STOP THE UNCONSTITUTIONAL BAN
The Market Ticker ® - Commentary on The Capital Markets
Logging in or registering will improve your experience here
Main Navigation
Display list of topics
Sarah's Resources You Should See
Sarah's Blog Buy Sarah's Pictures
Full-Text Search & Archives
Legal Disclaimer

The content on this site is provided without any warranty, express or implied. All opinions expressed on this site are those of the author and may contain errors or omissions.

NO MATERIAL HERE CONSTITUTES "INVESTMENT ADVICE" NOR IS IT A RECOMMENDATION TO BUY OR SELL ANY FINANCIAL INSTRUMENT, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO STOCKS, OPTIONS, BONDS OR FUTURES.

The author may have a position in any company or security mentioned herein. Actions you undertake as a consequence of any analysis, opinion or advertisement on this site are your sole responsibility.

Market charts, when present, used with permission of TD Ameritrade/ThinkOrSwim Inc. Neither TD Ameritrade or ThinkOrSwim have reviewed, approved or disapproved any content herein.

The Market Ticker content may be sent unmodified to lawmakers via print or electronic means or excerpted online for non-commercial purposes provided full attribution is given and the original article source is linked to. Please contact Karl Denninger for reprint permission in other media, to republish full articles, or for any commercial use (which includes any site where advertising is displayed.)

Submissions or tips on matters of economic or political interest may be sent "over the transom" to The Editor at any time. To be considered for publication your submission must include full and correct contact information and be related to an economic or political matter of the day. All submissions become the property of The Market Ticker.

Considering sending spam? Read this first.

2018-04-04 11:41 by Karl Denninger
in 2ndAmendment , 120 references Ignore this thread
STOP THE UNCONSTITUTIONAL BAN
[Comments enabled]

The BATFE must respond to comments before they can publish.

Not long ago an attempted ban on "green tip" ammunition was turned back when the BATF got slammed; they literally gave up.

So go here and do the same thing -- click "Comment Now".

Go to responses (registration required to post)
 

 
Comments.......
User: Not logged on
Login Register Top Blog Top Blog Topics FAQ
Showing Page 1 of 2  First12Last
User Info STOP THE UNCONSTITUTIONAL BAN in forum [Market-Ticker]
Jdough
Posts: 93
Incept: 2012-05-04

The Lone Star State
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
If laws can be interpreted to agree with whatever way the political winds blow, then all laws are meaningless.

We see this constantly now, and deserve it for letting the presidency become imperial.

----------
If you are still in possession of your life, all avenues are open.
--Mauno Koivisto
Maynard
Posts: 588
Incept: 2007-11-27

On the Road Again
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Quote:
The bump-stock-type devices covered by this proposed rule were not in existence prior to the GCA's effective date, and therefore would fall within the prohibition on machineguns if this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) is implemented. Consequently, current possessors of these devices would be required to surrender them, destroy them, or otherwise render them permanently inoperable upon the effective date of the final rule.


I don't even know what to say. smiley
Checkthisout
Posts: 312
Incept: 2010-10-01

Cary, NC
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
You don't even need a bump-stock or even a belt loop. You can do it with your finger. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7RdAhTxy....

The idiocy

----------
There are no gun free zones where free men tread.
Jcneall
Posts: 8
Incept: 2010-07-23

Houston
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
I am a 2nd amendment supporter and I'm not trying to lead or trap anyone here. I just would like to understand the concern. IF owners of these "bump-stock-type devices" were reimbursed for surrendering them, would you be ok with this? (this is a big "if", I know)

If not, does that imply that you think automatic weapons should be protected also? Just trying to understand because I think most gun rights advocates support restricting ownership of automatic weapons. Based on the videos I've seen, a bump stock turns a semi into a defacto automatic weapon. No?
Maynard
Posts: 588
Incept: 2007-11-27

On the Road Again
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Apparently Jcneall is not a "2nd amendment supporter". No most advocates do NOT want to restrict automatic weapons.
So NO I would not be OK with them being reimbursed.
Tickerguy
Posts: 152455
Incept: 2007-06-26
A True American Patriot!
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
@Jcneall - No. The NFA is facially unconstitutional on the very grounds Miller was decided upon -- the people have the right, under the 2nd Amendment, to possess infantry weapons (that is, the equal of our military troops.)

Miller turned on whether a short-barreled shotgun was a military, aka "militia", weapon. The Supremes were LIED TO by the government that claimed such weapons were NOT suitable for military and militia use despite the fact that they had ordered and deployed thousands of them as trench-warfare guns! The Germans later took this decision and claim as part of THEIR claim that we had committed war crimes during the war by using them!

However, one step at a time. The NFA is unconstitutional and upon it all other gun control laws stand. If it goes so do the rest -- Brady, GCA, FOPA, etc. All down the drain. But again, ONE STEP AT A TIME.

IF you accept the NFA's legitimacy *then* you're left with the fact that the Government issued a FORMAL, LETTER RULING that these devices were NOT something that turns a weapon into a "machine gun." THAT IS WHAT THEY RULED and that ruling was neither arbitrary or capricious, nor was it made without CAREFUL consideration and analysis. Indeed they drew a distinction between such an a similar device containing a spring, which they ruled was a "mechanical assist" and thus WAS a machine gun part.

The people are entitled to rely on the rulings of government agencies when done in a formal, irrefutable manner. THIS IS SUCH AN INSTANCE. Therefore the only remaining defense is that it was issued "in error."

This fails to pass the smell test since it was not done in haste and in fact the record is that careful and time-consuming analysis was undertaken by the BATFE.

So now we have TWO separate points on which the BATFE is wrong:

1. The NFA is unconstitutional (under which they can rule at all.)

2. The letter ruling cannot be relied on (bull****); FORMAL, written declarations of the government regarding the legality of a potential action ARE IN FACT LEGALLY BINDING AND ENFORCEABLE.

IF those two are sustained THEN we get to the final issue, which is that 5th Amendment PROHIBITS taking of private property for OTHER THAN public purpose, AND YOU CANNOT TAKE IT FOR PUBLIC PURPOSE WITHOUT PAYING FOR IT.

Therefore IF the BATFE wins on both points #1 and #2 THE GOVERNMENT THEN MUST COMPENSATE not only the owners of all such devices they must ALSO compensate ALL of the manufacturers AND EMPLOYEES who have had THEIR property (and forward earnings) confiscated AS WELL.

----------
Winding it down.
Ckaminski
Posts: 4564
Incept: 2011-04-08

Mass-Hole!
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Quote:
would you be ok with this?


No. Because it doesn't SOLVE anything.

Quote:
does that imply that you think automatic weapons should be protected also


Yes. Shall not be infringed means something.

I love the argument that the 1st amendment applies to the Internet and cell phones, which the Founders could never conceive of, but somehow the 2nd amendment only applies to muzzleloaded muskets because the founders never conceived of a machine gun. We know they had multi-shot rifles in their day


As for videos, watch the one posted right above your comment. Does my finger make a semi into an automatic weapon?

Ckaminski
Posts: 4564
Incept: 2011-04-08

Mass-Hole!
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
1718: puckle gun:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puckle_gun


Falling down the wikipedia hole we find this older gun:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalthoff_r....
https://firearmshistory.blogspot.com/201....

Quote:
The above fine hunting gun is a seven-shot model that was made in London in 1658 and is now in the Moscow Kremlin museum. Inscriptions on it say that it was made by Caspar Kalthoff the Elder and Harman Barne (otherwise known as Haerman Barnevelt). This weapon was presented to Tsar Fyodor Alexeevich of Russia in 1664,


So arguably, the first assault weapon is over 350 years old.
Vernonb
Posts: 2058
Incept: 2009-06-03

East of Sheol
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
FUVK...FUVK...FUVK

An idiotocrat spent all that time compiling all that BS for justifications when the real problem is the sorry state of law enforcement and government malfeasance.

You'd think bump stocks were possessing people and making them kill.

----------
"Mass intelligence does not mean intelligent masses."
Flyanddive
Posts: 2630
Incept: 2008-10-10

Detroit
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
The real issue with bump stocks is that the criminal three letter agencies believe it puts their targets at a level playing field, when they potentially have to illegally storm a premises. It has nothing to do with safety, it's about gaining an advantage in unconstitutional government enforcement. This is the very reason for the NFA.

The FBI doesn't give a **** about people's lives. You can literally call them up, and tell them you are going to commit a mass shooting, and the FBI will coordinate with local law enforcement to stand down, in order to assist you in running up the body count.

----------
"I've seen people go into real poverty trying to pretend to be rich."
Dontezuma
Posts: 29
Incept: 2009-09-10

Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Done
Bodhi
Posts: 364
Incept: 2008-02-23

Georgia
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Quote:
No. Because it doesn't SOLVE anything.


I had someone on FB claim that gun restrictions (their words) worked in Australia. I simply asked, "Given that the right to bear arms is guaranteed by our constitution how would you implement and enforce similar gun restrictions in the USA?" That's when the conversation goes on a tangent. Not one anti-gun supporter can answer this question, or they don't want to.

On a side note, I read this morning that there's a proposal in Sacramento to severely restrict when their police are allowed to use deadly force. If that law passes I'd bet most of the cops would walk.
Jack_crabb
Posts: 5353
Incept: 2010-06-25

Peoples' Republik of Maryland
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Quote:
If that law passes I'd bet most of the cops would walk.


No way. The magic blue costumed thugs are too big of pussies to walk. Their pensions are too important. Besides, how often are pigs prosecuted - much less found guilty - for murder of proles?

----------
Molon Labe
Where is Henry Bowman when you need him?
How many are willing to pledge this? We mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our Sacred Honor
Tickerguy
Posts: 152455
Incept: 2007-06-26
A True American Patriot!
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
I like that change, frankly. It brings them closer (but still not the same) to where civilians are if one of us draws on someone.

----------
Winding it down.
Jack_crabb
Posts: 5353
Incept: 2010-06-25

Peoples' Republik of Maryland
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
I don't dislike it, but there ARE enough laws on the book should anyone decide to enforce them. Wearing a magic blue costume does not give those asshats extra-constitutional "rights" - like the ability to murder people and their dogs for no reason whatsoever - without consequence.

I refuse to support the bull**** of all the copsuckers that the right of the magic blue costumed thugs to go home safely at the end of their shifts supersedes my right (and my dog's right) to live.

----------
Molon Labe
Where is Henry Bowman when you need him?
How many are willing to pledge this? We mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our Sacred Honor
Gewekenet
Posts: 1
Incept: 2016-03-11

Shelton, WA
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
You can keep commenting thru June 28th , 2018. You can comment more than once, pick out a proposed rule section and comment on it, then go back another day comment on another section. You can just comment that you disagree with it.

It took a little more than 80,000 comments for the ATF to abandon the proposed "green tip" ammo rule

Happy commenting
Dcsleeper
Posts: 399
Incept: 2012-10-11

Northern VA
Online
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
>I had someone on FB claim that gun restrictions (their words) worked in Australia.
<
No, no it didn't.
Gavilan
Posts: 27
Incept: 2014-01-01

land of mañana
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Done.
Lobo
Posts: 454
Incept: 2013-12-25

Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Stalin would be proud of the tortured logic the ATF uses:
(I have added bold highlighting in the following.)

In the Summary, they say:

Quote:
...such devices allow a shooter of a semiautomatic firearm to initiate a continuous firing cycle with a single pull of the trigger. Specifically, these devices convert an otherwise semiautomatic firearm into a machinegun by functioning as a self-acting or self-regulating mechanism that harnesses the recoil energy of the semiautomatic firearm in a manner that allows the trigger to reset and continue firing without additional physical manipulation of the trigger by the shooter. Hence, a semiautomatic firearm to which a bump-stock-type device is attached is able to produce automatic fire with a single pull of the trigger.


Later in the Supplementary Information, they say:

Quote:
the device harnesses the recoil energy to slide the firearm back and forth so that the trigger automatically re-engages by bumping the shooter's stationary trigger finger without additional physical manipulation of the trigger by the shooter.


By "physical manipulation of the trigger", they apparently mean that the shooter must contract the muscles in their forearm to make the finger curl and activate the trigger which allows them to assert that no additional muscle contraction is needed for the trigger to be activated since the trigger finger is "stationary." What bull****. First, what if I don't curl my finger to activate the initial trigger pull and simply pull the extended "sliding stock" back so that my "stationary" finger causes the initial trigger pull? Since my finger is "stationary," would the ATF state that the firearm itself activated the initial trigger pull? Second, does anybody in their right mind think that the finger is "stationary?" Third, muscle tension must be maintained in order for the finger to pull the trigger every time the firearm goes off. How does the ATF differentiate between the muscle energy needed to cause the initial trigger pull from the mucle energy used in subsequent trigger pulls?

Then there is this gem:

Quote:
As reported by public comments, this proposed rule would affect the criminal use of bump-stock-type devices in mass shootings, such as the Las Vegas shooting incident.


Using their figures, that is 1 out of 280,000 (low estimate) to 1 out of 520,000 (high estimate) of these devices that have been used in mass shootings. (Would some troll please come out of the woodwork to assert that 2 or even 3 of those devices have been used in mass shootings? I want to help Gen keep in banhammer shape.)

Finally, they admit that it is possible to activate a firearm in a similar manner without the use of a bump stock:

Quote:
Based on public comments, individuals wishing to replicate the effects of bump-stock-type devices could also use rubber bands, belt loops, or otherwise train their trigger finger to fire more rapidly. To the extent that individuals are capable of doing so, this would be their alternative to using bump-stock-type devices.


WTF? To me, this is just an admission on the part of the ATF that the whole point is simply a feel-good, we're-doing-something-about-it rule designed to pacify the dumb****s at the expense of everyone else.

----------
Village Idiot
Bodhi
Posts: 364
Incept: 2008-02-23

Georgia
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Quote:
No, no it didn't.


Oh, I know, but this person in the UK chooses to believe differently. It really explodes their heads when you mention that the murder rate in progressive "gun free" London is now higher than New York City.
Spanktron9
Posts: 4277
Incept: 2009-03-13

Reality.
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Done.

----------
"Winter is coming." -Motto of House Stark
"Don't coast through life. Grab it by the hair and **** it half to death." - Jotapay
"Strong people are harder to kill than weak people, and more useful in general" - Mark Rippetoe
"Its like Calvinball."-MarvinMartian
Vernonb
Posts: 2058
Incept: 2009-06-03

East of Sheol
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Done....

----------
"Mass intelligence does not mean intelligent masses."
Comrader
Posts: 302
Incept: 2010-06-10

pa
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
done
Flyanddive
Posts: 2630
Incept: 2008-10-10

Detroit
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
The use of a bumpstock in the Vegas shooting saved lives. This is an undeniable fact. The Police did absolutely nothing. Even a mediocre shooter could have done more with a proper sniper rifle. The sound of automatic gun fire is also what caused the crowd to scatter to cover.

----------
"I've seen people go into real poverty trying to pretend to be rich."
Login Register Top Blog Top Blog Topics FAQ
Showing Page 1 of 2  First12Last