Bump Stock ban - overturned SC





svnmag

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2015
Posts
17,723
Likes
2,931
Points
783
Location
Here
I'm worried they're more attractive to the wrong element. I'm confused how they came to this decision when F/A requires FFL. The nomenclature is semantics. The result is the same.
 

Obi-Wan

Founding Member
Founding Member
Thread starter
Joined
May 15, 2015
Posts
8,288
Likes
4,359
Points
808
Location
Bismarck
I'm worried they're more attractive to the wrong element. I'm confused how they came to this decision when F/A requires FFL. The nomenclature is semantics. The result is the same.
By definition bump stocks do not turn a semi auto into full auto. reading the tea leaves this court sick of the executive branch making laws by executive order and is pushing back.
 

svnmag

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2015
Posts
17,723
Likes
2,931
Points
783
Location
Here
Agree about the E/0: The nomenclature and product are semantics. Same result/different component. I'd surmise this simple argument wasn't effectively presented to SCOTUS.

Weapons have long ago advanced above "polite society". Conversely, laws really don't prevent SHIT.

I heard the rate of fire in Vegas. Thank God the POS was an "ineffective" fucktard. This was a Fed Op IMO.
 

espringers

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
May 18, 2015
Posts
8,262
Likes
1,032
Points
488
Location
Devils Lake
I got to say I agree with this decision. If the lawmakers want to make them illegal, alls they got to do is draft some clear laws making them illegal. Which they haven't.
 


Recent Posts

Friends of NDA

Top Posters of the Month

  • This month: 302
  • This month: 168
  • This month: 156
  • This month: 118
  • This month: 92
  • This month: 86
  • This month: 81
  • This month: 67
  • This month: 62
  • This month: 61
Top Bottom