As a pro-lifer I am good with this…
-
@Jolly said in As a pro-lifer I am good with this…:
Those are the rules that BATF has that conforms to who can own a Class III weapon as defined by the 1934 Firearms Act.
Bump stocks are not covered. It's a simple process if they want to enact further law, however.
@Jolly said in As a pro-lifer I am good with this…:
Bump stocks are not covered
Did bump stocks exist in 1934?
Revolvers did not exist in the time the constitution was written, so should they not be included in the "bear arms" section of the #2 Amendment?
-
@Jolly said in As a pro-lifer I am good with this…:
Bump stocks are not covered
Did bump stocks exist in 1934?
Revolvers did not exist in the time the constitution was written, so should they not be included in the "bear arms" section of the #2 Amendment?
@taiwan_girl said in As a pro-lifer I am good with this…:
(Disclaimer - the number of firearms I own is less than one)
Did bump stocks exist in 1934?
Probably not.
Revolvers did not exist in the time the constitution was written, so should they not be included in the "bear arms" section of the #2 Amendment?
Again, probably not. But that's not the point.
The point, as I see it, is what is the LAW. The law allows citizens to own firearms. That's been determined by SCOTUS. But, that's as far as it goes.
"Firearms" can include anything from muskets, to rifles, to BARs to 50-cals...to RPGs.
It's the job of Congress to define which are, and which are not available to the citizenry. Once again, Congress has failed to step up and legislate, allowing this BS to rise to the level of SCOTUS.
Make a law, test its constitutionality, and go on. Rely on legislation, not regulation.
"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08
The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.
-
@taiwan_girl said in As a pro-lifer I am good with this…:
(Disclaimer - the number of firearms I own is less than one)
Did bump stocks exist in 1934?
Probably not.
Revolvers did not exist in the time the constitution was written, so should they not be included in the "bear arms" section of the #2 Amendment?
Again, probably not. But that's not the point.
The point, as I see it, is what is the LAW. The law allows citizens to own firearms. That's been determined by SCOTUS. But, that's as far as it goes.
"Firearms" can include anything from muskets, to rifles, to BARs to 50-cals...to RPGs.
It's the job of Congress to define which are, and which are not available to the citizenry. Once again, Congress has failed to step up and legislate, allowing this BS to rise to the level of SCOTUS.
Make a law, test its constitutionality, and go on. Rely on legislation, not regulation.
@George-K said in As a pro-lifer I am good with this…:
Make a law, test its constitutionality, and go on. Rely on legislation, not regulation.
Agree 100%. But constitutionality is an interpretation of who is on the court at the moment is what i am trying to say. I am pretty sure that me buying an RPG is not allowed, though I am sure Jolly can confirm. (LOL) Why is it constitutionally allowed to ban that but not another type of weapon?
Anyway, interesting debate that will still probably be going on 100 years from now.
-
-
A former trump administration official said the other day that after Las Vegas the votes were there for a amendment to the law, but the administration decided to act in order to save a few republicans some tough votes.
This analyst says the votes may still be there but not in an election year.
-
@George-K said in As a pro-lifer I am good with this…:
Make a law, test its constitutionality, and go on. Rely on legislation, not regulation.
Agree 100%. But constitutionality is an interpretation of who is on the court at the moment is what i am trying to say. I am pretty sure that me buying an RPG is not allowed, though I am sure Jolly can confirm. (LOL) Why is it constitutionally allowed to ban that but not another type of weapon?
Anyway, interesting debate that will still probably be going on 100 years from now.
@taiwan_girl said in As a pro-lifer I am good with this…:
@George-K said in As a pro-lifer I am good with this…:
Make a law, test its constitutionality, and go on. Rely on legislation, not regulation.
Agree 100%. But constitutionality is an interpretation of who is on the court at the moment is what i am trying to say. I am pretty sure that me buying an RPG is not allowed, though I am sure Jolly can confirm. (LOL) Why is it constitutionally allowed to ban that but not another type of weapon?
Anyway, interesting debate that will still probably be going on 100 years from now.
When the Constitution was written, volley guns, Nock guns, pepperboxes and duckfoot pistols were all available. All of those are multi-barrel or multi-shot weapons.
Besides, if you had wanted to buy a 3-pounder cannon (pretty popular with Washington), it was well within your rights.
Oh, to answer your RPG question, you can legally own a RPG in the U.S. George can't. Six states do not allow private ownership of RPG's, Illinois being one of them.
“Cry havoc and let slip the DOGE of war!”
Those who cheered as J-6 American prisoners were locked in solitary for 18 months without trial, now suddenly fight tooth and nail for foreign terrorists’ "due process". — Buck Sexton
-
It wouldn’t be portable, but give Jolly an air compressor, a nail gun, some duck tape, and 30 minutes… He’ll come up with a home defense weapon that looks an awful lot like a fully automatic pistol and is completely legal.
-
Speaking of muzzleloader weapons...Told this before, but knew some coonasses in South Louisiana that made a cannon from a piece of three inch Schedule 80 pipe, piano wire and silver solder. They shot bent nails, old bolts, washers and even one time a broken up cast iron stove.
Nothing illegal about the weapon itself, except when they used it to hunt ducks.
-
@Mik said in As a pro-lifer I am good with this…:
Sounds like fun. Did they get any?
Somewhere around 50 or so. The cannon was mounted in a bateaux. To aim, you had to aim the boat. To compound the illegality, you do this at night, when ducks are "rafting". They'll gather up in huge groups out on the water. You very slowly and quietly paddle up to within range, aim and touch 'er off. Then, go pick up the ducks.
Like I said, I've known some critters...
-
@Mik said in As a pro-lifer I am good with this…:
Sounds like fun. Did they get any?
Somewhere around 50 or so. The cannon was mounted in a bateaux. To aim, you had to aim the boat. To compound the illegality, you do this at night, when ducks are "rafting". They'll gather up in huge groups out on the water. You very slowly and quietly paddle up to within range, aim and touch 'er off. Then, go pick up the ducks.
Like I said, I've known some critters...
-
@Mik said in As a pro-lifer I am good with this…:
@Jolly That would make an excellent episode of Duck Dynasty.
Except all participants would go directly to jail.
-
@Mik said in As a pro-lifer I am good with this…:
@Jolly That would make an excellent episode of Duck Dynasty.
Except all participants would go directly to jail.
@Jolly said in As a pro-lifer I am good with this…:
@Mik said in As a pro-lifer I am good with this…:
@Jolly That would make an excellent episode of Duck Dynasty.
Except all participants would go directly to jail.
Yeah, that'd just make the episode even better! For ratings, of course.
-
@taiwan_girl said in As a pro-lifer I am good with this…:
@George-K said in As a pro-lifer I am good with this…:
Make a law, test its constitutionality, and go on. Rely on legislation, not regulation.
Agree 100%. But constitutionality is an interpretation of who is on the court at the moment is what i am trying to say. I am pretty sure that me buying an RPG is not allowed, though I am sure Jolly can confirm. (LOL) Why is it constitutionally allowed to ban that but not another type of weapon?
Anyway, interesting debate that will still probably be going on 100 years from now.
When the Constitution was written, volley guns, Nock guns, pepperboxes and duckfoot pistols were all available. All of those are multi-barrel or multi-shot weapons.
Besides, if you had wanted to buy a 3-pounder cannon (pretty popular with Washington), it was well within your rights.
Oh, to answer your RPG question, you can legally own a RPG in the U.S. George can't. Six states do not allow private ownership of RPG's, Illinois being one of them.
@Jolly said in As a pro-lifer I am good with this…:
Oh, to answer your RPG question, you can legally own a RPG in the U.S.
Yes, but...........
Yes, you can own an RPG in the USA. If it is functional, it would require a tax stamp and a year-long background check.
https://www.ncesc.com/gaming-pedia/is-it-illegal-to-own-an-rpg-in-the-us/So, they are treating the purchase differently than buying a handgun. There is obviously an "interpretation" on how different arms should are treating. Should we make buying a handgun have the same requirement?
-
@Jolly said in As a pro-lifer I am good with this…:
Oh, to answer your RPG question, you can legally own a RPG in the U.S.
Yes, but...........
Yes, you can own an RPG in the USA. If it is functional, it would require a tax stamp and a year-long background check.
https://www.ncesc.com/gaming-pedia/is-it-illegal-to-own-an-rpg-in-the-us/So, they are treating the purchase differently than buying a handgun. There is obviously an "interpretation" on how different arms should are treating. Should we make buying a handgun have the same requirement?
@taiwan_girl said in As a pro-lifer I am good with this…:
@Jolly said in As a pro-lifer I am good with this…:
Oh, to answer your RPG question, you can legally own a RPG in the U.S.
Yes, but...........
Yes, you can own an RPG in the USA. If it is functional, it would require a tax stamp and a year-long background check.
https://www.ncesc.com/gaming-pedia/is-it-illegal-to-own-an-rpg-in-the-us/So, they are treating the purchase differently than buying a handgun. There is obviously an "interpretation" on how different arms should are treating. Should we make buying a handgun have the same requirement?
Does your back get sore from moving the goalposts?
-
@taiwan_girl said in As a pro-lifer I am good with this…:
@Jolly said in As a pro-lifer I am good with this…:
Oh, to answer your RPG question, you can legally own a RPG in the U.S.
Yes, but...........
Yes, you can own an RPG in the USA. If it is functional, it would require a tax stamp and a year-long background check.
https://www.ncesc.com/gaming-pedia/is-it-illegal-to-own-an-rpg-in-the-us/So, they are treating the purchase differently than buying a handgun. There is obviously an "interpretation" on how different arms should are treating. Should we make buying a handgun have the same requirement?
Does your back get sore from moving the goalposts?
@Jolly said in As a pro-lifer I am good with this…:
@taiwan_girl said in As a pro-lifer I am good with this…:
@Jolly said in As a pro-lifer I am good with this…:
Oh, to answer your RPG question, you can legally own a RPG in the U.S.
Yes, but...........
Yes, you can own an RPG in the USA. If it is functional, it would require a tax stamp and a year-long background check.
https://www.ncesc.com/gaming-pedia/is-it-illegal-to-own-an-rpg-in-the-us/So, they are treating the purchase differently than buying a handgun. There is obviously an "interpretation" on how different arms should are treating. Should we make buying a handgun have the same requirement?
Does your back get sore from moving the goalposts?
LOL I think my point is valid. I am looking at the big picture.
