Lawsuit filed against Bump stocks, Feinstein crying

[Flash]

Any time that hateful lying Democrat asshole is pissed it is good for America.

It is illegal for the government to infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms.

Feinstein Fumes as GOA Formally Files Bump Stock Suit | Current Action Alerts

Sen. Feinstein upset about GOA’s lawsuit

Senator Feinstein Rails Against Gun Owners of America
Dear Friend:

Gun Owners of America today filed its lawsuit challenging the Trump administration’s illegal and unconstitutional bump stock ban.

GOA's action came on the same day the administration published the regulations in the Federal Register.

Already, gun control advocates have become very dispirited.

Senator Dianne Feinstein lamented that the lawsuit by Gun Owners of America would keep the bump stock ban “tied up in court for years.”

Well, well. Wouldn’t that just be a shame. LOL

Anyway, Gun Owners of America has filed its lawsuit in the Western District of Michigan. You can read it here.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Should't it be Trump that is fuming, not Feinstein? This is his baby.

by the way...the 2nd covers arms, not accessories.

 

[Flash]

 

[iceberg]

Should't it be Trump that is fuming, not Feinstein? This is his baby.

by the way...the 2nd covers arms, not accessories.

the bump stock itself is hardly worth fighting over. for the most part people just demand some form of victory, however useless it may be.

rubber bands will give the same effect. but people are in this for the "fight" not the "solution"; which is why we're still fighting over all this.

 

[Flash]

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Should't it be Trump that is fuming, not Feinstein? This is his baby.

by the way...the 2nd covers arms, not accessories.

the bump stock itself is hardly worth fighting over. for the most part people just demand some form of victory, however useless it may be.

rubber bands will give the same effect. but people are in this for the "fight" not the "solution"; which is why we're still fighting over all this.

Well said

 

[Bad Dad]

That bump stock toy was never the problem. It was a sacrificial lamb offered up by the NRA. You can have them back as far as I'm concerned. Anything that makes a person less accurate during a mass shooting is okay with me.

 

[Flash]

That bump stock toy was never the problem. It was a sacrificial lamb offered up by the NRA. You can have them back as far as I'm concerned. Anything that makes a person less accurate during a mass shooting is okay with me.

I agree. I do a lot of shooting but I don't own a bump stock. I have, however, shot bump stock equipped ARs. They are nothing more than range toys. They have no tactical use whatsoever. All they do is make a gun go bang-bang real fast.

The only reason the LV shooter was able to inflict so many casualties was because of his position firing into a crowd, not because of the firepower of the bump stocks. He would have been just as effective with semi auto fire, maybe more so. Since he had money he could have bought legal machine guns or black market F-A guns and that would have been worse. Even an illegally converted AR or AK would have been more lethal than the bump stocks. In fact reports are that the bump stocks caused the guns to jam so that was a good thing.

 

[Claudette]

I agree. Toys. And of course we get the knee jerk reaction about a toy.

 

[Flash]

I agree. Toys. And of course we get the knee jerk reaction about a toy.

I am a range officer and see bump stocks quite often. Firing in the bump stock mode I think most shooters would have a hard time hitting anything beyond 25 yds or so. They would empty a 30 rd magazine and I doubt two or three of the rounds would hit inside a man size target. Definitely not at 50 yds or beyond.

There was absolutely no reason to ban them.

I hope the GOA lawsuit is successful. It is time the courts start applying strict scrutiny to the Second Amendment as they do to the other rights. This crap of allowing infringement needs to stop.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

by the way...the 2nd covers arms, not accessories.

If you believe that:

1. you are no freedom lover....at all.

2. You don't understand the meaning of "arms." You're like those fools saying bullets are not covered.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Here's a compromise.

The bump stock in exchange for a repeal of the Hughes Amendment.

Deal?

Or, with the Court's make-up, maybe it's time to declare it unconstitutional (as it should have been long ago).

 

[Flash]

by the way...the 2nd covers arms, not accessories.

If you believe that:

1. you are no freedom lover....at all.

2. You don't understand the meaning of "arms." You're like those fools saying bullets are not covered.

Moon Bats are confused about a great many things.

Not understanding that a stock is an integral part of an "arm" is just one of the many things they are confused about.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

by the way...the 2nd covers arms, not accessories.

If you believe that:

1. you are no freedom lover....at all.

2. You don't understand the meaning of "arms." You're like those fools saying bullets are not covered.

Moon Bats are confused about a great many things.

Not understanding that a stock is an integral part of an "arm" is just one of the many things they are confused about.

That's the thing.

GolfGator is not a bad guy. I just think he is letting emotion rule here.

.

 

[Flash]

Here's a compromise.

The bump stock in exchange for a repeal of the Hughes Amendment.

Deal?

Or, with the Court's make-up, maybe it's time to declare it unconstitutional (as it should have been long ago).

Great deal! I'll take that any day.

Of course the Hughes Amendment was passed illegally so just another example of how the Democrats screwed us out of our rights.

 

[Flash]

by the way...the 2nd covers arms, not accessories.

If you believe that:

1. you are no freedom lover....at all.

2. You don't understand the meaning of "arms." You're like those fools saying bullets are not covered.

Moon Bats are confused about a great many things.

Not understanding that a stock is an integral part of an "arm" is just one of the many things they are confused about.

That's the thing.

GolfGator is not a bad guy. I just think he is letting emotion rule here.

.

Most of what I read in his posts is beaucoup dinky dau shit.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Should't it be Trump that is fuming, not Feinstein? This is his baby.

by the way...the 2nd covers arms, not accessories.

Agreed. I'm very pro Second Amendment, supporting few restrictions, but I could care less about the bump stock ban. If that's the extent of the gun control we need to be concerned about then we're golden.

 

[iceberg]

by the way...the 2nd covers arms, not accessories.

If you believe that:

1. you are no freedom lover....at all.

2. You don't understand the meaning of "arms." You're like those fools saying bullets are not covered.

Moon Bats are confused about a great many things.

Not understanding that a stock is an integral part of an "arm" is just one of the many things they are confused about.

That's the thing.

GolfGator is not a bad guy. I just think he is letting emotion rule here.

.

usually he doesn't lead with emotions.

from a strict standpoint, how is an "add on" a "firearm"? will the AR-15 fire w/o it? will it function any less w/o it? will a rubber band give you the same results if you want it?

for me - i don't think it's a firearm any more than adding say a bayonet onto a rifle makes the knife a "firearm".
i also don't think anyone outside of the vegas dude has ever used one. he also had enough legal and illegal firearms to where it simply didn't matter on the damage he decided to unfortunately do.
i do see it as a WE WILL NOT GIVE AN INCH either way as an "emotional" investment than trying to fix any problems we do have today. i see it as "give up the bump stock they come for xyz next" as a fear, or emotional, issue.

people FOR guns don't want *anything* banned. people AGAINST guns want SOMETHING banned and seldom know the differences in what they're asking for.

again, so you lose a bump stock. use a rubber band and move on. this ban itself fixes nothing and gives a pyrrhic victory, nothing more. pro-gun people don't want to give ANY victory, so they fight.

and it does get emotional.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

by the way...the 2nd covers arms, not accessories.

If you believe that:

1. you are no freedom lover....at all.

2. You don't understand the meaning of "arms." You're like those fools saying bullets are not covered.

1. Bite me.

2. Bullets are not accessories, they are a vital component to the operation of the arms. Accessories are optional items that do nothing for the operation of the arm.

Get a clue for a change


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[Oddball]

Should't it be Trump that is fuming, not Feinstein? This is his baby.

by the way...the 2nd covers arms, not accessories.

the bump stock itself is hardly worth fighting over. for the most part people just demand some form of victory, however useless it may be.

rubber bands will give the same effect. but people are in this for the "fight" not the "solution"; which is why we're still fighting over all this.

It's a little more than symbolism.

When this ban is shown to be ineffective against anything (which it is), its failure to achieve anything will be used as evidence by the anti-gun freaks as evidence that even more gun grabbing is called for.