BUMP STOCK SUIT FILED!

I carry at my club , I asked before I joined . They said I could CC , others do as well . I practice my shooting skills as a condition of my permit , to hone my skills as a business owner . Hence carrying under my permit restrictions .

Abulg1972 said:

... Not everything “gun” is important, and that’s one of the issues I have with the gun world in general - everyone thinks that God and Country should prevail because Guns and Murica. This accessory is not important, other than with respect to the idea that what was once legal cannot be made illegal without paying owners for the termination of that right.

Click to expand...

infringe: (verb) 1) actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.), violate, transgress. 2) act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on, trespass. synonyms: undermine · erode · diminish · weaken · impair · damage · compromise · limit · curb · check · place a limit on · encroach on · interfere with · disturb · disrupt · trespass on, impinge on, intrude on



As long as this amendment is in force in our constitution, everything "gun" is important, even if you, Abulg1972, don't think so. Someone else might not like the Govt limiting, undermining, encroaching on, trespassing on, eroding, diminishing, weakening, impairing, damaging, compromising, curbing, disturbing, disrupting, or otherwise placing a check on how they choose to keep and bear those Arms.

As far as I'm concerned, my second amendment right has been getting infringed on since the day I was born. Hint: I'm over 50. That's at least 50 years of infringements. But, it goes back even further. Those of you all under the age of 84 have had your second amendment rights infringed on your whole lives as well. (National Firearms Act) And the infringements go back further than that, but you should get the idea.

If it can be put in, on, or used with knives, guns, swords, archery equipment, cannons, tanks, or any other Arms and the government says I can't have it, or can only use it in a particular way, those are infringements. "It" can take the form of ammo, broadheads, ammo components, lead, parts, tools, reloading gear, optics, etc. A bump stock is parts. A binary trigger is parts. A burst trigger is parts. A rubber band is parts if it can be put in, on, or used with. So are zip ties. I use them on some of my rifles. The rifles don't need zip ties to function, but they're a part on my rifle none the less and something that I want when I bear that Arm. I would feel infringed if the Government told me that I could not put zip ties on my rifle! Same goes for the parts banned by SB707.

If you're pondering over whether an action by the Government related to the right to keep and bear Arms is an infringement, it probably is. That's because most actions by the Government are regulatory (limiting/weakening/curbing) in nature. SB707 is no different. It is an infringement first and foremost. But, the easiest way for it to fall seems to be on grounds called out in the MSI lawsuit.

Abulg1972 said:

Sir. A plastic accessory is not a firearm. The fact that you inbreds don’t understand this is disconcerting.

Click to expand...

And banning that plastic accessory is still an infringement on the right to keep and bare arms. The fact that you don't understand this is disconcerting.

Sent from my SM-T320 using Tapatalk

I thought there was some bumpstock news coming today

srephwed said:

I thought there was some bumpstock news coming today

Click to expand...

I hear there may be a 3% chance of seeing something in 2 weeks.

PowPow said:

I hear there may be a 3% chance of seeing something in 2 weeks.

Click to expand...

At least it's not a snowballs chance. Yet.

Where are we on the suit? Will anything be resolved pre Oct 2018?

Bountied said:

Where are we on the suit? Will anything be resolved pre Oct 2018?

Click to expand...

MSI should’ve responded to the State’s motion to dismiss this past week.

Unless the judge chooses to dismiss the case, not a chance anything will be finalized before October ‘18. Maybe October ‘19.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Abulg1972 said:

Sir. A plastic accessory is not a firearm. The fact that you inbreds don’t understand this is disconcerting.

Click to expand...

A ball of lead is not a firearm.
A grain of powder is not a firearm.

Yet when the Founding Fathers wrote the first ten amendments... (you know... the ones call the Bill of Rights?) they knew that the FIRST thing the British overlords did in ANY case where they were opposed by the Colonists... was to lock up all powder and lead balls in the local armory.

Now maybe the Founding Fathers were "inbreds"... maybe? maybe not? because... THEY were smart enough to recognize that powder and lead, while NOT firearms, WERE and ARE components of firearms. Like wood stocks and other parts. And ANY component of any firearm which is restricted by law or ordinance... IS an infringement upon the rights of those who would own or possess that type of firearm. What if the folks who make such laws deemed "scopes are evil"... are they firearms? No?

Now... of course they did not have plastic parts... NOR did they have computers with which to post on the internet and call other folks "inbreds" in direct violation of forum rules.

These "inbreds" as you call them... seem to have a far better understanding of what "SHALL NOT INFRINGE" actually means.

RoadDawg said:

A ball of lead is not a firearm.
A grain of powder is not a firearm.

Yet when the Founding Fathers wrote the first ten amendments... (you know... the ones call the Bill of Rights?) they knew that the FIRST thing the British overlords did in ANY case where they were opposed by the Colonists... was to lock up all powder and lead balls in the local armory.

Now maybe the Founding Fathers were "inbreds"... maybe? maybe not? because... THEY were smart enough to recognize that powder and lead, while NOT firearms, WERE and ARE components of firearms. Like wood stocks and other parts. And ANY component of any firearm which is restricted by law or ordinance... IS an infringement upon the rights of those who would own or possess that type of firearm. What if the folks who make such laws deemed "scopes are evil"... are they firearms? No?

Now... of course they did not have plastic parts... NOR did they have computers with which to post on the internet and call other folks "inbreds" in direct violation of forum rules.

These "inbreds" as you call them... seem to have a far better understanding of what "SHALL NOT INFRINGE" actually means.

Click to expand...

But that only has to do with muskets.

Friggin (==>$(*& son of a #(__& low down dirty @_(*@&(*& snowflake @^#&$ ^@&!~ hat wearing >_+^<## wtf.

daNattyFatty said:

MSI should’ve responded to the State’s motion to dismiss this past week.

Unless the judge chooses to dismiss the case, not a chance anything will be finalized before October ‘18. Maybe October ‘19.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Click to expand...

We got an extension to 8/24

esqappellate said:

We got an extension to 8/24

Click to expand...

How is MSI doing on funds to keep the fight going? I will talk to some of my friends and get them to help support our freedoms via MSI. Thank you for your efforts.

Bountied said:

How is MSI doing on funds to keep the fight going? I will talk to some of my friends and get them to help support our freedoms via MSI. Thank you for your efforts.

Click to expand...

Thank you very much.

We will always welcome and be forever grateful for any and all support.

[/SIZE]

Abulg1972 said:

I share your issue, but the reality is that the government has a right to prohibit the ownership of bump stocks. However, if it wants to do so, it must compensate those whose property to be taken. My issue with this law is that the idiots in charge failed to comprehend that fact and failed to provide for just compensation. It is for that reason that I hope we prevail. But, let’s be honest - a win will most likely only delay the inevitable. The GA will come back next year with a new bill that provides for compensation. This law is much like O’Malley’s bull crap assault weapons ban. It all feels good.

Click to expand...

So your only issue with the law is that they didn’t put in some form of compensation? If they did then you’re ok with it?
By the way, our side has been “compromising” with the other side for over 80 years and what exactly has the left compromised on? I’d love to hear a detailed list from you.

I’m guessing the extension will put a decision past Oct. 1st ? Actually I didn’t think this would be done by then either way.

Keep in mind that the law, as passed, stipulates that "rapid fire trigger activators" may be kept so long as they are possessed before Oct. 1, 2018 and ATF approval is applied for before the same date. ATF approval does not need to be received until Oct. 1, 2019.

DC-W said:

Thank you very much.

We will always welcome and be forever grateful for any and all support.

Click to expand...

A double "Amen" to that!!

ironpony said:

But that only has to do with muskets.

Friggin (==>$(*& son of a #(__& low down dirty @_(*@&(*& snowflake @^#&$ ^@&!~ hat wearing >_+^<## wtf.

Click to expand...

Yeah... I know what you mean...

And those mentally absent folks who spout that single shot musket garbage are to lazy or stupid to read history and realize that there was a rifle available BEFORE the BoR...

The Girardoni (also spelled Girandoni) air rifle was a very advanced design adopted in 1780 by the Austrian Army. While the standard arm of the day was a single-shot flintlock, the Girardoni offered a massive firepower advantage to the men who carried it. The guns (designed by Bartholomäus Girardoni, of Vienna) had a magazine capacity of 22 round balls, which could all be fired within 60 seconds. The balls were .46 caliber, weighing approximately 153 grains, and were propelled at 400-450 feet per second. They were rumored to be silent, but actually had a loud report (although quieter than gunpowder firearms). One of these rifles was carried by the Lewis & Clark expedition into the American West.

The Austrian Army used them for a relatively short time – they were taken out of service by Imperial order in 1788, and issued back to Tyrolian sniper units only in 1792. The reasons for their replacement were more logistical than the result of any actual shortcoming with Girardoni’s design. The problem was that they required special training to use (compared to a normal firearm), required specially trained and equipped gunsmiths to repair and maintain, and difficulty maintaining them in combat conditions. Dr. Robert Beeman has written an outstanding illustrated article on Austrian airguns in general and the Girardoni in particular, which I highly recommend for anyone interested in more detail on these fascinating weapons

Click to expand...

More on the Lewis and Clarke trans-continental trek with their rifle.
http://warfarehistorynetwork.com/daily/military-history/lewis-and-clarks-girandoni-air-rifle/

The rifle could put 30 of those .46 caliber lead balls through a 1" pine board at 100 yards... on a single charge of air.

Single shot muskets indeed...

To the "its just an accessory" crowd - so are optics and iron sights. There are already antis that are campaigining against "sniper optics".

Has there been any movement on the the federal ban? Forward or back?


Q