BUMP STOCK SUIT FILED!

Qbeam said:

Any word on whether the State filed anything since today was the deadline?


Q

Click to expand...

Abulg1972 said:

I do understand those words. And I also understand that those words apply only to firearms, and not plastic attachments. That, my friend, is what you and many others fail to comprehend and allow to cloud your thoughts and actions.

Many MDS members know me personally. I am staunch proponent and advocate of the 2A, but I am no idiot. I have had to fight for my 2A rights tooth and nail. I had to spend thousands of dollars to do so. My experience with this particular sub-forum, and with issues like this in particular, is that people on both sides of the aisle are not willing to engage in any rational, reasoned discussions. I have said for many, many years that until BOTH sides are willing to come together and engage in a rational dialogue, we are all just pissing in the wind and, indeed, we on the right should not give an inch.

The reality, which many of you do not care to acknowledge, is that the government does indeed have the right to prohibit the ownership of bump stocks and rotary triggers and any other attachments. I find it disconcerting that people who support our rights don’t understand that fact, because it clouds the issues that are important to us. I also get frustrated with the reaction that anyone here gets when they assert anything other than the party line - that this is Murica and by God o should be able to own and use whatever I want. As much as I would love to be able to own whatever I want, I live in a country of laws and that’s just not reality.

Ask MSI and its attorneys why the complaint does not assert that the right to own a bump stock is not constitutionally protected. I’ll tell spoil the surprise and answer the question - because you have no right to own one.

I wholeheartedly support MSI and this suit, and I wholeheartedly abhor our liberal idiots who refuse to acknowledge our constitution when they enact laws that take property without compensating us. That’s for the record.

Click to expand...

Muleskinner said:

W

If you aren't a supporter of the 2nd amendment.(and trust me, your words prove that you are not) why are you even on these forums?

Click to expand...

Rab1515 said:

July 20 is the deadline I believe.

Click to expand...

Doctor_M said:

I think you you find that I have called you none of those things.... I disagree profoundly with your opinion, but I don't believe that I've been uncivil.

Click to expand...

Muleskinner said:

WRONG!...Show me in the 2nd amendment the word FIREarm anywhere...The 2nd amendment says ARMS...Not FIREarms...therefore it covers anything that a person could be armed with to defend one's self...The recent cases that were overturned concerning stun guns and tasers in Maryland used that very argument to force counties to remove their bans on such ARMS...Nice try though...

If you aren't a supporter of the 2nd amendment.(and trust me, your words prove that you are not) why are you even on these forums?

Click to expand...

Gryphon said:

my fundamental enumerated rights.

Click to expand...

Muleskinner said:

WRONG!...Show me in the 2nd amendment the word FIREarm anywhere...The 2nd amendment says ARMS...Not FIREarms...therefore it covers anything that a person could be armed with to defend one's self...The recent cases that were overturned concerning stun guns and tasers in Maryland used that very argument to force counties to remove their bans on such ARMS...Nice try though...

If you aren't a supporter of the 2nd amendment.(and trust me, your words prove that you are not) why are you even on these forums?

Click to expand...

Abulg1972 said:

To own a bump stock? Quote]

Yes!

Click to expand...

JohnnyE said:

I don't find it helpful to concede that a bump stocks is a piece of plastic not protected by 2A. We don't have case law saying it is protected, but that just means we haven't heard from the court yet, it does not mean it won't be protected. An adverse holding should not be presumed. It's all too easy to not find the clarity we would like regarding the limits of 2A protections because there have been so few cases.

If we look at 1A we find a large collection of opinions fleshing out the extent of speech and press freedoms. These freedoms are not narrow, they are quite expansive. If one has a narrow view of these rights, one may think that only the ability to speak out of one's mouth or to print and pass newspapers or handbills are protected, and little more. This is hardly the case. Press protections include a reporter's right to gather news, to maintain the confidentiality of sources, and other activities whose absence may not directly limit his/her right to speak or publish, but would certainly give them less to speak or write about. These other rights facilitate, serve, enhance or make more effective their/our practice of the enumerated right.

We lack such 2A jurisprudence, and it will take decades to fill in the blanks. If we take the narrow view that 2A only protects a specific piece of hardware as it comes from S&W, Colt, Ruger, etc., then we have unnecessarily hobbled our own starting position. I suggest we take an approach that gets us to a similar place that we have seen develop with regard to 1A. Argue that not only is the arm itself protected, but so is the magazine, the ammunition, ammo components, trigger, stock and optics, as well as having ranges and places to shoot, to train, and to have and do all of those other things which, if we didn't have them, would make simply owning a basic arm a hollow right. Remember, these rights exist for a purpose. The purpose is not to just own an arm for its own sake, but to ensure these arms are useful to you, me and our fellow citizens for protecting ourselves, our families, our communities and our freedoms. To do that, you need more than the narrow right to own a piece of basic hardware that is designed or approved by others. You need all of the supporting things and abilities to make that hardware meaningful.

In regard to the present bump stock case, I see the point of going the "takings" route. The decades-long journey of defining the boundaries of 2A will take countless steps, and takings is a step following the path of least resistance. More robust arguments focusing on 2A will come later as more suitable fact patterns are found. The NAACP searched long and hard to find the right plaintiff before it found the Brown family to go after the Topeka Board of Education. Such patience and selectivity will be required for this journey as well.

Click to expand...

JohnnyE said:

I don't find it helpful to concede that a bump stocks is a piece of plastic not protected by 2A. ...

Click to expand...

JohnnyE said:

I don't find it helpful to concede that a bump stocks is a piece of plastic not protected by 2A. We don't have case law saying it is protected, but that just means we haven't heard from the court yet, it does not mean it won't be protected. An adverse holding should not be presumed. It's all too easy to not find the clarity we would like regarding the limits of 2A protections because there have been so few cases.

If we look at 1A we find a large collection of opinions fleshing out the extent of speech and press freedoms. These freedoms are not narrow, they are quite expansive. If one has a narrow view of these rights, one may think that only the ability to speak out of one's mouth or to print and pass newspapers or handbills are protected, and little more. This is hardly the case. Press protections include a reporter's right to gather news, to maintain the confidentiality of sources, and other activities whose absence may not directly limit his/her right to speak or publish, but would certainly give them less to speak or write about. These other rights facilitate, serve, enhance or make more effective their/our practice of the enumerated right.

We lack such 2A jurisprudence, and it will take decades to fill in the blanks. If we take the narrow view that 2A only protects a specific piece of hardware as it comes from S&W, Colt, Ruger, etc., then we have unnecessarily hobbled our own starting position. I suggest we take an approach that gets us to a similar place that we have seen develop with regard to 1A. Argue that not only is the arm itself protected, but so is the magazine, the ammunition, ammo components, trigger, stock and optics, as well as having ranges and places to shoot, to train, and to have and do all of those other things which, if we didn't have them, would make simply owning a basic arm a hollow right. Remember, these rights exist for a purpose. The purpose is not to just own an arm for its own sake, but to ensure these arms are useful to you, me and our fellow citizens for protecting ourselves, our families, our communities and our freedoms. To do that, you need more than the narrow right to own a piece of basic hardware that is designed or approved by others. You need all of the supporting things and abilities to make that hardware meaningful.

In regard to the present bump stock case, I see the point of going the "takings" route. The decades-long journey of defining the boundaries of 2A will take countless steps, and takings is a step following the path of least resistance. More robust arguments focusing on 2A will come later as more suitable fact patterns are found. The NAACP searched long and hard to find the right plaintiff before it found the Brown family to go after the Topeka Board of Education. Such patience and selectivity will be required for this journey as well.

Click to expand...

Atlasarmory said:

Any word on the states response today ?

Click to expand...