Is there a 2A org suing to block this? The NRA obviously isn't...
Is there a 2A org suing to block this? The NRA obviously isn't...
Could only find this statement from GOA:Is there a 2A org suing to block this? The NRA obviously isn't...
Is there a 2A org suing to block this? The NRA obviously isn't...
Nice! They are gonna need more than $100k... Any other ways to donate?My understanding is that Stephen Stamboulieh, aka NoLoContendere on AR15.com, is going to sue. http://www.sdslaw.us https://www.ar15.com/forums/general...stocks/5-2096283/&r=71633749&dlnk=1#i71633749
Mark Larue raised $100,000 for him in less than two hours: https://www.larue.com/products/not-one-more-inch/
You are right, there is NO outcry by the gun folks, 65 Million of us over BumStocks, I wonder why not...DUH!I agree with Renegade but there's a piece of truth in what Ole Cowboy has said.
Yeah, bump stocks are junk. I have one and I'll be the first to admit that they're fun but useless and I wouldn't care if they were banned.
I do care if they are banned and we get nothing in return.
Someone on here recently posted something along the lines of "We could give them bump stocks if they'd give us the Hughes amendment." I could go along with that.
Of course, I'd start by requiring the Hughes amendment, de-control of short barrelled long guns, the Hearing Protection Act, national reciprocity, and opening the registry for another amnesty before the last of our WWII verterans dies and their family finds that bring-back hidden in the attic.
I'd settle for less than that but that would be my starting posture.
Unfortunately, there was no one saying "No!" on the national stage and demanding negotiations. That was the job of the NRA and they totally screwed us.
When the second round of fundraising happens, I hope someone trumpets it loudly on this board. I'm going to want to make my donation.Mark Larue raised $100,000 for him...
Uh, I must have been unclear.Trade Bumstocks for WHAT, you got nothing to trade, ...
I've done all those things in the past. I did them in the run-up to this change in the way the DOJ is saying that "single actuation" should be re-defined.As for the rest of the BS and you game of trading this for that, sorry folks, you don't have it, when they came you did not stop them and you are not going to do a damn thing now. How many of you contacted the NRA? How many wrote a check, called your Congressman or did anything other than post here trying to blame someone else because that are taking your BS away?
The line has long since been drawn for us. It was mostly drawn in 1934 and 1968, with more drawing of the line in 1986 and later.Till you draw the line, a line that can be defended you have not stood up and I don't see a lot of folks standing.
My understanding is that Stephen Stamboulieh, aka NoLoContendere on AR15.com, is going to sue. http://www.sdslaw.us https://www.ar15.com/forums/general...stocks/5-2096283/&r=71633749&dlnk=1#i71633749
I'd really like to know this story.They only guy in history to get a Federal Courts to rule not once, but TWICE that the 2A does not apply to machine guns.
I'd really like to know this story.
Renegade, that's not logically the same as trying to prevent an object from being defined as a machinegun when it isn't even a gun and has been NOT defined as a machinegun specifically by the ATF at least twice in the past. So, yeah, I'd bet on NoLo having a decent chance on this prospective suit.
Yeah, there's no doubt Halbrook and Gupta are fantastic, and there are others as well; however, NoLo is a young-ish advocate and a firebrand. He still has some seasoning to do, but he'll get there. We need more folks like him and less folks with cold feet with respect to our 2A rights.I think he is same guy who lost the F1 Machine Gun case too. Basically he has lost every Federal Case he has tried. Not sure why anyone who think he is suddenly going to start winning.
Now if you want winners on your side, then try Halbrook or Gupta.
BTW, silencers are NOT guns either, yet they are NFA too.
NoLo is a young-ish advocate and a firebrand. He still has some seasoning to do, but he'll get there.
Age 21 to buy a gun: Ya think that will fly? It won't. What that means is that from age 17-21 they cannot be in the military, can't have a gun!!! The best the left can get out of this is that the Feds will kick it back to the states and let the states decide upon age restrictions.
.
Actually it will fly because as you pointed out 17 year olds can join the military but can not own a rifle. People between 17-20 can not buy a pistol or the ammo but can be military police and given a pistol. The military is immune from most laws. They are allowed to discriminate on age, gender, weight, disability, you name it. Look up Feres doctrine they can't even be sued for medical malpractice.