In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
D.C. Ordinance considers semi-autos machine guns
Anonymouse
Member Posts: 4,050
So, this is why they are saying semis are still illegal:
http://www.washtimes.com/news/2008/jun/28/gun-control-still-in-force-chief-says/
http://www.washtimes.com/news/2008/jun/28/gun-control-still-in-force-chief-says/
Comments
The SC has set the stage by ruling that 2A is an individual right. Now court cases will determine how far that right extends (no right is absolute so don't look for any court to strike all gun control laws).
Too old to live...too young to die...
IN fact, if one wanted to, one could make the operation of a revolver sound more dangerous to citizens than that of a semi-auto. For example, after you run out of magazines with your semi-auto, a revolver is quicker and easier to reload.
And with a pump rifle (most anyway) and especially with a lever action rifle, you can shoot and between shooting you can quickly and easily top off your fixed magazine all day long. NO need to carry extra magazines or worry about having to stop and reload detachable magazines.
And of course revolvers (and even single shots actually) share one basic function of the semi-autos. One round fired for one trigger pull.
Maybe the NRA should stop trying to LOBBY and just sue each and every time. And of course point out to the citizens that are paying taxes to defend these lawsuits, just how much their elected officials are spending, to defend these lawsuits.
Margaret Thatcher
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics."
Mark Twain
What all this gun grabber BS may require is an organization that WILL file a lawsuit each and every time any town, state, or city decides to try to pass a law restricting the 2nd in any way. There are more of us that them so me may have to outspend them for a while until this BS stops.
Maybe the NRA should stop trying to LOBBY and just sue each and every time. And of course point out to the citizens that are paying taxes to defend these lawsuits, just how much their elected officials are spending, to defend these lawsuits.
I am sure you know that the NRA oftens files lawsuits. But lawsuits are expensive and most of the money the NRA has to operate on comes from their members. Four million members out of approximately 84 million gun owners. If more gun owners would pitch in some time and money to help, all the few national pro-gun rights groups could afford to do a whole lot more.
Margaret Thatcher
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics."
Mark Twain
Perhaps it's time. The lobbying hasn't seemed to work. maybe it's time and the climate is right for a different direction.
Well, if someone will bring the NRA, GOA, SAF, JPFO, etc. the members for political clout and the money for the lawsuits I feel positive one/all of those gun rights organizations would be quite happy to file a lot of lawsuits.
But I don't look for any of those 80 million gun owners who do little or nothing to help protect/further their gun rights to join up. It is too easy for them to just continue to spend their time and money on new guns and more ammo.
Too old to live...too young to die...
This will require a new lawsuit. The SC has held that banning all guns is illegal. The ruling suggests that banning some guns is OK. But how many and what kind? We here on this forum would think that banning all auto pistols goes too far. It will now take a federal judge to decide.
The SC has set the stage by ruling that 2A is an individual right. Now court cases will determine how far that right extends (no right is absolute so don't look for any court to strike all gun control laws).
BS...in your eyes maybe. Not in the eyes of a free man.
quote:Originally posted by SaxonPig
This will require a new lawsuit. The SC has held that banning all guns is illegal. The ruling suggests that banning some guns is OK. But how many and what kind? We here on this forum would think that banning all auto pistols goes too far. It will now take a federal judge to decide.
The SC has set the stage by ruling that 2A is an individual right. Now court cases will determine how far that right extends (no right is absolute so don't look for any court to strike all gun control laws).
BS...in your eyes maybe. Not in the eyes of a free man.
Totally free men live by themselves on some lonely, isolated island somewhere. An island that they own free and clear.
However, you and I and other Americans live in a cooperative society. In such an envirnoment there is no such thing as totally unrestricted rights; at least starting with the moment you leave the front door of your house. If you and others are going to demand unrestricted rights, then you must be willing to give the same to people who don't like or agree with you. That is a sure receipe for never having a civilized society.
According to TR, 84 million gun owners and of those 4 million are NRA members so that leaves 80 million do nothings. All us GOA, SAF, JPFO members are still not doing anything. I see.......
No offense intended. If I had done my math and composing a little better I would have included the approximately 1-2 million members of the groups you mentioned. (650,000 for GOA, one of which is me, not sure about the others).
My point is that the great majority of gun owners are free riders when it comes to the political battle to save/expand our rights.
Some really cool old revolvers at this link:
http://www.littlegun.be/arme belge/artisans identifies h/a h d h gb.htm
I hate socialism. These are the same "leaders" that put up road blocks and ask the public their reason for entering neighborhoods.
What the heck are they doing to our nation's capital? Making it into Nazi Berlin?
Doug
You have the right to free speech unless you scream "Fire!" in a crowded theater that isn't actually burning. No court will ever rule that the 2A grants the right to everyone owning any gun desired to do with as pleases. No part of the Bill of Rights would be so interpreted.
That's why we have to fight and claw for every shred of freedom and we have to take what we can get today and come back for more tomorrow. You can't win with this "It's all or nothing" attitude that some people have.
The Heller decision is a victory for our side. It doesn't solve all of our problems, didn't go as far as we hoped and it won't change most of the bad laws right away. But it is a stepping stone to fighting more battles. This war will not be won in a single battle. And it will never be a 100% victory where there are no gun control laws at all. There is nothing in this country that is totally unregulated. But maybe we can return to some point where the laws were not insane.
Too old to live...too young to die...
their view of what a machine gun is and mine are poles apart!
the nra supports the definition of a machine gun being any firearm that fires, or is capaple of being converted to fire multiple shots with one pull of a trigger? are they serious?that is every auto loading firearm ever made![V]...geez, unbelievable!
their view of what a machine gun is and mine are poles apart!
Multiple shots with ONE pull of the trigger.
That is Not the definition of all semi auto firearms.
quote:Originally posted by dan kelly
the nra supports the definition of a machine gun being any firearm that fires, or is capaple of being converted to fire multiple shots with one pull of a trigger? are they serious?that is every auto loading firearm ever made![V]...geez, unbelievable!
their view of what a machine gun is and mine are poles apart!
Multiple shots with ONE pull of the trigger.
That is Not the definition of all semi auto firearms.
I think he's referring to the part about being capable of being converted...and he's right.
A semi-auto will only fire one round with one trigger pull...the same as a revolver.
The NRA really needs to rethink their statement of agreeing with DC about a machine gun being any firearm that is capable of being converted to fire multiple shots with one trigger pull. If they stand by this definition, then I fully expect the Feds will rewrite their definition to fit that as well. You can kiss all of your semi-auto rifles and pistols goodbye. Any of them can be converted by some genius somewhere.
I don't care if all full autos are called machineguns by the ATF (or is that g@y-TF)
quote:Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton, a Democrat, said she thinks the court's ruling leaves room for effective restrictions on the sale and registration of handguns in the District. She said she would fight any federal legislation to ease gun controls.
The SC has set the stage by ruling that 2A is an individual right. Now court cases will determine how far that right extends (no right is absolute so don't look for any court to strike all gun control laws).
You, sir, are mistaken.
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
I believe that is absolute as it gets. Furthermore, I believe the Founders saw it as an absolute right, hence, the wording.
Rights, by their nature, are absolute, else they could not be considered rights. When "rights" come with conditions and/or
restrictions, they cease to be "rights", and become "privileges".
You have the right to free speech unless you scream "Fire!" in a crowded theater that isn't actually burning.
The implication here, is that it is illegal. Please show me the law, that specifically states, that you can not yell "FIRE" in a theater. Crowded or not. This law must contain the words "FIRE" and "THEATER"
Go ahead, I'll wait.......
While I'm waiting.......
You still have your 1st amendment rights. You can yell "FIRE" in a theater and NOT go to jail, as long as it does not cause anyone to be harmed. Perhaps it is part of the play, or if there is an actual fire, or if doing so is part of audience participation, or if you lease the theater for private purposes and warn everyone about what you intend to do.
But if ONE PERSON is harmed "BECAUSE of what you said" then you CAN and SHOULD be prosecuted. Reckless endangerment (or something similar) is what you more than likely will be charged with. It is not "what" you say, it is the "intent" to cause others harm. The "results" of your action (speech) is what you will answer for. The same as it SHOULD be concerning the 2nd amendment.
"The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic."
Source: http://www.tourolaw.edu/patch/Schenck/
wsfiredude- No sir, I AM NOT MISTAKEN. It is the accepted standard of the Supreme Court that there are no limitless rights. You may think the Second is unlimited, but the Court says otherwise. Same with all rights. None are without limit. This is plain fact, not my opinion.
Too old to live...too young to die...
The SC has set the stage by ruling that 2A is an individual right. Now court cases will determine how far that right extends (no right is absolute so don't look for any court to strike all gun control laws).
originally posted by wsfiredude:
You, sir, are mistaken.
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
I believe that is absolute as it gets. Furthermore, I believe the Founders saw it as an absolute right, hence, the wording.
Rights, by their nature, are absolute, else they could not be considered rights. When "rights" come with conditions and/or
restrictions, they cease to be "rights", and become "privileges".
wsfiredude- No sir, I AM NOT MISTAKEN. It is the accepted standard of the Supreme Court that there are no limitless rights. You may think the Second is unlimited, but the Court says otherwise. Same with all rights. None are without limit. This is plain fact, not my opinion.
Ok Saxon, let me rephrase it with a different synonymn; You are wrong, erroneous, incorrect, and if it is accepted by the SCOTUS that there are no limitless rights, they too are wrong. That is a fact, not my opinion. I refer back to me previous post:
Rights, by their nature, are absolute, else they could not be considered rights. When "rights" come with conditions and/or
restrictions, they cease to be "rights", and become "privileges".
Pickenup- You could be arrested for committing a terrorist act or at least disturbing the peace for yelling fire and you have to know it. This is the scenario that everyone uses to illustrate the point and I don't understand how you can deny it????
"The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic."
Source: http://www.tourolaw.edu/patch/Schenck/
wsfiredude- No sir, I AM NOT MISTAKEN. It is the accepted standard of the Supreme Court that there are no limitless rights. You may think the Second is unlimited, but the Court says otherwise. Same with all rights. None are without limit. This is plain fact, not my opinion.
No...you are mistaken and it is your opinion...not a fact. Rights do not come with restrictions. Privileges do. I could care less what the courts say...their opinion does not change the facts. A right is a right.
...And Pickenup's illustration is correct...you just fail to see it.
the nra supports the definition of a machine gun being any firearm that fires, or is capaple of being converted to fire multiple shots with one pull of a trigger? are they serious?that is every auto loading firearm ever made![V]...geez, unbelievable!
their view of what a machine gun is and mine are poles apart!
Since your other post describing autoloader, machine guns, semi-autos, etc. and getting much of it wrong, I feel you do not know what you are talking about in regards the the NRA either.
quote:Originally posted by dan kelly
the nra supports the definition of a machine gun being any firearm that fires, or is capaple of being converted to fire multiple shots with one pull of a trigger? are they serious?that is every auto loading firearm ever made![V]...geez, unbelievable!
their view of what a machine gun is and mine are poles apart!
Since your other post describing autoloader, machine guns, semi-autos, etc. and getting much of it wrong, I feel you do not know what you are talking about in regards the the NRA either.
Where is the logic in that?
i will stand by my statement that any auto loading firearm can be converted to full auto, so if you think im wrong, tell me why.
in?fringe (n-frnj)
v. in?fringed, in?fring?ing, in?fring?es
v.tr.
1. To transgress or exceed the limits of; violate: infringe a
contract; infringe a patent.
2. Obsolete To defeat; invalidate.
v.intr.
To encroach on someone or something; engage in trespassing: an
increased workload that infringed on his personal life.
2A says the right "shall not be infringed," which meand violated or transgressed. It doesn't say "shall not be infringed much," or "shall not be infringed beyond reasonable limitations."
tr, ive got no problem with you saying im wrong, but give me your version of them please, maybe i am, but is my opinion and like you im entitled to one.
i will stand by my statement that any auto loading firearm can be converted to full auto, so if you think im wrong, tell me why.
Thank your for your civil reponse. I was referring to the fact that I believe you have your facts wrong about the NRA and their view of semi-autos. I have an NRA member for years and I have never seen a formal NRA policy of disliking semi-autos.
i made my post because of what was written in the link attatched to the original post, second last paragraph.
qoute : "the nra supports a bill proposed in march 2007 by senator kay bailey hutchinson, texas republican that would redefine(my underlining) a machine gun as as a weapon that is designed or could be modified to shoot multiple rounds with one squeeze of the trigger mr lapierre said"
if the qoute that is written there is wrong and he never said it, im sorry but i assumed it would be correct as written in the story. if he did say it i will still stand by my claim that it would include any auto loading firearm yet developed. and i`ll go as far as to say that if he or anyone else does believe that that should be law they are fools, and dangerous ones! it seems to automatically assume that anyone who owns any auto loading firearm would consider converting it and therefore break u.s. federal gun laws. in other words im saying that they assume all of you are what my government accuses all gun owners of being here...potential mass murderers if we have auto loading guns....it is an insult, to me anyway! when we could have full auto there was not one crime reported that was commited with any full auto firearm...not ever! i dont know about other states, but in my state not one crime.
tr, i had no reason not to reply to you with a civil response, as i said, you are entitled to your opinion on anything you like just as im entitled to mine.
i made my post because of what was written in the link attatched to the original post, second last paragraph.
qoute : "the nra supports a bill proposed in march 2007 by senator kay bailey hutchinson, texas republican that would redefine(my underlining) a machine gun as as a weapon that is designed or could be modified to shoot multiple rounds with one squeeze of the trigger mr lapierre said"
if the qoute that is written there is wrong and he never said it, im sorry but i assumed it would be correct as written in the story. if he did say it i will still stand by my claim that it would include any auto loading firearm yet developed. and i`ll go as far as to say that if he or anyone else does believe that that should be law they are fools, and dangerous ones! it seems to automatically assume that anyone who owns any auto loading firearm would consider converting it and therefore break u.s. federal gun laws. in other words im saying that they assume all of you are what my government accuses all gun owners of being here...potential mass murderers if we have auto loading guns....it is an insult, to me anyway! when we could have full auto there was not one crime reported that was commited with any full auto firearm...not ever! i dont know about other states, but in my state not one crime.
Don't you just love how the NRA compromises our rights away trfox????[xx(][V][:(!]