TexasCHLforum.com

G.A. Heath wrote: ↑Fri Jun 07, 2019 4:15 pm

rotor wrote: ↑Fri Jun 07, 2019 3:24 pm Bump stocks being banned is more than a 2A right. It is government confiscation without reimbursement of legally owned property. Same thing if they confiscate land that you own to build a shopping center. The issue of the government stealing your private property that previously was legal to own is the issue. Now had the government required bump stocks to be turned in and each one was financially reimbursed than it would be a 2A right alone. But that's not the case. So, there are 2 distinct issues. Money for the bump stocks and whether the ownership of a bump stock is the equivalent of ownership of a machine gun. I personally hope the government loses on both issues.

While I may agree with you, I can give you a good idea of what the government will claim. Essentially they will claim that the devices were sold due to a misinterpretation of the GCA of 1934 and were never actually legal. Since they are in reality contraband no compensation is due even though the feds have decided to not prosecute anyone who had one and destroyed it. As for the second amendment they will claim they are unusual and/or unsafe so they do not enjoy the protection of the second amendment per Heller.

Texas_Blaze wrote: ↑Fri Jun 07, 2019 4:23 pm I’m ok w/ President ______________ banning bumpstocks said the ____________.

A. Obama / conservatives
B. Obama / liberals
C. Obama / NRA
D. Trump / liberals
E. Trump / conservatives
F. Trump / NRA

rotor wrote: ↑Fri Jun 07, 2019 4:21 pm

G.A. Heath wrote: ↑Fri Jun 07, 2019 4:15 pm

rotor wrote: ↑Fri Jun 07, 2019 3:24 pm Bump stocks being banned is more than a 2A right. It is government confiscation without reimbursement of legally owned property. Same thing if they confiscate land that you own to build a shopping center. The issue of the government stealing your private property that previously was legal to own is the issue. Now had the government required bump stocks to be turned in and each one was financially reimbursed than it would be a 2A right alone. But that's not the case. So, there are 2 distinct issues. Money for the bump stocks and whether the ownership of a bump stock is the equivalent of ownership of a machine gun. I personally hope the government loses on both issues.

While I may agree with you, I can give you a good idea of what the government will claim. Essentially they will claim that the devices were sold due to a misinterpretation of the GCA of 1934 and were never actually legal. Since they are in reality contraband no compensation is due even though the feds have decided to not prosecute anyone who had one and destroyed it. As for the second amendment they will claim they are unusual and/or unsafe so they do not enjoy the protection of the second amendment per Heller.

There is that ATF finding under Obama that specifically said they were not illegal and I would hope that is what is used.

I believe this is what the ATF said in 2010. "We find that the bump stock is a firearm part and is not regulated as a firearm under Gun Control Act or the National Firearms Act," ATF said in a letter at the time."

anygunanywhere wrote: ↑Fri Jun 07, 2019 4:26 pm

Texas_Blaze wrote: ↑Fri Jun 07, 2019 4:23 pm I’m ok w/ President ______________ banning bumpstocks said the ____________.

A. Obama / conservatives
B. Obama / liberals
C. Obama / NRA
D. Trump / liberals
E. Trump / conservatives
F. Trump / NRA

FIFY

G.A. Heath wrote: ↑Fri Jun 07, 2019 4:28 pm

rotor wrote: ↑Fri Jun 07, 2019 4:21 pm

G.A. Heath wrote: ↑Fri Jun 07, 2019 4:15 pm

rotor wrote: ↑Fri Jun 07, 2019 3:24 pm Bump stocks being banned is more than a 2A right. It is government confiscation without reimbursement of legally owned property. Same thing if they confiscate land that you own to build a shopping center. The issue of the government stealing your private property that previously was legal to own is the issue. Now had the government required bump stocks to be turned in and each one was financially reimbursed than it would be a 2A right alone. But that's not the case. So, there are 2 distinct issues. Money for the bump stocks and whether the ownership of a bump stock is the equivalent of ownership of a machine gun. I personally hope the government loses on both issues.

While I may agree with you, I can give you a good idea of what the government will claim. Essentially they will claim that the devices were sold due to a misinterpretation of the GCA of 1934 and were never actually legal. Since they are in reality contraband no compensation is due even though the feds have decided to not prosecute anyone who had one and destroyed it. As for the second amendment they will claim they are unusual and/or unsafe so they do not enjoy the protection of the second amendment per Heller.

There is that ATF finding under Obama that specifically said they were not illegal and I would hope that is what is used.

I believe this is what the ATF said in 2010. "We find that the bump stock is a firearm part and is not regulated as a firearm under Gun Control Act or the National Firearms Act," ATF said in a letter at the time."

I understand what you are saying, however government attorney's will likely argue that the Obama era determination by the ATF was in error and did not make the devices legal, meaning they were always illegal. Just be happy they chose not to charge you with a felony comrade.

carlson1 wrote: ↑Fri Jun 07, 2019 4:36 pm The government is no longer of the people for the people. I don’t think we should have to pick any mountain to die on, but I am just an uneducated Baptist preacher.

Silencers: Current Federal law requires ATF to regulate silencers under the NFA. This
requires a Federal tax payment of $200 for transfers, ATF approval, and entry of the
silencer into a national NFA database. In the past several years, opinions about silencers
have changed across the United States. Their use to reduce noise at shooting ranges
and applications within the sporting and hunting industry are now well recognized. At
present, 42 states generally allow silencers to be used for sporting purposes. The wide
acceptance of silencers and corresponding changes in state laws have created
substantial demand across the country. This surge in demand has caused ATF to have a
significant backlog on silencer applications. ATF’s processing time is now approximately
8 months. ATF has devoted substantial resources in attempts to reduce processing
times, spending over $1 million annually in overtime and temporary duty expenses, and
dedicating over 33 additional full-time and contract positions since 2011 to support NFA
processing. Despite these efforts, NFA processing times are widely viewed by applicants
and the industry as far too long, resulting in numerous complaints to Congress. Since
silencers account for the vast majority of NFA applications, the most direct way to
reduce processing times is to reduce the number of silencer applications. In light of the
expanding demand and acceptance of silencers, however, that volume is unlikely to
diminish unless they are removed from the NFA. While DOJ and ATF have historically
not supported removal of items from the NFA, the change in public acceptance of
silencers arguably indicates that the reason for their inclusion in the NFA is archaic and
historical reluctance to removing them from the NFA should be reevaluated. ATF’s
experience with the criminal use of silencers also supports reassessing their inclusion in
the NFA. On average in the past 10 years, ATF has only recommended 44 defendants a
year for prosecution on silencer-related violations; of those, only approximately 6 of the
defendants had prior felony convictions. Moreover, consistent with this low number of
prosecution referrals, silencers are very rarely used in criminal shootings. Given the lack
of criminality associated with silencers, it is reasonable to conclude that they should not
be viewed as a threat to public safety necessitating NFA classification, and should be
considered for reclassification under the GCA.

If such a change were to be considered, a revision in the definition of a silencer would
be important. The current definition of a silencer extends to “any combination of
[silencer] parts,” as well as “any part intended only for use in” a silencer. Compared to
the definition of a firearm, which specifies the frame or receiver is the key regulated
part, any individual silencer part is generally regulated just as if it were a completed
silencer. Revising the definition could eliminate many of the current issues encountered
by silencer manufacturers and their parts suppliers. Specifically, clarifying when a part
or combination of parts meets a minimum threshold requiring serialization would be
useful.

clarionite wrote: ↑Thu Jun 06, 2019 3:54 pm I was very disappointed that the Hearing Protection Act wasn't passed in the first two years when we held both chambers and the white house.

Paladin wrote: ↑Fri Jun 07, 2019 5:06 pm

clarionite wrote: ↑Thu Jun 06, 2019 3:54 pm I was very disappointed that the Hearing Protection Act wasn't passed in the first two years when we held both chambers and the white house.

Any criminal that wants a silencer can make one. But the facts, straight from the ATF, are that very few do. According to the ATF, only 6 felons per year are caught with illegal silencers. I have no problem continuing to make a felon in possession of a silencer a crime. My problem is that law abiding citizens are having their constitutional rights infringed upon by the NFA.

Charles L. Cotton wrote: ↑Fri Jun 07, 2019 2:28 pm

Bitter Clinger wrote: ↑Fri Jun 07, 2019 1:23 pm

Charles L. Cotton wrote: ↑Fri Jun 07, 2019 12:27 pm

anygunanywhere wrote: ↑Thu Jun 06, 2019 4:14 pm

carlson1 wrote: ↑Thu Jun 06, 2019 4:06 pm

jason812 wrote: ↑Wed Jun 05, 2019 6:39 pm

The Annoyed Man wrote: ↑Wed Jun 05, 2019 12:52 pm They can ban them all they want. It will seriously tick me off, but it won’t stop me from having one if I want one. I know where to buy solvent traps, and I know how to make a suppressor. My son is a very highly qualified machinist. Making our own parts off the books is not a problem....if we have to.

They are not hard to make. Even easier if you have the right tools and know how to use them.

Bump stocks were not a sword to die on, are suppressors?

Bump stocks not worth dying for, suppressors not worth dying for, low round magazines not worth dying for, ammo not worth dying for, carrying a firearm outside your house not worth dying for, etc.... where do we say NO?

At the rate our 2A rights are slowly being eroded, we are dying a death of 1000 cuts. It is time the other side gets cut. Multiple times. Our side is tired of losing. And don’t even say the word compromise.

You say that "our 2A rights are slowly being eroded, . . ." Please list the specific erosion(s) you mean. Generalizations are easy to state, but I'm interested in the specific laws/restrictions.

Chas.

Not only did I fill out the forms, pay the $200 tax and wait months to be able to bail my SBR out of the safe at my FFL, but now I need to submit a properly filled out form to the ATF and wait weeks for permission to take my SBR across state lines to attend a training clinic. What part of shall not be infringed am I enjoying right about now?

So your version of a "slow erosion" ended in 1934.

Chas.

anygunanywhere wrote: ↑Fri Jun 07, 2019 2:41 pm

Charles L. Cotton wrote: ↑Fri Jun 07, 2019 2:35 pm

anygunanywhere wrote: ↑Fri Jun 07, 2019 2:30 pm

Charles L. Cotton wrote: ↑Fri Jun 07, 2019 2:24 pm

anygunanywhere wrote: ↑Fri Jun 07, 2019 1:07 pm

Charles L. Cotton wrote: ↑Fri Jun 07, 2019 12:27 pm

anygunanywhere wrote: ↑Thu Jun 06, 2019 4:14 pm

carlson1 wrote: ↑Thu Jun 06, 2019 4:06 pm

jason812 wrote: ↑Wed Jun 05, 2019 6:39 pm

The Annoyed Man wrote: ↑Wed Jun 05, 2019 12:52 pm They can ban them all they want. It will seriously tick me off, but it won’t stop me from having one if I want one. I know where to buy solvent traps, and I know how to make a suppressor. My son is a very highly qualified machinist. Making our own parts off the books is not a problem....if we have to.

They are not hard to make. Even easier if you have the right tools and know how to use them.

Bump stocks were not a sword to die on, are suppressors?

Bump stocks not worth dying for, suppressors not worth dying for, low round magazines not worth dying for, ammo not worth dying for, carrying a firearm outside your house not worth dying for, etc.... where do we say NO?

At the rate our 2A rights are slowly being eroded, we are dying a death of 1000 cuts. It is time the other side gets cut. Multiple times. Our side is tired of losing. And don’t even say the word compromise.

You say that "our 2A rights are slowly being eroded, . . ." Please list the specific erosion(s) you mean. Generalizations are easy to state, but I'm interested in the specific laws/restrictions.

Chas.

Bump Stocks. That is an erosion. First the ATF ruled they were not machine guns. Now they are machine guns.

I would like to hear about all of the advances we have achieved at the federal level in the last two years.

So your "slow erosion" consists of one thing -- bump stocks.

Chas.

To the hundreds of thousands of patriots who own them, Charles, this is a big deal. It DOES speak volumes if you ask them. It is an erosion. Whether or not you hold this as a big deal is your opinion and it really doesn't matter if I wrote a book on erosion of 2A rights or gave you one example, the bump stock ban is an infringement.

I asked for advances we gained at the federal level in the last two years.

**CRICKETS**

You expressly stated "At the rate our 2A rights are slowly being eroded, we are dying a death of 1000 cuts. One event, bump stocks, is neither 1,000 cuts nor a slow "erosion." My point is the Chicken Little approach doesn't help advance Second Amendment rights, especially when you conspicuously ignore progress on that front.

As for your two-year question; 1) I didn't claim any claims as did you; and 2) of course you want to limit any claims of advancement of firearms rights to two years because you know there have been several since the 1968 Gun Control act or the 1934 NFA.

Chas.

My approach is not a Chicken Little approach. I'm not screaming that the sky is falling. so please stop mischaracterizing my comments. The bump stock ban is a Trump presidency ban. Give me Trump presidency advancements in our 2A freedoms. I never brought up the NFA or GCA. You did. I'm certain I could mischaracterize your claim of advancements since the GCA and NFA. THE ATF is still in full force. Everything banned and regulated by the NFA and GCA are still banned and regulated. The Feds have not let up one bit. Oh wait!! Obama lets us carry in National Parks!! Halleluia!! We get to carry on land that we, American Citizens Own!

Bitter Clinger wrote: ↑Fri Jun 07, 2019 5:51 pm

Charles L. Cotton wrote: ↑Fri Jun 07, 2019 2:28 pm

Bitter Clinger wrote: ↑Fri Jun 07, 2019 1:23 pm

Charles L. Cotton wrote: ↑Fri Jun 07, 2019 12:27 pm

anygunanywhere wrote: ↑Thu Jun 06, 2019 4:14 pm

carlson1 wrote: ↑Thu Jun 06, 2019 4:06 pm

jason812 wrote: ↑Wed Jun 05, 2019 6:39 pm

The Annoyed Man wrote: ↑Wed Jun 05, 2019 12:52 pm They can ban them all they want. It will seriously tick me off, but it won’t stop me from having one if I want one. I know where to buy solvent traps, and I know how to make a suppressor. My son is a very highly qualified machinist. Making our own parts off the books is not a problem....if we have to.

They are not hard to make. Even easier if you have the right tools and know how to use them.

Bump stocks were not a sword to die on, are suppressors?

Bump stocks not worth dying for, suppressors not worth dying for, low round magazines not worth dying for, ammo not worth dying for, carrying a firearm outside your house not worth dying for, etc.... where do we say NO?

At the rate our 2A rights are slowly being eroded, we are dying a death of 1000 cuts. It is time the other side gets cut. Multiple times. Our side is tired of losing. And don’t even say the word compromise.

You say that "our 2A rights are slowly being eroded, . . ." Please list the specific erosion(s) you mean. Generalizations are easy to state, but I'm interested in the specific laws/restrictions.

Chas.

Not only did I fill out the forms, pay the $200 tax and wait months to be able to bail my SBR out of the safe at my FFL, but now I need to submit a properly filled out form to the ATF and wait weeks for permission to take my SBR across state lines to attend a training clinic. What part of shall not be infringed am I enjoying right about now?

So your version of a "slow erosion" ended in 1934.

Chas.

FIFY. "So your version of a "slow erosion" began in 1934".

Charles L. Cotton wrote: ↑Fri Jun 07, 2019 6:22 pm

anygunanywhere wrote: ↑Fri Jun 07, 2019 2:41 pm

Charles L. Cotton wrote: ↑Fri Jun 07, 2019 2:35 pm

anygunanywhere wrote: ↑Fri Jun 07, 2019 2:30 pm

Charles L. Cotton wrote: ↑Fri Jun 07, 2019 2:24 pm

anygunanywhere wrote: ↑Fri Jun 07, 2019 1:07 pm

Charles L. Cotton wrote: ↑Fri Jun 07, 2019 12:27 pm

anygunanywhere wrote: ↑Thu Jun 06, 2019 4:14 pm

carlson1 wrote: ↑Thu Jun 06, 2019 4:06 pm

jason812 wrote: ↑Wed Jun 05, 2019 6:39 pm


They are not hard to make. Even easier if you have the right tools and know how to use them.

Bump stocks were not a sword to die on, are suppressors?

Bump stocks not worth dying for, suppressors not worth dying for, low round magazines not worth dying for, ammo not worth dying for, carrying a firearm outside your house not worth dying for, etc.... where do we say NO?

At the rate our 2A rights are slowly being eroded, we are dying a death of 1000 cuts. It is time the other side gets cut. Multiple times. Our side is tired of losing. And don’t even say the word compromise.

You say that "our 2A rights are slowly being eroded, . . ." Please list the specific erosion(s) you mean. Generalizations are easy to state, but I'm interested in the specific laws/restrictions.

Chas.

Bump Stocks. That is an erosion. First the ATF ruled they were not machine guns. Now they are machine guns.

I would like to hear about all of the advances we have achieved at the federal level in the last two years.

So your "slow erosion" consists of one thing -- bump stocks.

Chas.

To the hundreds of thousands of patriots who own them, Charles, this is a big deal. It DOES speak volumes if you ask them. It is an erosion. Whether or not you hold this as a big deal is your opinion and it really doesn't matter if I wrote a book on erosion of 2A rights or gave you one example, the bump stock ban is an infringement.

I asked for advances we gained at the federal level in the last two years.

**CRICKETS**

You expressly stated "At the rate our 2A rights are slowly being eroded, we are dying a death of 1000 cuts. One event, bump stocks, is neither 1,000 cuts nor a slow "erosion." My point is the Chicken Little approach doesn't help advance Second Amendment rights, especially when you conspicuously ignore progress on that front.

As for your two-year question; 1) I didn't claim any claims as did you; and 2) of course you want to limit any claims of advancement of firearms rights to two years because you know there have been several since the 1968 Gun Control act or the 1934 NFA.

Chas.

My approach is not a Chicken Little approach. I'm not screaming that the sky is falling. so please stop mischaracterizing my comments. The bump stock ban is a Trump presidency ban. Give me Trump presidency advancements in our 2A freedoms. I never brought up the NFA or GCA. You did. I'm certain I could mischaracterize your claim of advancements since the GCA and NFA. THE ATF is still in full force. Everything banned and regulated by the NFA and GCA are still banned and regulated. The Feds have not let up one bit. Oh wait!! Obama lets us carry in National Parks!! Halleluia!! We get to carry on land that we, American Citizens Own!

You made a false statement and you are now trying to avoid the question. You claimed a slow erosion of Second Amendment rights, but you can only list one item -- bump stocks. You know quite well the only point I'm making is that there is no slow erosion of Second Amendment rights. Yes, there are restrictions that should not exist, but they have been in place for decades. Over those same decades, we have expanded gun rights at the federal level. Not as much as in Texas and other states, but progress has been made, contrary to your insinuation.

Of course you didn't bring up the GCA 68 or the NFA. You don't want to acknowledge the progress we've made since 1968. BTW, Obama didn't let us carry in national parks. That provision was shoved down his throat as part of the credit card bill have was forced to sign.

Chas.