Relying on the Same Illogic That Trump Used to Ban Bump Stocks, a New Lawsuit Argues That Customizable Rifles Are Illegal
The plaintiffs, parents of a woman who was murdered in the Las Vegas massacre, argue that bump stocks like the ones used in that attack convert semi-automatic rifles into illegal machine guns—a position that has been endorsed by the Trump administration. Therefore, they argue, AR-15s are themselves illegal, since the federal definition of machine guns includes firearms that "can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger."
TSRA Member since 5/30/15; NRA Member since 10/31/14
EDC: Sig P938
Tactical pistol: Sig P226 tacops
Hunting sidearm: Glock 40 10mm
Game rifle: Remington 700 weatherby 7mm pre buyout
Currently training for Spartan races in order to get into shape for Run n Gun matches
Relying on the Same Illogic That Trump Used to Ban Bump Stocks, a New Lawsuit Argues That Customizable Rifles Are Illegal
The plaintiffs, parents of a woman who was murdered in the Las Vegas massacre, argue that bump stocks like the ones used in that attack convert semi-automatic rifles into illegal machine guns—a position that has been endorsed by the Trump administration. Therefore, they argue, AR-15s are themselves illegal, since the federal definition of machine guns includes firearms that "can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger."
Good luck with that. The bumpstock ban notwithstanding, an AR15 still only fires one round per function of the trigger—bumpstock or no bumpstock. And since the ban, there’s no lawful way (just like before bumpstocks were invented) to convert an AR15 to fire at the same rate as a fully automatic weapon.
Give me Liberty, or I'll get up and get it myself.—Hookalakah Meshobbab
I don't carry because of the odds, I carry because of the stakes.—The Annoyed Boy
My dream is to have lived my life so well that future generations of leftists will demand my name be removed from buildings.
Good luck with that. The bumpstock ban notwithstanding, an AR15 still only fires one round per function of the trigger—bumpstock or no bumpstock. And since the ban, there’s no lawful way (just like before bumpstocks were invented) to convert an AR15 to fire at the same rate as a fully automatic weapon.
An AR-15 with a bump stock only fires one round per trigger pull, the same as an AR-15 without one. A bump stock is not required to bump fire an AR-15. It can be "readily" done without a bump stock.
Any intellectually honest person who supported the Trump administration classifying bump stocks as MG must also support reclassifying AR-15 as MG, because they can be "readily" bump fired without modification. To do otherwise is intellectually dishonest.
sent to you from my safe space in the hill country
Good luck with that. The bumpstock ban notwithstanding, an AR15 still only fires one round per function of the trigger—bumpstock or no bumpstock. And since the ban, there’s no lawful way (just like before bumpstocks were invented) to convert an AR15 to fire at the same rate as a fully automatic weapon.
An AR-15 with a bump stock only fires one round per trigger pull, the same as an AR-15 without one. A bump stock is not required to bump fire an AR-15. It can be "readily" done without a bump stock.
Any intellectually honest person who supported the Trump administration classifying bump stocks as MG must also support reclassifying AR-15 as MG, because they can be "readily" bump fired without modification. To do otherwise is intellectually dishonest.
Bump firing is a shooting technique. If bump firing is bad, because we want to limit the rate of fire, then it's a very, very, slippery slope that does not end well. Have you ever seen Jerry Michulek (sp?) speed firing a revolver? You quickly reach a logical conclusion that all guns must be banned. The fact that the SCOTUS refused to review the first domino here is troubling. But on the bright side, they also never said that the bump stock ban WAS constitutional, either. If a lawsuit like the one in this thread makes it to them, then hopefully they will be forced to review the entire issue.
Well......"can be readily RESTORED........" Per the definition of "restore", none of my AR15s can be restored to shoot more than one round per pull of trigger because they never originally could! Nothing to "restore" on my rifles.
"You may find me one day dead in a ditch somewhere. But by God, you'll find me in a pile of brass."~~ Tpr. M. Padgett
If the Democrats get control of the House and Senate, it will be all out war on firearms and they will use any justification they can to outlaw our firearms.
If the Democrats get control of the House and Senate, it will be all out war on firearms and they will use any justification they can to outlaw our firearms.
I must add it will be a actrul War on our soil if they try, just hope all gun owners, law enforcement, military personnel, ex-military ect. Follow the oath they took and we all stand together to fight these outrageous attempts to disarm Law Abiding Citizens. Kinda like the movie "Law Abiding Citizen" but worse!
One of my biggest mistakes in life...Is Believing people will show me the same love I've shown them.
Good luck with that. The bumpstock ban notwithstanding, an AR15 still only fires one round per function of the trigger—bumpstock or no bumpstock. And since the ban, there’s no lawful way (just like before bumpstocks were invented) to convert an AR15 to fire at the same rate as a fully automatic weapon.
An AR-15 with a bump stock only fires one round per trigger pull, the same as an AR-15 without one. A bump stock is not required to bump fire an AR-15. It can be "readily" done without a bump stock.
Any intellectually honest person who supported the Trump administration classifying bump stocks as MG must also support reclassifying AR-15 as MG, because they can be "readily" bump fired without modification. To do otherwise is intellectually dishonest.
That is the exact opposite of my point. My point is that the AR15 was never (since 1986) able to be lawfully converted to fully automatic fire, and (B) a bumpstock is not an auto sear. It’s still one round fired per trigger pull. Rate of fire is determined by how fast the trigger can be pulled.......just like ANY semiautomatic weapon. The danger of this lawsuit is that it could end up illegalizing ALL semiautomatic long guns....and of course the plaintiffs are well aware of that.
Give me Liberty, or I'll get up and get it myself.—Hookalakah Meshobbab
I don't carry because of the odds, I carry because of the stakes.—The Annoyed Boy
My dream is to have lived my life so well that future generations of leftists will demand my name be removed from buildings.
If the Democrats get control of the House and Senate, it will be all out war on firearms and they will use any justification they can to outlaw our firearms.
Dems had the Presidency, Senate and House in 2008-2010. My gun ownership remained unchanged until 2019 when I became a criminal for owning a piece of plastic accessory.
If the Democrats get control of the House and Senate, it will be all out war on firearms and they will use any justification they can to outlaw our firearms.
Dems had the Presidency, Senate and House in 2008-2010. My gun ownership remained unchanged until 2019 when I became a criminal for owning a piece of plastic accessory.
Yeah, they were preoccupied with destroying our healthcare system.
Well......"can be readily RESTORED........" Per the definition of "restore", none of my AR15s can be restored to shoot more than one round per pull of trigger because they never originally could! Nothing to "restore" on my rifles.
Exactly. Even if it were lawful for you to drop in the necessary parts, you’d still have to machine the lower receiver on the inside to accept the parts. Absent that machining, there’s nothing to restore. Whoever ends up representing the defense merely has to point this out.
Give me Liberty, or I'll get up and get it myself.—Hookalakah Meshobbab
I don't carry because of the odds, I carry because of the stakes.—The Annoyed Boy
My dream is to have lived my life so well that future generations of leftists will demand my name be removed from buildings.
If the Democrats get control of the House and Senate, it will be all out war on firearms and they will use any justification they can to outlaw our firearms.
Dems had the Presidency, Senate and House in 2008-2010. My gun ownership remained unchanged until 2019 when I became a criminal for owning a piece of plastic accessory.
Yeah, they were preoccupied with destroying our healthcare system.
Sorry I thought you said something about firearms.
If the Democrats get control of the House and Senate, it will be all out war on firearms and they will use any justification they can to outlaw our firearms.
Dems had the Presidency, Senate and House in 2008-2010. My gun ownership remained unchanged until 2019 when I became a criminal for owning a piece of plastic accessory.
Yeah, they were preoccupied with destroying our healthcare system.
Sorry I thought you said something about firearms.
I was but when you hopped in the way back machine, I thought I would try and explain the difference in then and now. If the dems had control of both today, we would have also lost the weapon that piece of plastic connects to.
Relying on the Same Illogic That Trump Used to Ban Bump Stocks, a New Lawsuit Argues That Customizable Rifles Are Illegal
The plaintiffs, parents of a woman who was murdered in the Las Vegas massacre, argue that bump stocks like the ones used in that attack convert semi-automatic rifles into illegal machine guns—a position that has been endorsed by the Trump administration. Therefore, they argue, AR-15s are themselves illegal, since the federal definition of machine guns includes firearms that "can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger."
AR-15s are machineguns by the same logic that makes bumpstocks machineguns.
"Eastern European intellectuals, reading 1984 in clandestine editions, were amazed to find that its author had never visited the Soviet Union. How, then, had he captured its mental and moral atmosphere? By reading its propaganda, and by paying attention..."
I must add it will be a actrul War on our soil if they try, just hope all gun owners, law enforcement, military personnel, ex-military ect. Follow the oath they took and we all stand together to fight these outrageous attempts to disarm Law Abiding Citizens. Kinda like the movie "Law Abiding Citizen" but worse!
