esqappellate
President, MSI
- Feb 12, 2012
- 7,408
It was just sloppy. Everything in the first version is in the second version. They were in such a rush they just didn't care.
BUMP STOCK SUIT FILED!
- Thread starter esqappellate
- Start date
-
- Tags
- sb707 trigger activator
The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast
Member Benefits:
No ad networks! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
It was just sloppy. Everything in the first version is in the second version. They were in such a rush they just didn't care.
First, please don't call them what you call them. They are standard magazines.
Secondly, as to the politics: The sponsor of the Bump Stock Bill is a pathological political operator named David Moon, a delegate from the Nuclear Free Zone of Takoma Park--a gun banner with ceaseless energy and clever tactics learned while managing other politician's campaigns before he became a politician himself.
The Las Vegas "incident" was the perfect springboard for a political attack and Moon steered it right through opposition tactics.
The way the law is written, you don't even have to own a gun to fall afoul of it. Anyone with a quart of Mobil 1 in their garage, or who owns a shoelace, could, in theory, be prosecuted.
smokedog
Ultimate Member
Thanks guy's for all your hard work. 
I will be printing some of the "permission slips" if anyone in the frederick area does not have a printer and needs a copy let me know.
I will be printing some of the "permission slips" if anyone in the frederick area does not have a printer and needs a copy let me know.
The whole James Wesley, Rawles essay from Survivalblog.com about the gun grabber’s “Dream of Ending Gun Ownership” is fascinating, and includes a brilliant review of the math of US firearms ownership.
There are many sections, but here’s one:
There are many sections, but here’s one:
- Jan 30, 2013
- 34,042
If so, then the Judge erred ruling the way he did, even if it's only temporary. Maybe someone should write an Op-Ed to the WaPo and Balto Sun, warning Marylanders to stop buying synthetic motor oil and explaining why. It's for the children, you know.
Oh, and will the MSP have paddy wagons at the doorway of every Advance Auro, Autozone, and Walmart in the State to sweep up all the felonious Mobil1 purchasers?
Somebody could make hay with this
I read the bill and have followed this thread with interest/disgust. In order of importance:
Many thanks to Mark, Danny and all the rest of the MSI army who have been fighting for us in the trenches.
Apologies in advance for my ignorance, but thanks in advance for your help.
I can (sort of) understand how the bill applies to aftermarket devices that can theoretically increase the rate of fire in a firearm, but I am really foggy about stuff like oil. I know we're dealing with a bunch of extremely pissed off legislators who hate our guts and are going to take advantage of every chance to punish us. It's not rational, it's not logical, it's not constitutional, but it IS very infantile and immature, and it is our reality for the time being.
I have no intention of sending a letter to ATF about a bottle of oil or any other maintenance chemicals or tools I use in the routine maintenance of any firearms I may have, but I am curious about aftermarket parts like:
Bottom line: Is there an articulable reason to send a letter to ATF covering every firearm a person owns that might have any these two kinds of aftermarket parts installed? Should each firearm be listed, along with the specific parts installed in each, or does this only apply to parts that can be demonstrated to increase the rate of fire?
Many thanks to Mark, Danny and all the rest of the MSI army who have been fighting for us in the trenches.
Apologies in advance for my ignorance, but thanks in advance for your help.
I can (sort of) understand how the bill applies to aftermarket devices that can theoretically increase the rate of fire in a firearm, but I am really foggy about stuff like oil. I know we're dealing with a bunch of extremely pissed off legislators who hate our guts and are going to take advantage of every chance to punish us. It's not rational, it's not logical, it's not constitutional, but it IS very infantile and immature, and it is our reality for the time being.
I have no intention of sending a letter to ATF about a bottle of oil or any other maintenance chemicals or tools I use in the routine maintenance of any firearms I may have, but I am curious about aftermarket parts like:
- Side charging handles
- LaRue & Geissle triggers
Bottom line: Is there an articulable reason to send a letter to ATF covering every firearm a person owns that might have any these two kinds of aftermarket parts installed? Should each firearm be listed, along with the specific parts installed in each, or does this only apply to parts that can be demonstrated to increase the rate of fire?
Yes. Because the way the law's written, your nicer trigger (or other improvements) can - with felony results - infinitesimally increase the speed/efficiency of your rate of fire.
No. As you'll see if you download a copy of MSI's PDF file, the letter doesn't - and doesn't need to - get into any sort of laundry list of devices. It can't because the law doesn't provide enough guidance for that sort of specificity (which is the whole point, here!).
Brooks Hatlen approves.
esqappellate
President, MSI
- Feb 12, 2012
- 7,408
I read the bill and have followed this thread with interest/disgust. In order of importance:
Many thanks to Mark, Danny and all the rest of the MSI army who have been fighting for us in the trenches.
Apologies in advance for my ignorance, but thanks in advance for your help.
I can (sort of) understand how the bill applies to aftermarket devices that can theoretically increase the rate of fire in a firearm, but I am really foggy about stuff like oil. I know we're dealing with a bunch of extremely pissed off legislators who hate our guts and are going to take advantage of every chance to punish us. It's not rational, it's not logical, it's not constitutional, but it IS very infantile and immature, and it is our reality for the time being.
I have no intention of sending a letter to ATF about a bottle of oil or any other maintenance chemicals or tools I use in the routine maintenance of any firearms I may have, but I am curious about aftermarket parts like:
To my naive mind, these two kinds of items do nothing to increase the rate of fire, but sometimes increase the comfort and potential accuracy of a firearm.
- Side charging handles
- LaRue & Geissle triggers
Bottom line: Is there an articulable reason to send a letter to ATF covering every firearm a person owns that might have any these two kinds of aftermarket parts installed? Should each firearm be listed, along with the specific parts installed in each, or does this only apply to parts that can be demonstrated to increase the rate of fire?
Yes, but don't list or identify a thing. The form letter is intentionally drafted to cover everything. Just send the form.
esqappellate
President, MSI
- Feb 12, 2012
- 7,408
We are beyond grateful and forever indebted to you for your support.I read the bill and have followed this thread with interest/disgust. In order of importance:
Many thanks to Mark, Danny and all the rest of the MSI army who have been fighting for us in the trenches.
Apologies in advance for my ignorance, but thanks in advance for your help.
I can (sort of) understand how the bill applies to aftermarket devices that can theoretically increase the rate of fire in a firearm, but I am really foggy about stuff like oil. I know we're dealing with a bunch of extremely pissed off legislators who hate our guts and are going to take advantage of every chance to punish us. It's not rational, it's not logical, it's not constitutional, but it IS very infantile and immature, and it is our reality for the time being.
I have no intention of sending a letter to ATF about a bottle of oil or any other maintenance chemicals or tools I use in the routine maintenance of any firearms I may have, but I am curious about aftermarket parts like:
To my naive mind, these two kinds of items do nothing to increase the rate of fire, but sometimes increase the comfort and potential accuracy of a firearm.
- Side charging handles
- LaRue & Geissle triggers
Bottom line: Is there an articulable reason to send a letter to ATF covering every firearm a person owns that might have any these two kinds of aftermarket parts installed? Should each firearm be listed, along with the specific parts installed in each, or does this only apply to parts that can be demonstrated to increase the rate of fire?
All need done is use the letter we’ve made for all here: https://tinyurl.com/sb707
Attachments
Last edited:
Hmm, using their tools, fighting vagueness with vagueness.
I’m having trouble understanding why a federal judge would not put the brakes on this bill because it has a loop hole allowing 365 days before it is unconstitutional. 10/01/2019 is approaching at the exact same speed as 10/01/2018. But I may have read something wrong
I’m having trouble understanding why a federal judge would not put the brakes on this bill because it has a loop hole allowing 365 days before it is unconstitutional. 10/01/2019 is approaching at the exact same speed as 10/01/2018. But I may have read something wrong
Doesn't mean he won't. That hearing wasn't the venue to take the bill out behind the barn and put it down. It was an attempt at temporary relief, which the judge essentially found to already exist in the form of the ATF Theater Letter strategy. I presume he's operating on the assumption that the law will be well and truly dealt with inside a year's time. Please spank me, MSI people, if I'm mischaracterizing things.
- Nov 11, 2009
- 30,923
As a side excursion into the mind of the MD GA, the Red Flag bill also creates an entire class of citizens whose rights may be infringed, namely all owners of firearms.
Because firearms are so much more deadly than automobiles, kitchen knives, hammers, chainsaws - you name it - they are singled out for special treatment upon allegation of domestic abuse, deprived of their property without due process of law, and treated as guilty based on hearsay.
Sent my letter this morning. One to me and one to the ATF.
Right on!
Great, and thanks!
I feel dirty just sending the letter, as though I'm some sort of second class citizen. But then I remember that we're in the Peoples Republik of Marylandistan, and through decades of inbreeding, providing life support to otherwise unviable life forms, these lower life forms and socialist/progressives have elected even more corrupt socialist politicians whose only interest in is power and whose greatest fear is that we, the people who they have trampled, will some day be able to rise up and vote their undeserving asses out of their cushy government cocoons.
Users who are viewing this thread
Latest posts
-
-
‘Why is nothing being done?’: Concerns grow about drug use, fighting in Montgomery Co. school bathrooms (12 Viewers)- Latest: RFBfromDE
-
Forum statistics
Latest threads
-
‘Why is nothing being done?’: Concerns grow about drug use, fighting in Montgomery Co. school bathrooms (12 Viewers)
- Started by RFBfromDE
- Replies: 7
-
-
-
-
-
-
Hair-trigger posting... please include more than just the "headline"- Started by Mr H
- Replies: 13