03-26-2019, 07:58 PM
(03-26-2019, 12:25 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: No disagreement here. While I think it was the correct move, it's not like there was a bunch of homicides utilizing bump stocks. This won't have any real, measurable effect on anything.
Eh, I'm just not big on the government banning anything based on knee jerk reaction.
(03-26-2019, 12:43 PM)GMDino Wrote: So they were, as I said, unnecessary. Easy to ban them then since they serve no real purpose.
Unnecessary is a rather nebulous term in this regard. I've heard the exact same word used to describe an AR15 or any other semi-automatic rifle. Bel has used the term in that way here.
(03-26-2019, 06:20 PM)Dill Wrote: Like Michael, I never heard of these before the Vegas shooting.
But I have to say, if I had paid $425, I'll be damned if I'm going to destroy it with no compensation.
Compensation in these instances is almost never even close to what the citizen paid for the item. It's partly why you see statistically insignificant rates of compliance when states like MA and NY impose bans and enact mandatory registration/surrender of property. Well, if I'm being completely honest it's a very small reason in comparison to others.
(03-26-2019, 06:46 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I sometimes wonder if they ever consider repealing the Hughes Amendment to FOPA.
Not in today's Congress. I was only slightly hopeful they'd pass the Hearing Protection Act when they controlled both chambers and that didn't even happen. In regards to firearms laws I'm rather staking my hopes on the SCOTUS and an interpretation of "strict scrutiny" in the recent NYC case. This seems much more likely/achievable.
