Jerry Miculek is Used as an Example in the FPC Lawsuit Against the Bump Stock Ban


#21

Ding ding ding


#22

Lol. Read page 72 I think it was.


#23

I do not want to see that hand on your “bump stock”!!! This is a family place!! (Sort of):rofl:


#24

i don’t think it matters, why, the ATF in the final ruling address very specifically every single issue raised by the comment periods… on both sides. we have go for the root issue here and not get bogged down in 48 details, that split focus and is irrelevant in the scope of a lawsuit. you chop down the tree from the trunk and you are done. plus this approach helps bolster precedence for further over reach on other issues as well.


#25

you guys are quoting mechanical definitions of a machine gun, which is all well and good but the ATF in this ruling has changed one key aspect of the definitions… “function of the trigger” to “pull of the trigger” this means, as stated in their ruling, you MUST move the trigger with your finger once for every one round fired. a binary is safe, it is a pull and release, so two movements. so many are missing the point. they are changing the definition to suit the objective here, the are not “wrongly” classifying anything. they have done their homework on this… it is a pretty darn well constructed ruling and leave little to argue other than the manner in which it has been done… which is unconstitutional.


#26

also important to note, they are not making the act of bump firing illegal, this has by their admission in the ruling absolutely nothing to do with how fast you can manually manipulate the trigger without a device that requires no finger movement.


#27

Yep, that that myself when they banned bumpstocks in FL

right up till I couldn’t order one

funny thing, I still don’t think they’re illegal


#28

very different issue, the ruling states they are safe, lays out why and is correct with their interpretation and to why (even though their interpretation is wrong and unconstitutional)… so yeah, very different issue. didn’t the FL legislation include a “rate of fire increasing” or “other device” open door? there is no such thing in the ATF ruling, they did their homework, it is a specific and tight rule. this is not my thought or opinion, this is the text of the ruling.


#29

I don’t know what Fl did,

First they came for the bumpstocks, and I had no bumpstock

so I did nothing.


#30

Unfortunately when it comes to lawsuits, using as much ammunition as possible is the more secure way to go. And half of the document is pretty much basic education about firearms because not everyone involved in the lawsuit is going to be educated.

You need to preemptively go after all of the avenues the opponent will go after and shut down any of their arguments before they arise. If you only focus on one point, you’re opening yourself up to get attacked on all of these other points.

Furthermore.

The Firearms Policy Coalition has won multiple 2nd Amendment lawsuits. They know what they’re doing in this matter better than you or I do. I very much trust their approach.

They’re probably the only ones in this thread who have actually won a 2nd Amendment lawsuit in this manner. They’ve chosen this approach for a reason.

Edit: To be clear, I wish our legal system was straightforward enough to argue on a single point. This is that cut and dry after all. But the court system doesn’t much line up with reality.


#31

I’ve already seen gun control supporters bringing up the Heller ruling, claiming it supports banning bump stocks, because there is no legal use for a bump stock. No, I don’t understand how they arrived at that conclusion.

They claim that a bump stock makes a machinegun out of a semi-auto rifle. What does Heller say about machineguns?

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html

(around 3/4 of the way through the ruling)

We may as well consider at this point (for we will have to consider eventually) what types of weapons Miller permits. Read in isolation, Miller’ s phrase “part of ordinary military equipment” could mean that only those weapons useful in warfare are protected. That would be a startling reading of the opinion, since it would mean that the National Firearms Act’s restrictions on machineguns (not challenged in Miller ) might be unconstitutional, machineguns being useful in warfare in 1939.