Suppressors New Law in Texas Deregulates Suppressors

[FuhQ]

I hear you, and it seems to me that SBRs can never stand the new tests, nor suppressors.

Because of the status of machine guns under the NFA, I think that is why the Supreme Court won't be addressing bump stocks. I think we are getting our 2A rights firmly supported, but machine guns are OOB, unless registered NFA style. I don't think SCOTUS is ready to open up machine gun ownership.

For the life of me, I don't the Supreme Court should address the bump stocks. They are shit accessories designed to increase the rate of fire. They have no value in hunting, competition, self-defense or warfare. You know, the things we say we have rights under the 2A, as opposed to hosing bullets around (which isn't protected under the 2A). I think it is a waste of time to have anything to do with them, personally or legislatively. I think people are railing at the ATF and administrations for taking actions against these POS accessories, due to the "make no concessions with the gun grabbers" philosophy.

I believe that whole dynamic changed with Bruen. We no longer need to be as aggressively on guard against every action by the gun grabbers as we see the worst of their schemes disposed of by the court with alacrity.

So lets not concentrate on the shit stocks and instead concentrate on SBRs and suppressors.

And by the way, the Mississippi governor signed a legalization of SBRs law a week ago. Someone needs to get the TX legislature to do the same. I think if enough states do this (with suppressors and SBRs) it might accelerate the process.

Well, you can be a Fudd all you want, and sit here and rail about things that don't affect you, simply because you don't care about them, when in reality, their decision affects everyone, and not just people who own bumpstocks. Yes, bumpstocks are useless pieces of plastic. They're novelty items AT BEST. But the fact remains, it's the principle of the issue that the ATF decided willy-nilly to ban them based on Trump's and the Fudd-ass weak beta NRA's stupidity towards firearms, because he fell for the CIA/FBI false flag in Vegas, because he's not a gun guy, and doesn't know anything about how to distinguish impossibilities from reality when evidence is presented relating to gun related incidents. It was quite obvious that a geriatric MF'er with a bumpstock was not fixing to be prolific enough of a shot to start taking out folks at 300+ yards with AR15's and AR10's... Bumpstocks and shoulder-fired full-autos are not that accurate. Also, the fact he was such an expert at using the items, it sounded exactly like REAL full-auto fire, because there was no hiccups or stoppages other than mag swaps... Really makes you think, huh? Plus, let's not get started on the fact that you never saw the bodies, never saw blood, never saw the funerals, never saw the obituaries, saw a security guard in the crowd of people with an Uzi or MP5 (can't remember)... It was all a ruse by the government and alphabet boys to voluntarily strip us of our rights. It always is...Every false flag and mass shooting has been nothing more than an attempt to make us want to give up our rights in the name of "public safety".

It hinges on the principle of the fact that the ATF makes up laws on a whim, making law-abiding people into criminals overnight, simply because they are nothing more than lapdogs of the Democrat party and anti-gunners that donate huge money to them.

 

[FreedomandProsperity]

I hear you, and it seems to me that SBRs can never stand the new tests, nor suppressors.

Because of the status of machine guns under the NFA, I think that is why the Supreme Court won't be addressing bump stocks. I think we are getting our 2A rights firmly supported, but machine guns are OOB, unless registered NFA style. I don't think SCOTUS is ready to open up machine gun ownership.

For the life of me, I don't the Supreme Court should address the bump stocks. They are shit accessories designed to increase the rate of fire. They have no value in hunting, competition, self-defense or warfare. You know, the things we say we have rights under the 2A, as opposed to hosing bullets around (which isn't protected under the 2A). I think it is a waste of time to have anything to do with them, personally or legislatively. I think people are railing at the ATF and administrations for taking actions against these POS accessories, due to the "make no concessions with the gun grabbers" philosophy.

I believe that whole dynamic changed with Bruen. We no longer need to be as aggressively on guard against every action by the gun grabbers as we see the worst of their schemes disposed of by the court with alacrity.

So lets not concentrate on the shit stocks and instead concentrate on SBRs and suppressors.

And by the way, the Mississippi governor signed a legalization of SBRs law a week ago. Someone needs to get the TX legislature to do the same. I think if enough states do this (with suppressors and SBRs) it might accelerate the process.

There is no value in compromising with leftists, they are incrementalists. Anything you give them is the new starting point, we need to fight them on everything all the time.

 

[Yondering]

There is no value in compromising with leftists, they are incrementalists. Anything you give them is the new starting point, we need to fight them on everything all the time.

In principle, yes, that's true.

In reality - we're really bad at organizing to do anything about this stuff, and the few organizations who actually do fight for this stuff have limited time, staff, and financial resources and literally cannot fight everything.

While I'm not the kind of person to just shrug about the stuff being banned if it doesn't affect me, bumpstocks in particular are such a stupid and useless accessory that I'm perfectly fine with letting them go while we focus attention on SBRs and suppressors. In fact I'd be a little pissed off if my money went to fighting bumpstocks instead.

And JohnCarter is right about machine guns not passing the test of public impression; it's not time for those yet and most likely the NFA will remain intact because of them. But getting suppressors and SBRs/SBSs off the NFA - the time to do something about that has come.

 

[E. Bryant]

I agree that bumpstocks are dumb and personally I don't care if they are banned or given out freely at Halloween. But the fact that the ATF arbitrarily made an administrative ruling against an accessory worries me and this is the reason that I'd like to see push-back.

I was speaking with a fellow parent (a fellow FFL) at Boy Scouts last night about the upcoming pistol brace ban, and another parent overheard the conversation and joined in. This guy is certainly a bit more left on his gun control views, but after a few minutes of education on the NFA and SBRs, his take was "that's stupid". My point is that there's public support for striking down dumb regulations that goes beyond the hardcore 2A crowd.

 

[Yondering]

I was speaking with a fellow parent (a fellow FFL) at Boy Scouts last night about the upcoming pistol brace ban, and another parent overheard the conversation and joined in. This guy is certainly a bit more left on his gun control views, but after a few minutes of education on the NFA and SBRs, his take was "that's stupid". My point is that there's public support for striking down dumb regulations that goes beyond the hardcore 2A crowd.

Yes absolutely. I believe a big reason for that is we've successfully made both suppressors and SBRs (and especially pistols that look like SBRs) more mainstream over the past 10-15 years, compared to the common opinions 20 years ago of "suppressors are only hit man tools" etc. Because of where we are with that now, I think we have a really good chance of stripping down the NFA, if not abolishing it completely.

However - machine guns have not gained that public support, IMO largely because they haven't become mainstream due to the high cost of entry, and a lot of the public still feels there's no valid reason for you or I to own them. So my point is that I think we're unlikely to win on the machine gun front, unless we got a really favorable set of circumstances in court.

 

[FuhQ]

I agree that bumpstocks are dumb and personally I don't care if they are banned or given out freely at Halloween. But the fact that the ATF arbitrarily made an administrative ruling against an accessory worries me and this is the reason that I'd like to see push-back.

I was speaking with a fellow parent (a fellow FFL) at Boy Scouts last night about the upcoming pistol brace ban, and another parent overheard the conversation and joined in. This guy is certainly a bit more left on his gun control views, but after a few minutes of education on the NFA and SBRs, his take was "that's stupid". My point is that there's public support for striking down dumb regulations that goes beyond the hardcore 2A crowd.

THIS ^^^ is why it's important to not let them get away with it. It's not about the craptastic plastic bumpstocks, or the 80% receivers, or the pistol braces, FRT's, etc... It's about the fact that the ATF does NOT, by law, have the authority to arbitrarily declare Chevron Deference on a whim, over something they previously rules as legal, simply because some dickhole with billions of dollars tells them to ban them. They SHOULD NOT be allowed to randomly reverse a decision once declared legal...Period.

 

[FuhQ]

Yes absolutely. I believe a big reason for that is we've successfully made both suppressors and SBRs (and especially pistols that look like SBRs) more mainstream over the past 10-15 years, compared to the common opinions 20 years ago of "suppressors are only hit man tools" etc. Because of where we are with that now, I think we have a really good chance of stripping down the NFA, if not abolishing it completely.

However - machine guns have not gained that public support, IMO largely because they haven't become mainstream due to the high cost of entry, and a lot of the public still feels there's no valid reason for you or I to own them. So my point is that I think we're unlikely to win on the machine gun front, unless we got a really favorable set of circumstances in court.

True, but the fact that Clarence Thomas' clarification opinion on the Bruen ruling stated that the 2-tier system is no longer valid when it comes to 2nd Amendment cases... They can now ONLY use "Text, History, and Tradition". Therefore, the guise of "public safety" that Big Daddy Government loves to use so much to strip us of our rights, is no longer legally admissible in court, under the Bruen decision. Therefore, many of these old bullshit laws need to be challenged for legality based upon the Bruen ruling, without the 2-tier factor of "public safety" involved. Most all gun laws will be struct down if these asshat elitist judges would stop maligning themselves with the left, and ruling based on personal political opinions, instead of basing it on what the law actually states. The Supreme Court needs to stop allowing judges to rule based upon their own "interpretations" of laws...Because it seems most of them are too stupid to actually know the law, or too deep in the Elite's or Left's pockets or with blackmail on them, to rule honestly based on facts.