Second Amendment caucus leader blasts NRA's 'horrible' plan for 'bump stocks'

[Brian4Liberty]

Second Amendment caucus leader blasts NRA's 'horrible' plan for 'bump stocks'
by Pete Kasperowicz | Oct 6, 2017

The Republican leader of the Congressional Second Amendment Caucus blasted the National Rifle Association's stance on how the federal government should deal with "bump stocks," and said it's a recipe for the Trump administration to search for new gun restrictions in the law where there are none.

"I think it's a horrible idea, to ask the ATF to contort existing law," Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., told the Washington Examiner on Thursday. "I think it sets a bad precedent."

Massie was reacting to the NRA's decision to ask the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives to re-examine federal law to see if bump stocks could be regulated more heavily.
...
But in an interview with the Washington Examiner, Massie rejected the NRA's proposal outright for several reasons.

First, he noted that the Obama administration itself looked at existing law to see whether these accessories should be banned, and decided against it. Massie said Obama's team most likely pushed as hard as it could to find a way to regulate these items, and failed, and that Trump's team would be unlikely to find a more aggressive rationale.

"We're asking the Trump ATF to be stricter on gun owners than the Obama ATF," he said.

But he also warned that the ATF shouldn't be given the political task of finding a way around the Gun Control Act or the National Firearms Act. Massie said those laws hold that an illegal automatic weapon is one that discharges more than one round with a single pull of the trigger, and that bump stocks — or what he calls "bump fire stocks" — still require one trigger pull for each round discharged.

That means, Massie said, that under the plain reading of the law, bump stocks shouldn't be prohibited, even though they do allow more rapid firing. The ATF decided that in 2010, and the decision shouldn't be revisited, he said.

"I trusted they did the right thing, and I think it demonstrates a complete misunderstanding of how a government is supposed to work," he said of the NRA's idea to reopen the regulations.

"I don't think you can read a ban on bump fire stocks into existing law," he added.

Massie warned that justifying a ban or more restrictions on bump stocks might also lead to other restrictions that aren't in the law, but could be created through regulation. He said it's possible the exercise could result in limits on high-capacity magazines.

More broadly, Massie said it makes no sense for Congress to abdicate its responsibility and allow regulators to decide the issue.

"I think it's bad, it sets a bad precedent," he said.
...
Finally, Massie noted that there are several ways people can make legal, semi-automatic rifles fire more quickly, and that some can even do it with technique alone, without any accessories to make it easier. He said banning one kind of bump stock wouldn't prevent people from using items they can buy in a hardware store in order to boost a gun's rate of fire.

"There are at least a dozen ways to make a semi-automatic firearm more quickly," he said. "There is no way to ban bump fire."
...
More: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/se...rticle/2636706

[Brian4Liberty]

https://twitter.com/USAB4L/status/916441199183048704

[unknown]

$#@!ing right.

[phill4paul]

I love me some Massie. He understands how representatives should act. Doesn't mean they will. But, he understands how they should.

[AZJoe]

Assault weapons laws resemble hate speech laws. Hate speech laws usually begin by targeting a few words that almost no one approves. Once the system for controlling and punishing “hate speech” is put into place, there is little or nothing to stop it from expanding to punish more and more types of everyday speech. Similarly, once an assault weapons law is on the books, there is little to prevent politicians from vastly increasing the number of weapons banned under the law. The main effect of banning assault weapons is to give government an excuse to arrest and imprison millions of Americans while doing little or nothing to reduce crime. America has a limited number of police, and politicians must decide who the real public enemies are. - James Bovard, WSJ Jan 6, 1994.

[Matt Collins]

Why isn't Rand leading on this issue like Thomas is?

[osan]

Massie said those laws hold that an illegal automatic weapon is one that discharges more than one round with a single pull of the trigger, and that bump stocks — or what he calls "bump fire stocks" — still require one trigger pull for each round discharged...

Finally, Massie noted that there are several ways people can make legal, semi-automatic rifles fire more quickly, and that some can even do it with technique alone, without any accessories to make it easier. He said banning one kind of bump stock wouldn't prevent people from using items they can buy in a hardware store in order to boost a gun's rate of fire.

Statute (vis-a-vis Law) either means something definite, or is means nothing at all. If the former, then there is nowhere to go with this. If the latter, then any law can be tailored to fit any "government" agenda. Murder laws could be bent to address public masturbation or the requirements for septic systems.

We as a statistical gestalt are teetering now. Theye are wandering into places they never before dared with such brazenness. If Theye go there and we accept it, they will have taken yet another giant leap toward why-bother-with-pretending tyranny.

"There are at least a dozen ways to make a semi-automatic firearm more quickly," he said. "There is no way to ban bump fire."

Now THAT is a flawed assumption. All Theye have to do is declare any multiple discharge of a weapon above some specified rate a felony. End of story. What if Theye did such a thing? What do we think the American people would do? I will tell you: they would bitch and whinge about it, and then they would shut their noises and accept it. Why? Because that is what we do.

If you think of it, this is precisely the sort of legislative chicane that might just survive a SCOTUS review. It would set a definite and readily quantifiable limit on behavior into law. SCOTUS often ignores reasons behind a law - the valid basis in principle for its enactment - and focuses mainly on language: is the law clear and does it apply equally to all? If it meets those two requirements, SCOTUS often turns a blind eye to the question of whether the basis is properly reasoned. The body of arbitrary statute is herniating in its sheer mass.

Now imagine a simple bill that basically states:

A BILL to amend <such and such federal code> to be known as the "Screw Liberty Act" ...


It shall be a felony of the first degree for anyone to discharge any firearm or other projectile weapon at a rate greater than one round per second, punishable by not less than five years in federal prison, and not more than fifty years with no possibility of parole and a fine of not less than five hundred thousand dollars.

Seems ridiculous, right? Sure, to sane, rational, decent people. But if you consider the precise structure of the language and the usual performance of SCOTUS, it should become clear that such a statute actually has a very good chance of surviving review. Once again, the meaning is definite and eminently quantifiable. If you discharge any weapon at a rate above the prescribed limit, you have committed a felony.

Some may assert that the basis is invalid - or in this case not even expressed. Two things. Firstly, and I may be wrong on this so please correct me if I am, the drug statutes do not justify the prohibitions placed on cannabis or other scheduled substances. They are simply administratively placed on the schedule and people instantly become felons. Secondly, if Theye wanted to be extra careful, the language can be amended with a preamble stating the justifications for the statute. Something along the lines of "In the wake of the tragic shootings in Las Vegas, part of a growing trend toward ever more frequent and extreme gun violence, the need to curb such behavior for the sake of peace and stability obliges Congress to act..." and so on down a train of miserable fallacy nauseous enough to turn even the most cast-iron of constitutions to quaking and teary-eyed vomiting.

The wise strategist puts absolutely nothing past his enemies.

[ChristianAnarchist]

TM is a great guy! Here's a pic of him by my corvette...



I also have a pic of him sitting inside it but don't have the inclination to dig it out right now (ya, I foulking lazy...)

[AZJoe]

CNN proves once again that its run by idiots with its "bump-stock" animation depicting an adjustable stock, but containing no bump stock.

[Brian4Liberty]

CNN proves once again that its run by idiots with its "bump-stock" animation depicting an adjustable stock, but containing no bump stock.

They have no shame.

[osan]

CNN proves once again that its run by idiots with its "bump-stock" animation depicting an adjustable stock, but containing no bump stock.

The stupid... it burns... it BURNS!!!

[Root]

Is there a granade launcher on there? Lol, really?

[shakey1]

... just makin' $#@! up as they go.