Yet they’re now pushing ahead with rule changes (the infamous bump-stock ban) based on weapons whose interior workings they never saw. Not allowed to see. By whom? How? Why?
What’s the term for this form of government? Bad (of course). Bureaucratic. Arbitrary. Stupid. Fiat-driven. Incompetent. Tyrannical. Agenda-based. Incompetently arbitrary. Arbitrarily incompetently fiat-driven. Of the Star Chamber. Evil. Incompetently arbitrarily evil.
On the other hand, you’ve got to love an email that opens, “Oh, and I sued the FBI yesterday, as well …”
Len Savage (writer of said email) and Stephen Stamboulieh, attorney extraordinaire, are on the case once again.
That’s not actually a very good reason to bring suet against the ATF. Does the banning of a simple accessory depend on whether some guy used one once? Who cares if he did or he didn’t. It’s not relevant.
Banning BumpStocks isn’t about the BumpStock it’s about the banning. The President told the DOJ to tell the ATF to ban them and the DOJ wrote much of the language. This is an egregious violation of the Constitution (I know, I know). The DOJ even went as far as changing the meaning words to do this. The extra-constitutional procedure and infringement of rights is what needs to be challenged because if it isn’t then the Pres can ban any gun he feels like willy nilly. Poof, your revolver is now a high capacity machine gun, sorry, you have to turn it in or get Red Flagged.
You don’t need to see the innards.
Make darn sure firearm is unloaded and pointed in a safe direction.
Close bolt, click safety off.
Squeeze and hold trigger to dry fire.
Holding trigger, pull bolt open and release.
If the hammer falls/striker is released/bolt closes to dry fire again, the firearm is automatic. If it remains cocked, it’s semiauto.
Easy-peasy.
Larry, you’re really suggesting that the ATF try using logic? 😉
Even if they did exercise anything as foreign to them as logic … for ATF/evidentiary purposes Larry’s test wouldn’t be enough. Part of their job is to be able to describe the specific modifications that might (or might not) have been made to a firearm.
So that would involve… Examining the weapons they are testilying about, then?
Um … yeah, something like that. I think you’ve got it.
Theoretically their failure to examine the inner workings could also shoot down the bump-stock ban. But I guess that would be asking too much from our friends at the DoJ.
How would the failure to test it/them affect the ban? Did the ATF test lawn darts? It’s too narrow a focus y’all, to pin the future of the 2A on. And it concedes that a prior machine ban would be lawful which it is not, and sufficient which wouldn’t prove that he did or did not use a bump stock anyway. I’m telling you, whether he used a machine gun or or a squirt gun matters not to the administrative banning of an item. They could have decided to ban Sno Cone Machines because of Vegas, so.
“It’s too narrow a focus y’all, to pin the future of the 2A on.”
I doubt anybody’s pinning the future of the Second Amendment on this. But as a manufacturer of weapons, Len Savage had been challenging the ATF on its many failures of details, procedures, and principles for years. And if this helps show up the folly and unconstitutionality of the bump-stock ban, I say more power to Len and Stephen Stamboulieh once again.
It may not be the ground other activists would choose to stand on, but it’s what these guys do.
Rating right up there with the Warren Commission.Great terrorist attack cover-up.
Why “examine” something if you already know the answer? (Besides which, I wouldn’t trust a bunch of people who can’t read with comprehension to examine a “Keep Out” sign.)
But furthermore, wait, Larry. IIRC, the FBI lab has to have it for a day, so they can see if they can manage to make it fire more than one round. Would they lie?
And if we can’t trust Comey, McCabe, Strzok, and Mueller to gang-rape the Bill of Rights, who CAN we trust?
Thank you Claire, that’s the background I didn’t know. Still, somebody needs to challenge the ban of gun parts in general and since our ever vigilant NRA supports the bump stock ban, well, it will have to be somebody who is pro gun then.
for ATF/evidentiary purposes
True. However, the Q&D test would tell them which ones to open up.
And by the way, “modifications” aren’t necessary. A sear worn enough to let a semiauto double or triple can also hang you.