Massachuettes orders residents to surrender bump stocks

[Wyatt earp]

You might have an argument ifit applied only to items which were acquired illegally in the first place. But that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about property that was legally-acquired, and legal to possess and use at the time that it was acquired, with a corrupt government deciding after the fact to make it illegal to continue to possess or use. To deprive owners of that property, without just compensation, blatantly violates the Fifth Amendment's prohibition against such.

Sorry, that is not required for illegally held items.

If I buy a RADAR Detector in a State where it is legal and use it in a State where it is illegal, I'm still in violation of the law and it will be confiscated and I'll be charged even though I acquired it legally.

See, also, Article I, Section 10, of the Constitution, which prohibits “ex post facto Law”. It's unconstitutional to punish someone for an act that was legal at the time it was taken, but which was made illegal afterward.

No one will punished for owning a bump stock in the past (which is an ex post facto law means). They will only be punished if they are found to be in possession of a bump stock AFTER the date the law becomes effective. That is not an ex post facto law.


>>>>

Radar dectors are not protected by the constitution the right to bear arms is.

Actually radar detectors are protected by the Federal Communications Act of 1934. The Virginia state law --- the only one left, if it even still exists --- is countermanded by Federal law.

Say what radar guns didn't even first appear in cop cars till 1949



Radar gun - Wikipedia




.

 

[Pogo]

You might have an argument ifit applied only to items which were acquired illegally in the first place. But that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about property that was legally-acquired, and legal to possess and use at the time that it was acquired, with a corrupt government deciding after the fact to make it illegal to continue to possess or use. To deprive owners of that property, without just compensation, blatantly violates the Fifth Amendment's prohibition against such.

Sorry, that is not required for illegally held items.

If I buy a RADAR Detector in a State where it is legal and use it in a State where it is illegal, I'm still in violation of the law and it will be confiscated and I'll be charged even though I acquired it legally.

See, also, Article I, Section 10, of the Constitution, which prohibits “ex post facto Law”. It's unconstitutional to punish someone for an act that was legal at the time it was taken, but which was made illegal afterward.

No one will punished for owning a bump stock in the past (which is an ex post facto law means). They will only be punished if they are found to be in possession of a bump stock AFTER the date the law becomes effective. That is not an ex post facto law.


>>>>

Radar dectors are not protected by the constitution the right to bear arms is.

Actually radar detectors are protected by the Federal Communications Act of 1934. The Virginia state law --- the only one left, if it even still exists --- is countermanded by Federal law.

Say what radar guns didn't even first appear in cop cars till 1949


Radar gun - Wikipedia


.

A radar detector is a radio receiver. That's all it is. And the FCA1934 guarantees the right to own a radio receiver.
Just as we can have police scanners if we want them.

 

[Anathema]

And just out of curiosity... What do you think would have happened to the citizen who stood his ground, and actively denied the police entry without a warrant?

The exact same thing I expect to happen when they come for my guns... a shootout, with the police winning.

I hate to break it to many of the folks reading this; but... When they come for your guns, they aren’t going to send out a memo, or warn you in advance. No ones going to knock on your door, and say “I’m here to take away your guns.”

That's why I go armed in my own home. Additionally, I'm never more than a step away from more weapons in my home.

 

[rightwinger]

Other than slaughtering people

Nobody has any need for a bumpstock

 

[Vastator]

I’ll venture guess how it would have played out...
The home owner could have denied them entry. Grabbed his gun, and begin firing on officers invading his home without a warrant. And regardless of how many he took down. The homeowner would have been killed.
And good little sheep like yourself who are all too eager to please authority, and virtue signal that “I’m one of you”. Would support and applause the police murdering your fellow citizen for defending himself, his family and his home, from out of control authority.
That’s the same way we all one day will lose our right to keep and bear arms.

 

[Vastator]

Other than slaughtering people

Nobody has any need for a bumpstock

Needs are a non issue.

 

[Anathema]

Other than slaughtering people

Nobody has any need for a bumpstock

Plenty of people out there who need to be slaughtered.

 

[rightwinger]

rotflmfao! GD regressives are stupid! No stock needed liars!

That's too bad

Looks like there is nothing to prevent turning a semiautomatic into fully automatic

Since we don't allow fully automatic weapons........

 

[Vastator]

rotflmfao! GD regressives are stupid! No stock needed liars!

Since we don't allow fully automatic weapons........

There really isn’t anything to discuss. Clearly the situation has been handled. Moving right along...

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Actually radar detectors are protected by the Federal Communications Act of 1934. The Virginia state law --- the only one left, if it even still exists --- is countermanded by Federal law.

Say what radar guns didn't even first appear in cop cars till 1949

As far as I can tell, the relevance is this: Among other things, the Federal Communications Act of 1934 establishes that one has a right to possess and operate a passive radio receiver, to detect and receive any radio signals that happen to be passing his way. Even in the absence of a law to affirm it, this seems a rather obvious natural right. If one is having radio signals passing through one's person, a right to detect and receive these signals seems rather obvious, as does a lack of any right on the part of anyone transmitting such signals to maintain any secrecy against those who are touched or affected by them. As a matter of obvious ethical principle, if you do not want someone to know that you are broadcasting a radio signal in their direction, then your only valid recourse is to not broadcast a radio signal in their direction.

Radar, of course, wasn't invented until about a decade or so later, and it wasn't until well past that point that police adapted it for speed enforcement, but the principle that was earlier established still applies. If someone is broadcasting a radio signal at you, then you are entirely within your rights to possess and operate equipment that is able to receive and detect that signal. If they don't want you to detect or receive that signal, then their only valid recourse is to not be broadcasting it in your direction.

 

[miketx]

rotflmfao! GD regressives are stupid! No stock needed liars!

That's too bad

Looks like there is nothing to prevent turning a semiautomatic into fully automatic

Since we don't allow fully automatic weapons........

Liar, it's not full auto. I pray you sorry scum get what you're begging for.

 

[August West]

The state of Massachusetts is ordering residents to surrender any bump stocks in their possession, making clear that even keeping such an accessory at home is prohibited.
Massachusetts Orders Residents to Surrender Bump Stocks
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No, they haven't been trying to take the guns.........They have been working on it since Obama and a little during Bush.
States are starting to wheedle away the peopel's rights.

What can happens in the disarmed US look Germany.
Merkel loves defenseless citizens and promotes her own Anti-White Agenda!

Germany wasn`t disarmed and Merkel is the leader of the free world.

It was disarmed in the 1920s...then they used the registration lists to disarm and then murder 12 million people......

They were disarmed after behaving badly from 1914-1918 and then Hitler rearmed them when he distributed hundreds of thousands of weapons and snappy looking uniforms to wear. Some folks were given tanks and flamethrowers.

 

[Vastator]

Actually radar detectors are protected by the Federal Communications Act of 1934. The Virginia state law --- the only one left, if it even still exists --- is countermanded by Federal law.

Say what radar guns didn't even first appear in cop cars till 1949

As far as I can tell, the relevance is this: Among other things, the Federal Communications Act of 1934 establishes that one has a right to possess and operate a passive radio receiver, to detect and receive any radio signals that happen to be passing his way. Even in the absence of a law to affirm it, this seems a rather obvious natural right. If one is having radio signals passing through one's person, a right to detect and receive these signals seems rather obvious, as does a lack of any right on the part of anyone transmitting such signals to maintain any screcy against those who are touched or affected by them. As a matter of obvious ethical principle, if you do not want someone to know that you are broadcasting a radio signal in their direction, then your only valid recourse is to not broadcast a radio signal in their direction.

Radar, of course, wasn't invented until about a decade or so later, and it wasn't until well past that point that police adapted it for speed enforcement, but the principle that was earlier established still applies. If someone is broadcasting a radio signal at you, then you are entirely within your rights toposess and operate equipment that is able to receive and detect that signal. If they don't want you to detect or receive that signal, then their only valid recourse is to not be broadcasting it in your direction.

I’d love to see someone invent a detector that utilizes their own body to detect these waves put out by LE, and when busted use the my body, my choice defense and sue them into oblivion.

 

[Vastator]

The state of Massachusetts is ordering residents to surrender any bump stocks in their possession, making clear that even keeping such an accessory at home is prohibited.
Massachusetts Orders Residents to Surrender Bump Stocks
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No, they haven't been trying to take the guns.........They have been working on it since Obama and a little during Bush.
States are starting to wheedle away the peopel's rights.

What can happens in the disarmed US look Germany.
Merkel loves defenseless citizens and promotes her own Anti-White Agenda!

Germany wasn`t disarmed and Merkel is the leader of the free world.

It was disarmed in the 1920s...then they used the registration lists to disarm and then murder 12 million people......

They were disarmed after behaving badly from 1914-1918 and then Hitler rearmed them when he distributed hundreds of thousands of weapons and snappy looking uniforms to wear. Some folks were given tanks and flamethrowers.

The unis were snappy! Weren’t they? The man had style that’s for sure!

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

Do you like it when people are slaughtered?

Do you like it when the Constitution is ignored. This is how avalanches are started. Take away bump stocks and when that doesn't work move to ban the next "scary" item.

I wouldn't use a bump stock anywhere else but on a range they are not reliable enough for defensive or offensive use.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Actually radar detectors are protected by the Federal Communications Act of 1934. The Virginia state law --- the only one left, if it even still exists --- is countermanded by Federal law.

Say what radar guns didn't even first appear in cop cars till 1949

As far as I can tell, the relevance is this: Among other things, the Federal Communications Act of 1934 establishes that one has a right to possess and operate a passive radio receiver, to detect and receive any radio signals that happen to be passing his way. Even in the absence of a law to affirm it, this seems a rather obvious natural right. If one is having radio signals passing through one's person, a right to detect and receive these signals seems rather obvious, as does a lack of any right on the part of anyone transmitting such signals to maintain any screcy against those who are touched or affected by them. As a matter of obvious ethical principle, if you do not want someone to know that you are broadcasting a radio signal in their direction, then your only valid recourse is to not broadcast a radio signal in their direction.

Radar, of course, wasn't invented until about a decade or so later, and it wasn't until well past that point that police adapted it for speed enforcement, but the principle that was earlier established still applies. If someone is broadcasting a radio signal at you, then you are entirely within your rights toposess and operate equipment that is able to receive and detect that signal. If they don't want you to detect or receive that signal, then their only valid recourse is to not be broadcasting it in your direction.

I’d love to see someone invent a detector that utilizes their own body to detect these waves put out by LE, and when busted use the my body, my choice defense and sue them into oblivion.

This reminds me off people who claim to pick up radio signals in their fillings of teeth

 

[Vastator]

Do you like it when people are slaughtered?

Do you like it when the Constitution is ignored. This is how avalanches are started. Take away bump stocks and when that doesn't work move to ban the next "scary" item.

I wouldn't use a bump stock anywhere else but on a range they are not reliable enough for defensive or offensive use.

Exactly. Bump stocks are nothing more than a gimmick to real shooters. To antis however... they are a Trojan horse.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Do you like it when the Constitution is ignored. This is how avalanches are started. Take away bump stocks and when that doesn't work move to ban the next "scary" item.

I wouldn't use a bump stock anywhere else but on a range they are not reliable enough for defensive or offensive use.

If it was just about bump stocks, with no further implications, I would have no problem with banning them. They seem to me like a device with no rationally-useful purpose, except to those who are in the business of selling ammunition, and who would therefore profit more, the more of it is wastefully fired to no effect. In any practical situation, any benefit to the higher rate of fire would be entirely lost in the lack of controllability and accuracy. There's no point in sending a lot of bullets into the air, if your gun is jumping around so much that you have little control over where those bullets are going.

My problem with any legislation against bump stocks is in the precedents that are thus set—precedents to further weaken the Second Amendment in general, as well as precedents that weaken the right of citizens under the Fifth Amendment not to be deprived of lawfully-acquired property without just compensation.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Do you like it when the Constitution is ignored. This is how avalanches are started. Take away bump stocks and when that doesn't work move to ban the next "scary" item.

I wouldn't use a bump stock anywhere else but on a range they are not reliable enough for defensive or offensive use.

If it was just about bump stocks, with no further implications, I would have no problem with banning them. They seem to me like a device with no rationally-useful purpose, except to those who are in the business of selling ammunition, and who would therefore profit more, the more of it is wastefully fired to no effect. In any practical situation, any benefit to the higher rate of fire would be entirely lot by the lack of controllability and accuracy.

My problem with any legislation against bump stocks is in the precedents that are thus set—precedents to further weaken the Second Amendment in general, as well as precedents that weaken the right of citizens under the Fifth Amendment not to be deprived of lawfully-acquired property without just compensation.

Banning anything mechanical is useless, people will just make them.

 

[Vastator]

Do you like it when the Constitution is ignored. This is how avalanches are started. Take away bump stocks and when that doesn't work move to ban the next "scary" item.

I wouldn't use a bump stock anywhere else but on a range they are not reliable enough for defensive or offensive use.

If it was just about bump stocks, with no further implications, I would have no problem with banning them. They seem to me like a device with no rationally-useful purpose, except to those who are in the business of selling ammunition, and who would therefore profit more, the more of it is wastefully fired to no effect. In any practical situation, any benefit to the higher rate of fire would be entirely lost in the lack of controllability and accuracy. There's no point in sending a lot of bullets into the air, if your gun is jumping around so much that you have little control over where those bullets are going.

My problem with any legislation against bump stocks is in the precedents that are thus set—precedents to further weaken the Second Amendment in general, as well as precedents that weaken the right of citizens under the Fifth Amendment not to be deprived of lawfully-acquired property without just compensation.

I have a problem with it! Not one fucking inch!