want it to work. All it takes is ambiguous language to a law and someone to make an arrest for it.

The definition of a semiautomatic rifle is already covered in Title 18:



That literally defines the rate of fire as one bullet per trigger pull. Increasing the rate simply means allowing multiple bullets to be fired without a separate pull of the trigger.

Then that would rule out anything that introduces bump firing. The trigger is still pulled every single round that is spent when bump firing. What you're defining is automatic fire. This bill is saying anything that increases the rate that the trigger is pulled.

They need to put more info in this. They need to be specific. It's too broad as it is now.

 

[StarCreator]

Then that would rule out anything that introduces bump firing. The trigger is still pulled every single round that is spent when bump firing. What you're defining is automatic fire. This bill is saying anything that increases the rate that the trigger is pulled.

They need to put more info in this. They need to be specific. It's too broad as it is now.

Yes, "bump firing" is ruled out as part of the gun itself. That passage says nothing about aftermarket accessories that could be added to the gun after purchase.

I would interpret a "separate trigger pull" as an intentional pull of the trigger by the user of the gun, completely divorced of the recoil from the previous pull the bump stock uses to force another actuation of the trigger. I am not a lawyer nor do I believe this has been tested in court, but I could easily see a judge making the same interpretation of the law as written.

I don't see how the language is "too broad". It bans accessories designed to increase the rate of fire of a gun beyond the limits already defined in existing law. It has to be written in a way to cover things that haven't been invented yet that achieve the same purpose, or it's not worth the paper it's inked on. What's the problem?

 

[TylerD]

You don't understand how the government works very well eh? Look, when you put something to use, you have designed that method to work in a way that you want it to work. All it takes is ambiguous language to a law and someone to make an arrest for it.


Then that would rule out anything that introduces bump firing. The trigger is still pulled every single round that is spent when bump firing. What you're defining is automatic fire. This bill is saying anything that increases the rate that the trigger is pulled.

They need to put more info in this. They need to be specific. It's too broad as it is now.

You know good and well that it doesn't fucking matter.

 

[Pbae]

Of course they did; the NRA is a terrorist organization by definition.

The sad part is that even most NRA members ARE supportive of common sense gun laws, yet even symbolic legislation like the Bumpstock Ban is vilified and propagandized by the group and the GOP will willingly fall in line knowing they're responsible for the next moment of silence but fuck it since it doesn't affect them and that sweet lobbyist money.

If you have weapons of war, weapons of carnage available to whomever, guess what, you'll have these carnage as a result of inaction.

The idea that there needs to be a reason behind the senseless loss of life beyond that of extreme gun ownership is asinine. This isn't an either/or question. We have a severe lack of mental health help which is only exacerbated by the systematic destruction of the ACA and ANY healthcare reform AND we have a severe gun problem, severe racial bias that skews gun related data, severe misinformation problem, and etc.

We should have the Freedom of knowing we live in a safe and just country, not a fear that you can be gunned down at the whim of any psychopath or person that at that time had a bad day and access to firearms which is laughably abundant.

But hell, fuck the part of a WELL REGULATED militia. The NRA and GOP don't want any regulations that might infringe on the rights of gun owners. Hell, they won't even allow Government agencies to keep digital records of gun data (all paper data).

I'm a gun owner; please give me the legislation that will help me NOT use my firearm.

 

[F34R]

Yes, "bump firing" is ruled out as part of the gun itself. That passage says nothing about aftermarket accessories that could be added to the gun after purchase.

I would interpret a trigger pull as an intentional pull of the trigger by the user of the gun, and not a mechanical workaround a bump stock uses. I am not a lawyer nor do I believe this has been tested in court, but I could easily see a judge making the same interpretation of the law as written.

I don't see how the language is "too broad". It bans accessories designed to increase the rate of fire of a gun beyond the limits already defined in existing law. It has to be written in a way to cover things that haven't been invented yet that achieve the same purpose, or it's not worth the paper it's inked on. What's the problem?

That's how you interpret it. It needs to be in the language. Beyond the limits already defined doesn't include anything that accomplishes the bump fire mechanics. That's why it's not illegal today. Added the part you described would be a good start for sure. They can at the very least define what they are going after here. Don't leave it open. "intentional trigger pull by the user without added mechanical assistance".

 

[hollomat]

Hopefully it still gets passed with bipartisan support.

There was an interesting article on Bloomberg the other day about the manufacturer of the bump stocks. Basically because bump stocks are not guns or ammunition, the maker of bump stocks could be liable for damages from Vegas. Guns and ammo manufacturers are shielded from liability for gun violence by federal law, but because it’s an accessory, there’s a good chance the bump stock manufacturer won’t be.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...-stock-millionaire-and-the-las-vegas-massacre

 

[StarCreator]

That's how you interpret it. It needs to be in the language. Beyond the limits already defined doesn't include anything that accomplishes the bump fire mechanics. That's why it's not illegal today. Added the part you described would be a good start for sure. They can at the very least define what they are going after here. Don't leave it open. "intentional trigger pull by the user without added mechanical assistance".

While we're arguing semantics, I could argue that "added mechanical assistance" includes oiling the trigger or including gears or solenoids to reduce trigger tension in the gun design. The result could be a gun with a trigger that requires so much force to pull no one could ever fire it.

See? English is fun!

 

[Dude Abides]

You don't understand how the government works very well eh? Look, when you put something to use, you have designed that method to work in a way that you want it to work. All it takes is ambiguous language to a law and someone to make an arrest for it.

I'm a lawyer. I realize cops make bullshit arrests all the time but that doesn't mean there will be a conviction because fortunately people smarter than cops are involved after the initial arrest.

 

[F34R]

While we're arguing semantics, I could argue that "added mechanical assistance" includes oiling the trigger or including gears or solenoids to reduce trigger tension in the gun design. The result could be a gun with a trigger that requires so much force to pull no one could ever fire it.

See? English is fun!

.. and that's the problem when they don't define the limitations of the bill. However, what you described doesn't have mechanical assistance. You still have to physically pull the trigger. With the bump stock, you don't. The modification uses the recoil to reset the trigger. The gun oil doesn't. A lighter trigger pull doesn't.

 

[Cybit]

The definition of a semiautomatic rifle is already covered in Title 18:



That literally defines the rate of fire as one bullet per trigger pull. Increasing the rate simply means allowing multiple bullets to be fired without a separate pull of the trigger.

F34R is right - the bill is way too vague.

Either the semi-automatic definition stands, which means that all of these things are completely unaffected (because the trigger is getting pulled each time), or anything that increases the rate of fire in any way. Which could hilariously mean the trigger itself.

"It shall be unlawful for any person in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce to manufacture, possess, or transfer any part or combination of parts that is designed and functions to increase the rate of fire of a semiautomatic rifle but does not convert the semiautomatic rifle into a machine gun"

The issue is that there is no baseline rate of fire. So the springs, the gas blocks, magazines, charging handles, extractors, ejectors, triggers, anything that is actually involved in the firing of the gun is open to being "illegal" since they all increase the rate of fire from zero. So the next time a cop decides to pull over someone for driving while black, and is looking for something to hit them with, you have a carte blanche reason if the individual has a gun. (In related news, I volunteer for the Innocence Project, so I'm quite sensitive and unfortunately aware of how such things get used)

If I replace worn springs, or a worn trigger with new ones, and the gun fires faster because of that replacement being newer, I'm violating that law. FFS; just ban bump stocks specifically by function and be specific on how they work. (Or just let the ATF do it, because the ATF is specifically asking Congress not to put legislature in so they have the flexibility to deal with loopholes)

 

[StarCreator]

.. and that's the problem when they don't define the limitations of the bill.

Except I'm being intentionally facetious and no one in their right mind would come to that conclusion.

The argument we seem to be having boils down to whether the bill, as written, does due diligence in trying to prevent unintentional interpretations of it. Obviously, we continue to disagree on this point, and I hoped making what I felt was a ridiculous argument using your own wording would help illustrate that the bulletproof language you're seeking just can't exist.

 

[Dude Abides]

F34R is right - the bill is way too vague.

Either the semi-automatic definition stands, which means that all of these things are completely unaffected (because the trigger is getting pulled each time), or anything that increases the rate of fire in any way. Which could hilariously mean the trigger itself.

"It shall be unlawful for any person in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce to manufacture, possess, or transfer any part or combination of parts that is designed and functions to increase the rate of fire of a semiautomatic rifle but does not convert the semiautomatic rifle into a machine gun"

The issue is that there is no baseline rate of fire. So the springs, the gas blocks, magazines, charging handles, extractors, ejectors, triggers, anything that is actually involved in the firing of the gun is open to being "illegal" since they all increase the rate of fire from zero. So the next time a cop decides to pull over someone for driving while black, and is looking for something to hit them with, you have a carte blanche reason if the individual has a gun. (In related news, I volunteer for the Innocence Project, so I'm quite sensitive and unfortunately aware of how such things get used)

The "baseline rate of fir" is the rate of fire of the weapon without the accessory. This isn't difficult.

 

[Cybit]

The "baseline rate of fir" is the rate of fire of the weapon without the accessory. This isn't difficult.

Except they define an accessory as anything that is involved in the firing process.

Or more accurately: the world "accessory" never shows up - they never separate out the base weapon from an "accessory". It's all just one thing.

 

[F34R]

F34R is right - the bill is way too vague.

Either the semi-automatic definition stands, which means that all of these things are completely unaffected (because the trigger is getting pulled each time), or anything that increases the rate of fire in any way. Which could hilariously mean the trigger itself.

"It shall be unlawful for any person in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce to manufacture, possess, or transfer any part or combination of parts that is designed and functions to increase the rate of fire of a semiautomatic rifle but does not convert the semiautomatic rifle into a machine gun"

The issue is that there is no baseline rate of fire. So the springs, the gas blocks, magazines, charging handles, extractors, ejectors, triggers, anything that is actually involved in the firing of the gun is open to being "illegal" since they all increase the rate of fire from zero. So the next time a cop decides to pull over someone for driving while black, and is looking for something to hit them with, you have a carte blanche reason if the individual has a gun. (In related news, I volunteer for the Innocence Project, so I'm quite sensitive and unfortunately aware of how such things get used)

If I replace worn springs, or a worn trigger with new ones, and the gun fires faster because of that replacement being newer, I'm violating that law. FFS; just ban bump stocks specifically by function and be specific on how they work. (Or just let the ATF do it, because the ATF is specifically asking Congress not to put legislature in so they have the flexibility to deal with loopholes)

Thanks for going into what I meant a little more...

Except I'm being intentionally facetious and no one in their right mind would come to that conclusion.

The argument we seem to be having boils down to whether the bill, as written, does due diligence in trying to prevent unintentional interpretations of it. Obviously, we continue to disagree on this point, and I hoped making what I felt was a ridiculous argument using your own wording would help illustrate that the bulletproof language you're seeking just can't exist.

Yeah, well, we're talking about our rights to begin with, and we're talking about our government enforcing laws... that can't possibly go wrong.

 

[Dude Abides]

Except they define an accessory as anything that is involved in the firing process.

Or more accurately: the world "accessory" never shows up - they never separate out the base weapon from an "accessory". It's all just one thing.

Yes, like all laws it presumes people can understand English. The objection that someone can come up with some strained interpretation to expand the law beyond its obvious purpose applies to any law.

 

[terencecah]

A republican politician was shot and they still didn’t do anything about it

 

[Cybit]

Not sure if this was posted, but here's the text of the bill

To amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit the manufacture, possession, or transfer of any part or combination of parts that is designed and functions to increase the rate of fire of a semiautomatic rifle but does not convert the semiautomatic rifle into a machinegun, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Mr. CURBELO of Florida (for himself and Mr. MOULTON) introduced the following bill;

To amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit the manufacture, possession, or transfer of any part or combination of parts that is designed and functions to increase
the rate of fire of a semiautomatic rifle but does not convert the semiautomatic rifle into a machinegun, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

1 SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON MANUFACTURE, POSSESSION, OR TRANSFER OF ANY PART OR COMBINATION OF PARTS THAT IS DESIGNED AND FUNCTIONS TO INCREASE THE RATE OF FIRE OF A SEMIAUTOMATIC RIFLE BUT DOES NOT CONVERT THE SEMIAUTOMATIC RIFLE INTO A MACHINEGUN.

(a) PROHIBITION.—Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

‘‘(aa) It shall be unlawful for any person—‘‘(1) in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, to manufacture, possess, or transfer any part or combination of parts that is designed and functions to increase the rate of fire of a semiautomatic rifle but does not convert the semiautomatic rifle into a machinegun; or

‘‘(2) to manufacture, possess, or transfer any such part or combination of parts that have been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.’’.

 

[lush]

The NRA/GOP promised a bill for bump fire stocks to make up for Obama being lax on gun control/bump fire stocks all those years. What happened? Embarrassing issue to walk back for these morally bankrupt, opportunist pieces of trash.

The death of Citizens United can't come soon enough when you have terrorist groups like the NRA holding the country and 1/2 parties hostage.

 

[AuthenticM]

Will always be relevant

fuck me I miss Obama so much

 

[Gallbaro]

You can't accuse then of acting against their mission statement...

‘‘(aa) It shall be unlawful for any person—‘‘(1) in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, to manufacture, possess, or transfer any part or combination of parts that is designed and functions to increase the rate of fire of a semiautomatic rifle but does not convert the semiautomatic rifle into a machinegun; or

Lol I am surprised the bolded needs to be in there since Wickard v. Filburn.

 

[Cybit]

Yes, like all laws it presumes people can understand English. The objection that someone can come up with some strained interpretation to expand the law beyond its obvious purpose applies to any law.

I don't want Jeff fucking Sessions and Donald Trump being the ones who get to interpret that kind of law! Do people forget who the hell would be in charge of interpreting and enforcing this law, loophole to arrest anyone with a gun they want? Do folks not see how this would get absolutely used against black residents of Chicago to arrest them at any damn time? How it would get used by ICE to deport people?

 

[hammysaurusrex]

The mission of the NRA is to protect the gun rights of all white Americans from any regulatory action. The sooner people stop thinking they are going to negotiate with the NRA and come out with something reasonable, the better. The victims of violence at the hand of gun nuts have to become more powerful of a political interest then the gun nuts themselves. No amount of dead children or dead country music fans are going to suddenly be an awakening moment for Republicans unless it starts impacting their position with regards to money and power.

 

[Agent_ShortBus]

Ban all semi-automatic weapons. What is the point of a semi-automatic gun? As far as I know there is no hunting use for such a gun, so why should someone have one?

Because they're fun to shoot at the range and work on. I'm pro gun regulation and even voted for background checks to buy ammo in California knowing it's going to cost me more to buy ammo in the end but if it's just a little bit harder to get your hands on ammo then I'm ok with the price hike. No lie there's no point in me owning my AK besides it's fun to shoot and I can(which I still think is crazy I can). I just bought a lower 80% AR-15 lower that I'm gonna build and I could if I wanted go featureless and never have to register it (it's crazy there's guns out there you don't need to register) but I had it engraved with my info and a serial number because I will register it. If you told me that all the mass shootings or gun violence would stop if I gave up my guns then I'm in, I don't need them for home defence or hunting. It's a hobby of mine and it's fun to go to the range 4 or 5 times a year but I'm all for stricter gun control. Also fuck the NRA.

 

[Dude Abides]

I don't want Jeff fucking Sessions and Donald Trump being the ones who get to interpret that kind of law! Do people forget who the hell would be in charge of interpreting and enforcing this law, loophole to arrest anyone with a gun they want? Do folks not see how this would get absolutely used against black residents of Chicago to arrest them at any damn time? How it would get used by ICE to deport people?

Do you think all federal criminal laws should be repealed because Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump will reach implausible interpretations so they can go after immigrants and black people in Chicago and judicial review will not check them?

 

[Mammoth Jones]

Either ban them entirely or classify them as NFA Class 3 along with actual automatic weapons.

 

[andythinkpad]

Look, 3 million plus people killed in motor vehicle accident every year. that's almost a thousand people per day. Instead of regulating guns, we should accelerate the adaptation of autonomous driving.

Here I got a free talking point for you NRA you piece of shit.

 

[Kuroi Gogeta]

The tipping point has already been passed. If nothing was done after innocent children were murdered in an elementary school, then nothing will have an effect. The best bet for any sort of gun safety is to try to make changes at the state level or even at a grassroots level by supporting gun clubs and shops that promote responsible ownership, background checks etc. And don't affiliate with the NRA. Govt isn't going to do anything as long as they can be bribed (let's call it what it is. They're not donations they're bribes). Support local businesses that have a common sense attitude towards these weapons and support local politicians with a proven track record. Lobbying has ruined the federal government

 

[Deadly Cyclone]

I honestly hope the next President can somehow completely shut down the NRA.

 

[AuthenticM]

If you told me that all the mass shootings or gun violence would stop if I gave up my guns then I'm in

If you, personally, gave up your guns: no, that would not prevent mass shootings from happening, unless you did one yourself.

If there was a country-wide ban on automatic and semi-automatic weapons: yes, that would solve the issue. There has been numerous studies that demonstrate it.

 

[Cybit]

Do you think all federal criminal laws should be repealed because Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump will reach implausible interpretations so they can go after immigrants and black people in Chicago and judicial review will not check them?

You don't have to repeal them, but a United States Congressperson can spend 20 minutes doing some basic fucking research about guns and closing the giant ass hole you have in your law before you put it up in Congress. Or use the already existing enforcement tool you have instead of trying to make a dog and pony show about ineffective and useless gun control to make everyone feel like they've "done something" without addressing any of the problems. This is the "scary looking weapons ban" all over again, this is "metal detectors in schools after Columbine", this is every other quick after the fact ineffective purely for show legislation that distracts the populace from recognizing and dealing with the problem so everyone can go about their lives unaffected.

 

[hydragonwarrior]

NRA acting like a political party... which it sadly is at this point.

 

[Piggus]

This bill is FAR too vague and would face numerous lawsuits as it's written. Maybe if some of you would take the time to understand how guns actually work, you'd understand that as well. I don't like the NRA either, but they'd be insane to support this bullshit. Reclassifying bumpfire stocks as Class III accessories would solve the problem without the court battles. Oh, and it would avoid the situation in which the government seizes personal property from law-abiding people. Just a minor detail.

 

[Brawly Likes to Brawl]

This group is a fucking scourge on the country.

 

[Dude Abides]

You don't have to repeal them, but a United States Congressperson can spend 20 minutes doing some basic fucking research about guns and closing the giant ass hole you have in your law before you put it up in Congress. Or use the already existing enforcement tool you have instead of trying to make a dog and pony show about ineffective and useless gun control to make everyone feel like they've "done something" without addressing any of the problems.

But there is no giant ass hole in this law. As I've pointed out, the arguments that it is vague or overbroad are strained to the point of frivolity.

I don't know what existing enforcement tool you are referring to.

But I agree its largely a meaningless attempt to fight the last war.

 

[WedgeX]

Unsurprising. They got that good press last week, some people believed they might be reasonable. Now that it's no longer the forefront of everyones mind, they can go back to normal with no consequences.

 

[RoninChaos]

I'm shocked. Totally shocked.

 

[Air Zombie Meat]

Fuck me, they went back on it. People said in that original thread not to fall for it. If this can't even get done then theres no hope.

 

[Piggus]

Fuck me, they went back on it. People said in that original thread not to fall for it. If this can't even get done then theres no hope.

They supported stricter legislation. That does NOT mean they support an outright ban, and, again, the bill is so vague that it would ban far more than just bumpfire stocks.

 

[Cybit]

But there is no giant ass hole in this law. As I've pointed out, the arguments that it is vague or overbroad are strained to the point of frivolity.

I don't know what existing enforcement tool you are referring to.

But I agree its largely a meaningless attempt to fight the last war.

The ATF could reclassify bump stocks and make them illegal - they are the arbiter of what is the line between semi-automatic and automatic. A legislative fix is the ultimate goal, but if they want something right this instant, the ATF is the way to do it.

 

[Mammoth Jones]

They supported stricter legislation. That does NOT mean they support an outright ban, and, again, the bill is so vague that it would ban far more than just bumpfire stocks.

Class 3 which is an effective ban for most folks. Why is this hard? It was specifically designed to circumvent the AWB and it never should have been approved in the first place. Fucking ridiculous.

 

[Air Zombie Meat]

They supported stricter legislation. That does NOT mean they support an outright ban, and, again, the bill is so vague that it would ban far more than just bumpfire stocks.

So they'll be working to get it right then? At this point I'll only believe it when I see it. I realise it wouldn't do much to solve the bigger problem but it would show that they were at least prepared to compromise on something.