Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Gun Legislation' started by benenglish, Dec 29, 2017.
So where is the NRA in all this? Defending gun rights as they claim?
I certainly haven't gotten an email alert from them. Considering how badly they stepped in it the last time they tried to issue a statement on bump stocks, maybe things are better that way.
Don't see how the GCA gives them statutory authority to regulate bump sticks. Unless they mean to take a giant leap and claim the stocks are devices designed to convert a non-MG into a MG, which they are not.
That's a "how" question and beyond the scope of the comment request. This request is specifically for information of the sort that will help the rulemakers understand bump stocks. It's literally the ATF calling on the public to act as subject matter experts on background.
While I 100% believe the NFA of 1934 is unconstitutional if we must have this horrible law around then I also believe that bump stocks, binary triggers, auto gloves etc should be included in the NFA. Why? Simple answer. I believe they potentially bring down the value of my legally owned full auto NFA items.
Justification: If people can legally possess an item that makes shooting their gun LIKE full auto then they don’t have to save their pesos to buy the real thing. In other words, they devalue the real thing. Why? Because it gives them so alternative to saving up.
Oh; and the bump sticks are ugly as hell.
But isn’t it well-documented that the INTENT of the bump stock is to make it like full auto?
Let me explain my legal theory on this for a second please.
If you own a back hoe then you clearly did not purchase burglary tools. However, if you put your back home on a trailer and drive town to the nearest bank and then use the back hoe to dig under the front door of the bank and then burglarize the bank, you’ve committed business burglary AND (under The laws of several states) possession of burglary tools. Why? Because of HOW you used the back hoe.
Same legal theory with the bump stock. If one INTENDED to make a machine gun and THEN took an overt action on their part to attach the device to a gun because, by their advertisement, it makes it LIKE a machine gun and one used it as a machine gun would be used, the legal bar of CRIMINALITY has been met. You have the MENS REA (Latin term for bad mind) and the ACTUS REAS (Latin term for bad act) out together. That means you’ve committed a crime.
Again, don’t misconstrue my comments to believe I am in favor of the NFA of 1934. I am ONLY giving you the legal theory of what the BATFE will use to justify their actions.
I had a bad case of Actus Reas the other day but pepto-bismol cleared it up.
Okay, that was funny!!!!
I think that would be Actus Rectus