Tags
BATF, Bill Flores, Bump Fire Stock, Carlos Curbelo, Charlie Brown, Chuck Schumer, Democrats, Lucy, Seth Moulton, the stupid party
In “Bump Fire Circular Firing Squad,” I wrote:
While I have no interest in bump stocks, they are legal under current law, and we still have no idea whether they were used in the Las Vegas attack. There is no real evidence the public is clamoring for the banning of these devices, but if the members of the Stupid Party feel it necessary to surrender to Democrats, as they commonly do, why not get something unquestionably good for liberty out of the deal? Unfortunately, this would require Republicans to actually do something good for the nation, and Democrats probably wouldn’t give up anything to obtain their objectives anyway. Why should they when they can count, as usual, on Republicans bravely running away?
Surrender, in this instance, may have a high price. Considering Republican’s failure to repeal Obamacare in even the slightest way, most Americans that put President Trump in the White House are unlikely to think Republicans are capable of delivering tax reform, immigration reform, or anything else worthwhile. Being complicit in the degradation of the Second Amendment just might be a last straw.
The concern is Congressional Republicans, as is their wont, would give a victory to Democrats, a victory that would damage the second Amendment, and would give it away gratis; they would get nothing of value in return. In this, they are like Charlie Brown, the eternal optimist, never failing to believe Lucy, who will, as surely as death and taxes, pull away the football.
I covered a good example of this in January of 2017 in Schumer And The Democrats: integrity And Honor? That article told of a deal made by Chuck Schumer, the Senate Minority Leader, for the confirmation of Mike Pompeo as CIA director on inauguration day. Schumer welched on the deal, claiming he doesn’t speak for every Democrat in the Senate. I concluded thus:
Perhaps Republicans should demand every agreement in writing? One doesn’t secure gentlemen’s agreements with people that have demonstrated, for decades, they are not gentlemen—and ladies. Democrats would still lie, but at least there would documentary evidence of the truth when they lie about lying thereafter.
With this, Senate Democrats have demonstrated their intentions for the future with crystal clarity. All that remains to be seen is how quickly, like Charlie Brown trusting Lucy, time after time, to hold the football for him, it takes Republicans to delude themselves into believing Democrats can be trusted.
I give it less than 24 hours.
It appears Republicans haven’t learned a thing, as Reason.com reports:
The bipartisan gun control measure we told you would follow the horrific shooting October 1 in Las Vegas was introduced Tuesday in the House by a Republican and a Democrat, with exactly 10 members of each party co-sponsoring.
The bill drafted by Rep. Carlos Curbelo (R–Fla.) and Seth Moulton (D– Mass.) intends to make illegal bump stocks or ‘any part or combination of parts that is designed and functions to increase the rate of fire of a semi-automatic rifle.’
Binary triggers, which fires [sic] a round on both the pull and release of the trigger, would also likely be prohibited under this language, as would lighter triggers, and heavier recoil springs, both of which allow for a faster rate of fire.
What is shocking is just how broad the language of their bill is. The law promises to ban any part that increases the rate of fire from a semi-automatic weapon, meaning more than just bump stocks could be on the chopping block.
This is the actual text of the proposed law:
(aa) It shall be unlawful for any person–
(1) in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, to manufacture, possess, or transfer any part of combination of parts that is designed and functions to increase the rate of fire of a semiautomatic rifle but does not convert the semiautomatic rifle into a machinegun…
Curbelo seems rather proud of himself:
Curbelo said in a press release, ‘this common-sense legislation will ban devices that blatantly circumvent already existing law without restricting Second Amendment rights.’ The representative added that the bill was an ‘important first step to address gun violence.
Curbelo, and his fellow RINOS, are very much ahead of themselves. We still have no idea whether a bump fire stock was used in the Las Vegas attack, and if it was not, there is no known use of such stocks in a crime, let alone a mass casualty attack, so there is no “gun violence”–a deceptive, grammatically and logically fallacious term invented by anti-liberty gun banners–related to bump fire stocks to be addressed.
The law demonstrates why law written in the aftermath of an outrage is bad law, and why firearm law is not for novices. Light, target triggers, or merely triggers that reset slightly more quickly than a mil spec AR trigger would clearly be unlawful, but even this may be too optimistic, because the law doesn’t define a baseline rate of fire, or trigger specifications by which to measure any “part or combination of parts.” The proposed law does not, in any way, define “to increase the rare of fire of a semiautomatic rifle.” Does this mean cyclic rate? Effective rate? An average rate of fire for a given population and a given rifle, however measured? Would one round faster be unlawful, or would at least two be required? In what time frame? Curbelo is not alone:
Rep. Bill Flores (R-Texas), a gun owner, was the first conservative to announce he would support a ban. Several other Republican lawmakers followed suit, with many more expressing an openness to hold hearings on the matter.
As I’ve previously noted, Democrats are surely delighted with the prospect of the slippery slope Republicans are, without any prompting, greasing for them. Even as Republicans charge blindly toward them, having experienced decades of democrat lies and corruption, and knowing they cannot be trusted to honor the Constitution or tell the truth to Republicans or the American public, Democrats are snickering and primed to pull the football away again. They’re not surprised by Republican stupidity; they’re counting on it.
Not only do hearings and the legislative process give Democrats the opportunity to add all manner of amendments regarding magazine capacity–don’t larger magazine increase rate of fire?–and a wide variety of their other favorite anti-liberty ideas, it opens the field to even more in the future. And best of all, Republicans still show not the slightest hint of an intention to use this issue to secure constitutional priorities such as removing unnecessary federal restrictions on suppressors–which are entirely legal–and on universal concealed carry, which is unquestionably a law that has helped reduce crime and saved innumerable lives. The Stupid Party is far too–well, stupid–to demand anything like that.
This apparently unprovoked Republican surrender is also premature in that the BATF has not revisited its 2010 ruling legalizing bump fire stocks. If Democrats want bump fire stocks, write a law–a very narrow, careful law that can’t be expanded beyond the topic at hand–but pass it only in exchange for full normalization of suppressors, and universal concealed carry reciprocity. Oh, and give them bump fire stocks only after the quid pro quo has been passed and signed into law. Don’t let them pull this particular football–again.
Flat Out Unconstitutional – Kindle edition by A M Perez. Politics …
https://www.amazon.com/Flat-Out-Unconstitutional-M-Perez-ebook/…/B00XGANFD…
Any and every INFRINGEMENT upon the Second Amendment–or any change in the meaning and intent of any Amendment–should require an amendment to the Constitution! Yes, that fact has been ignored for more than a century, bit that doesn’t negate the facts of the matter.
If I could afford to purchase a McDonnell-Douglas F/A-18, and desired to do so, then the “meaning and intent” of the Second Amendment permits me to do so. Same goes for one of those awesome M-1 Abrams tanks. As long as I obey FAA flight rules and local traffic (and parking) laws, who says I can’t have them?
Here’s how it is supposed to work, in Constitutional Law. If The Gov. and The People do not want me to flying back and forth from PBIA and Hawaii in my less than fully tricked-out F-18 Hornet, then amend the Constitution.
It is not for any court, not even SCOTUS, to decide to decide if I get my tank. It is the responsibility of the Image result for who can amend the constitution
en.wikipedia.org
The Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures.Aug 15, 2016
Will our corrupt clowns in Washington, D.C. ever ENFORCE our Constitution as it was written and intended? Sure, right after they pass Term Limits.
Dear gimwriter:
While I agree with you on the issue of Second Amendment infringement, my question is whether it is too much to ask that while the members of the stupid party stampede to outdo Democrats, is it too much to ask they engage in a bit of horse trading that would leave the Second Amendment stronger rather than weaker?
I suspect the answer is yes.
Yes Sir! They’ll never give me my tank. So, I agree that we at least have to stop the bleeding.
They had better think twice before following that jew Schumner to banning guns.
edteach: A bristling warning, cool. But you lost me and most intelligent people with “that jew” description of Schumer. I would have mentioned that he is from New York, fraternized with Russian mafiya-types early in his career, and wears his glasses funny. Also, Jews is capitalized.
Dear edteach:
We enjoy spirited debate here, but polite debate, please. I suspect you do not refer to everyone by their religious affiliation?
Mike, five minutes after turning off computer, I realized that I should have specified the ARMAMENT possessed by my F-18 and my tank is the “shall not be infringed” object covered by the Second Amendment. I completely agree that I should not be allowed to have Sidewinder missiles or 20mm cannon on my private Hornet. But all INFRINGEMENTS are supposed to be addressed by Constitutional amendments–before any court or regulatory agency can do anything.
Chipping away at the 2nd has always been the Slippery Slope.
Consider this. By allowing BATF to create a regulation regarding “bump stocks” congressional Republicans can avoid being put in the position of voting on a law. They can take both sides of the program without giving pro-gun NRA types or anti-gun leftists a definitive position they can be criticized for when running for re-election. You asked “Integrity and Honor”, they have neither.
Mikey
glmwrer
The Heller decision in 2008 directly took up the question of civilians owning exotic or unusual types of weapons. The ruling was that whatever was already in common use by civilians was allowable. In other words, if no one else has a tank or an F 18, there is a basis for denying you that privilege under the 2nd A. This is a subtle point. It means that the 2nd Amendment (as interpreted in the lense of the Heller ruling) was more intended to maintain parity of arms among citizens than between citizens and the armed forces. This interpretation has the advantage of being always true in practice whether you agree or disagree with it.
In my simple understanding, the “rate of fire” of any SA rifle is how fast a human finger can move the trigger. So, any training film to improve finger athleticism would be a federal crime.
Violin teachers should begin to worry.
Dear Rum:
To say nothing of pianists and harpists.
The bump stock is an accessory. It just allows a semi-automatic to fire as quick as the firearm is capable. If I practice my finger speed and movement, then I should, in theory, be able to fire as quick as a bump stock. Will my finger become illegal? Oh by the way, whats President’s BATF approved the bump stock?
Looks like Jerry may be a future walking felony…