Gun Talk

[Lord Ratner]

2 hours ago, HeloDude said:

SCOTUS wrote it so that lower courts could use it to overturn gun control laws if they are not in accordance with the decision, and some laws have been overturned.  Just because one hasn’t been overturned yet since Bruen doesn’t mean one won’t be in the future.  

But what bothers me more with your argument is that someone who says they support the 2nd Amendment is also supportive of victimless crime gun control laws and the ATF enforcement of these laws by force.

Victimless? There are plenty of instances of Americans buying guns and selling them to criminals. Those criminals then kill people. It's hyperbole, and frankly just stupid, to say that. It's like when gun supporters use the well knives kill people, why not ban knives argument. It's intentionally ignorant. 

 

Of course the irony is that the ATF Fast and Furious boondoggle also created victims from their gun-running. Turns out gun trafficking is bad no matter who does it. But the government screwing up is not an argument for lawlessness. 

 

Y'all are trying too hard on this one. Sometimes someone breaks the law and finds out it doesn't matter that you disagree with it, it's still the law. We have mechanisms to fix that, including the Supreme Court. If you don't feel those mechanisms are sufficient, you can roll the dice and put your life as the wager. Whether you were right or wrong will be determined by the public response. Waco and the Bundy standoff are good examples. 

 

But so far it looks like a guy who was buying guns and knowingly selling them to people who otherwise wouldn't have been allowed to have them. Some were even used in actual crimes. This is like the left using Michael Brown as a martyr. Pick a better mascot. 

[Smokin]

I don't think anyone on here is saying he was a saint or even a good person.  But we don't ignore government over reach because the victim of that over reach was a criminal.

What we are saying is the government for all practical purposes murdered a US citizen.  A US citizen who is presumed innocent until proven guilty.  He cannot be proven guilty now because he was murdered by the government.

There have been many instances of these no knock warrants being served to the wrong address.  The government would have also then murdered a random citizen because the ATF, local police, FBI, etc want to pretend they're SEAL Team 6 attacking the Bin Laden house when stopping him as he walked out of his office at work would have been equally effective and had near 0% risk.

[FourFans]

Perhaps a stupid question, but shouldn't an event like this be handled by the uniformed cops and an attorney showing up at his work, or even his home during dinner, with a warrant and taking him into custody?  The no-knock raid by 35 un-uniformed dudes armed for full assault in unmarked cars has a very gangland feel.  There's gotta be more to this story.

[HeloDude]

7 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

Victimless? There are plenty of instances of Americans buying guns and selling them to criminals. Those criminals then kill people. It's hyperbole, and frankly just stupid, to say that. It's like when gun supporters use the well knives kill people, why not ban knives argument. It's intentionally ignorant. 

 

Of course the irony is that the ATF Fast and Furious boondoggle also created victims from their gun-running. Turns out gun trafficking is bad no matter who does it. But the government screwing up is not an argument for lawlessness. 

 

Y'all are trying too hard on this one. Sometimes someone breaks the law and finds out it doesn't matter that you disagree with it, it's still the law. We have mechanisms to fix that, including the Supreme Court. If you don't feel those mechanisms are sufficient, you can roll the dice and put your life as the wager. Whether you were right or wrong will be determined by the public response. Waco and the Bundy standoff are good examples. 

 

But so far it looks like a guy who was buying guns and knowingly selling them to people who otherwise wouldn't have been allowed to have them. Some were even used in actual crimes. This is like the left using Michael Brown as a martyr. Pick a better mascot. 

It’s always a crime to intentionally aid someone else in committing a crime.  If you support background checks then you’re also part of the problem as you’re along for permission from your government to exercise a right.  And I should be able to sell my property to whomever I want.  Again, if this guy was interested intentionally aiding criminals in a crime then that itself is the crime, not selling firearms without the government telling him it’s ok to do so.

Or tell me how we had required federal  background checks in the late 1800s and early 1900s?  It wasn’t until the progressives realized they could control people more (and make money off of us) that gun control really started in the 1930s…and then it only go worse from there.

[Swizzle]

1 hour ago, FourFans said:

Perhaps a stupid question, but shouldn't an event like this be handled by the uniformed cops and an attorney showing up at his work, or even his home during dinner, with a warrant and taking him into custody?  The no-knock raid by 35 un-uniformed dudes armed for full assault in unmarked cars has a very gangland feel.  There's gotta be more to this story.

The request to execute the warrant says has the 'more-to-this-story' (govt perspective) AND a judge approved that ATF TTP. That's the scary part, attempt to roll him up by force, from his 'castle', in the morning versus somewhere else when no violent crimes were assessed. They, that is ALL parties, created that scenario and end result. Bystanders and all parties now have regret because of end result...aka wrong TTP chosen IMHO, and foul...IF... trafficking arms. Now the ATF's TTP is called into question by all, including Congress. 

https://www.kark.com/crime/released-search-warrant-affidavit-shows-details-of-atf-case-against-little-rock-airport-executive-bryan-malinowski/

 

 

Ex.-1-Search-Warrant-003.pdf

[Lord Ratner]

3 hours ago, Smokin said:

What we are saying is the government for all practical purposes murdered a US citizen.  A US citizen who is presumed innocent until proven guilty.  He cannot be proven guilty now because he was murdered by the government.

The presumption of innocence is for the purposes of litigation. Not police arresting action. If the assumption of innocence was absolute then there would be no arrests in the first place. You are assuming, from the same data sources I have, that the ATF went there with the goal of killing him. Murder. That is a wild claim, especially considering the conversation we are having about the presumption of innocence. He fired first. Whether the ATF should have chosen this method of arrest is secondary unless you can prove they did so for the expressed purpose of goading him into a shootout. You obviously can't do that, so lets apply the same presumption of innocence to the non-criminal ATF agents who raided his house. He was the bad guy, by his own actions and by conscious choice. Does that merit execution? Nope. But there is no such thing as an accidental execution or unintentional, so this was not that. 

3 hours ago, Smokin said:

There have been many instances of these no knock warrants being served to the wrong address.  The government would have also then murdered a random citizen because the ATF, local police, FBI, etc want to pretend they're SEAL Team 6 attacking the Bin Laden house when stopping him as he walked out of his office at work would have been equally effective and had near 0% risk.

I agree with this. He absolutely should have been taken in his office. However, equating what happened to him to "many instances of these no knock warrants being served to the wrong address," is false equivalence. It was the right address. He was (allegedly) the criminal they were after.  But all of these permutations are different things with different moral implications:

• Raiding the wrong house and killing an innocent defending their home
• Raiding the correct house, but doing it instead of a less-risky arrest option resulting in a dead criminal
• Raiding the correct house, but accidentally killing a bystander you didn't know was there
• Raiding the correct house, but some cops are killed in the shootout when they could have chosen a better arrest method

All of those are tragic, but they are not all immoral or murder.

Proportional force is not binary. It's literally a ratio. And his ratio was shittier because he was (allegedly) a criminal gun trafficker. 

Your right to do a lot of things vanishes when you break the social contract. Depending on how badly you break it determines how much you lose. Losing the right to credibly defend your home against unannounced invaders when your actions set the stage for having your home invaded is not a travesty of constitutional magnitude. 

 

[Lord Ratner]

1 hour ago, HeloDude said:

It’s always a crime to intentionally aid someone else in committing a crime.  If you support background checks then you’re also part of the problem as you’re along for permission from your government to exercise a right.  And I should be able to sell my property to whomever I want.  Again, if this guy was interested intentionally aiding criminals in a crime then that itself is the crime, not selling firearms without the government telling him it’s ok to do so.

Or tell me how we had required federal  background checks in the late 1800s and early 1900s?  It wasn’t until the progressives realized they could control people more (and make money off of us) that gun control really started in the 1930s…and then it only go worse from there.

This is hyper-libertarian fever-dream stuff. 

A background check is not asking permission because there is not an authority position that makes a subjective decision. It is to verify that you are not already precluded from exercising that right. Your example is more accurate if your are trying to get a CCW permit somewhere like CA, where the Sheriff can arbitrarily decide to deny the application. When you go the the DMV and they ask for proof of insurance, the deck-jockey doesn't then decide if you are qualified to drive. You either check the boxes or you don't. Verification vs Permission. 

 

If you buy a bunch of legal chemicals (your property), convert them into methamphetamine, then sell them to "whomever I want," then I wholeheartedly endorse your imprisonment. If you buy a gun for the purpose of bypassing the FFL system (your property) and sell it to a Mexican cartel member, same applies. If that's not what you meant, be more precise in your post. Externalities matter, and your claim is absurd to anyone who has any sort of grasp of human nature or experience with drug addicts, criminals, or other desperate demographics. 

 

He didn't need to assist anyone in a crime, because he committed the crime himself. You may not purchase firearms for the purpose of reselling them, thus bypassing the FFL process. He did that. 

Again if this was just a conversation about the method of arrest, I'm with you guys, but y'all are making some claims that are simply unrealistic. 

 

I have never once met a stupid libertarian. Every single one has been of above average intelligence, most of them substantially so. The biggest failing of the intelligent has been their complete unfamiliarity with, and thus complete inability to govern, below-average and psychopathic people. The Socialists always underestimate the human desire for choice. The Libertarians always underestimate the human capacity for self-destruction. 

 

1 hour ago, HeloDude said:

Or tell me how we had required federal  background checks in the late 1800s and early 1900s?  It wasn’t until the progressives realized they could control people more (and make money off of us) that gun control really started in the 1930s…and then it only go worse from there.

I don't disagree with this, and I'm thrilled to see the Supreme Court unwinding a lot of the madness. 

But society does evolve, and changes are needed. The trick is always moderation. As an example, there wasn't much need for restrictions on speech in 1880. With social media causing the youth suicide rate to skyrocket, now there is for targeted restrictions. 

Similarly there wasn't much need for anti-trade restrictions in 1820. But with countries like China willing to exploit our social contract with the expressed purpose of destabilizing and eventually overcoming our society, now there is a need. 

 

These restrictions need to be clearly defined and strictly limited, something that our current crop of politicians can't seem to do. That doesn't diminish their need or utility. 

 

Edited June 2 by Lord Ratner

[Lord Ratner]

1 hour ago, Swizzle said:

The request to execute the warrant says has the 'more-to-this-story' (govt perspective) AND a judge approved that ATF TTP. That's the scary part, attempt to roll him up by force, from his 'castle', in the morning versus somewhere else when no violent crimes were assessed. They, that is ALL parties, created that scenario and end result. Bystanders and all parties now have regret because of end result...aka wrong TTP chosen IMHO, and foul...IF... trafficking arms. Now the ATF's TTP is called into question by all, including Congress. 

https://www.kark.com/crime/released-search-warrant-affidavit-shows-details-of-atf-case-against-little-rock-airport-executive-bryan-malinowski/

 

 

Ex.-1-Search-Warrant-003.pdf 28.72 MB · 0 downloads

By the way, separate of the gun-trafficking, this is why the second amendment is so important. 

Again, ignore the gun-running for a moment. 

This guy had guns, which allowed him to resist the ATF in a way that "forced" them to use deadly force. Same with Waco. Same with the Airman in Florida (not resisting at all, but 2A still escalated a situation). It is the police failing that is lighting a fire politically to rein in this type of behavior. Blood is almost always the price of freedom, and the 2A escalates government overreach to the level of bloodshed. Without guns, these types of raids would never garner enough attention to stoke public outrage. 

[busdriver]

55 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:

The presumption of innocence is for the purposes of litigation. Not police arresting action. 

He was (allegedly) the criminal they were after.  But all of these permutations are different things with different moral implications:

• Raiding the wrong house and killing an innocent defending their home
• Raiding the correct house, but doing it instead of a less-risky arrest option resulting in a dead criminal
• Raiding the correct house, but accidentally killing a bystander you didn't know was there
• Raiding the correct house, but some cops are killed in the shootout when they could have chosen a better arrest method

All of those are tragic, but they are not all immoral or murder.

Your right to do a lot of things vanishes when you break the social contract. Depending on how badly you break it determines how much you lose. Losing the right to credibly defend your home against unannounced invaders when your actions set the stage for having your home invaded is not a travesty of constitutional magnitude. 

You're mixing legal concepts with moral ones, and your logic is backwards.  You're using a presumption of guilt in your moral balancing act.  Then claiming otherwise.

Of your examples, the second is a prime example.  You are assuming the criminality of a suspect prior to due process. That example is clearly immoral as written.  The state has an obligation to choose the least risky option apprehend suspects.  (Yes, a balancing act between risk to the larger public, the actual officer and the suspect.)

 

Aside:

No-knock warrants are predicated on the concept of being the safest option for all involved, based on a reasonable assumption that the suspect will fight.  If done correctly it's over before anyone has any idea that something is happening.  In other words, the state is actually balancing risk and finding the best solution for everyone, including the suspect.  This is important since the "criminal" isn't one until due process is complete.

Anecdotally, it seems that there is a problem with the way SWAT teams are used in the current "policing culture" (not sure how to word that).  Libertarians like to yell about "militarization of police" and point to DRMO of equipment to cops.  Which I think misses the mark.  I suspect it's actually rooted in balance of risk, and over focus on "officer safety."  The latter was an important change from the 1970s, but I suspect like all advocacy and activist cultures, it became self serving.

 

[Lord Ratner]

3 hours ago, busdriver said:

Of your examples, the second is a prime example.  You are assuming the criminality of a suspect prior to due process. That example is clearly immoral as written.  The state has an obligation to choose the least risky option apprehend suspects.  (Yes, a balancing act between risk to the larger public, the actual officer and the suspect.)

I agree they should choose the least risky option. They did not do that here. 

 

But, the police absolutely assume guilt before a trial, and have to. Explain how you have an authority to arrest, under any circumstances, if the police must assume innocence. It falls apart. That doesn't mean they take on the role of sentencing, but it would be insane if the police weren't using an assumption of guilt as the filter by which they decide whether or not to arrest someone. Arrest everyone?

The presumption of Innocence is a judicial concept. And it applies to the jury and the judge, not the officers investigating or the prosecutors. The officers and the prosecutor are not supposed to assume anything, they are supposed to gather all evidence and make a rational decision. That decision is whether there is enough evidence to believe in guilt, at which point it becomes their job to convince a jury of the same belief, up to whatever standard is required for that particular crime. Obviously you have prosecutors who are after a conviction record rather than the truth, and you have officers who are jaded, or racist, or otherwise mentally unfit for the job. But those are the outliers, and incidentally the ones we hear most about in the news.

 

I agree with what you wrote after "aside" emphatically. It's been discussed elsewhere: 

 

On 5/10/2024 at 7:44 PM, Lord Ratner said:

Cops need to understand the the risk of death is not a hazard of the job to be mitigated at all costs. Sometimes death is the job. The military has understood this forever, it's the entire concept of "service."

 

At some point the combination of bad training, low staffing, and low resources created a mindset that cops should be held to the same standard as the rest of the population. I think that's silly. If a cop sees someone with a gun, there's no acceptable excuse for killing that person unless they are actively using that weapon against the officers or bystanders. Just holding one isn't enough. Neither is waving it around, if the cops are the only ones at risk.

But again, this case is not that. Still a problem, but not the same.

Edit to add: If there is any evidence that someone or someones in the chain of command set up the raid with the desired outcome of the death of the suspect, they should spend forever in jail. Currently no such evidence exists. 

Edited June 2 by Lord Ratner

[Smokin]

7 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

The presumption of innocence is for the purposes of litigation. Not police arresting action. If the assumption of innocence was absolute then there would be no arrests in the first place. You are assuming, from the same data sources I have, that the ATF went there with the goal of killing him. Murder. That is a wild claim, especially considering the conversation we are having about the presumption of innocence. He fired first. Whether the ATF should have chosen this method of arrest is secondary unless you can prove they did so for the expressed purpose of goading him into a shootout. You obviously can't do that, so lets apply the same presumption of innocence to the non-criminal ATF agents who raided his house. He was the bad guy, by his own actions and by conscious choice. Does that merit execution? Nope. But there is no such thing as an accidental execution or unintentional, so this was not that. 

I agree with this. He absolutely should have been taken in his office. However, equating what happened to him to "many instances of these no knock warrants being served to the wrong address," is false equivalence. It was the right address. He was (allegedly) the criminal they were after.  But all of these permutations are different things with different moral implications:

• Raiding the wrong house and killing an innocent defending their home
• Raiding the correct house, but doing it instead of a less-risky arrest option resulting in a dead criminal
• Raiding the correct house, but accidentally killing a bystander you didn't know was there
• Raiding the correct house, but some cops are killed in the shootout when they could have chosen a better arrest method

All of those are tragic, but they are not all immoral or murder.

Proportional force is not binary. It's literally a ratio. And his ratio was shittier because he was (allegedly) a criminal gun trafficker. 

Your right to do a lot of things vanishes when you break the social contract. Depending on how badly you break it determines how much you lose. Losing the right to credibly defend your home against unannounced invaders when your actions set the stage for having your home invaded is not a travesty of constitutional magnitude. 

 

As I understand it, they were supposed to be executing a search warrant, not arrest warrant.  And the presumption of innocence is not just the court, it is the entire criminal justice system and those working for it, not me.

He was suspected of a non-violent offense.  Maybe his actions generated violence down the line, but no one has accused him of a violent act prior to his door being kicked in.  That is a vitally important part.  If he were suspected of a violent crime, then the ATF actions would be entirely logical.  But he wasn't, and they weren't.

It appears to me based on the evidence I've seen that this was either some of the grossest police negligence and stupidity to execute a search warrant in the manner they did or it was intentional.  I cannot believe that even an ATF new hire that hasn't finished the academy, or whatever pretense of training they send these guys to, would consider the method they used to be reasonable.  So, the only logical conclusion is they intentionally did they actions they did in order to incite the logical response of the homeowner in order to generate a violent event.  Maybe there are other options, I just can't think of any based on the evidence available.  I totally understand that is a serious accusation, but it is the only logical one.

You say he was the bad guy, and he likely was.  Again, now we'll never know because all we have are ATF allegations.  Many people have had terrible allegations made against them by government agencies that later were shown to be false.  But I haven't heard anyone accuse him of kicking in the door of someone in the dark and killing them.  He's not the only bad guy in this scenario.

[Lawman]

As I understand it, they were supposed to be executing a search warrant, not arrest warrant.  And the presumption of innocence is not just the court, it is the entire criminal justice system and those working for it, not me.
He was suspected of a non-violent offense.  Maybe his actions generated violence down the line, but no one has accused him of a violent act prior to his door being kicked in.  That is a vitally important part.  If he were suspected of a violent crime, then the ATF actions would be entirely logical.  But he wasn't, and they weren't.
It appears to me based on the evidence I've seen that this was either some of the grossest police negligence and stupidity to execute a search warrant in the manner they did or it was intentional.  I cannot believe that even an ATF new hire that hasn't finished the academy, or whatever pretense of training they send these guys to, would consider the method they used to be reasonable.  So, the only logical conclusion is they intentionally did they actions they did in order to incite the logical response of the homeowner in order to generate a violent event.  Maybe there are other options, I just can't think of any based on the evidence available.  I totally understand that is a serious accusation, but it is the only logical one.
You say he was the bad guy, and he likely was.  Again, now we'll never know because all we have are ATF allegations.  Many people have had terrible allegations made against them by government agencies that later were shown to be false.  But I haven't heard anyone accuse him of kicking in the door of someone in the dark and killing them.  He's not the only bad guy in this scenario.

There is a flaw in your logical format. The duty of a peace officer executing a warrant isn’t to determine guilt/innocence of individuals encountered in the conduct of their duty, it’s the preservation of civil order (ie non violence or destruction/chaos) and protection to bystanders at large and themselves in the execution of a legitimate action by the state. Somebody found on the premises being searched isn’t deemed a bystander at large, they are going to be detained which is within lawful permissions and cleared primarily on two protected grounds, preservation of evidence and officer safety, but with a load of case law behind them.

The burden of right to detain/question/apprehend and hold within process limitations is met already by issuance of the warrant. Thats not on the officers following protocol, that’s on the state and the judge in demonstrating the burden to take that step across what is the status quo of respect to constitutional privacy. It’s a grey area our more vehemently libertarian minded refuse to acknowledge. That’s why they have to go to a judge to execute a proactive action like a search/arrest warrant vs a reactive situation like a situation of exigent circumstances or a simple response to dispatch call. People can scream “guilty until proven innocent,” but reality is there are stages every citizen goes through between innocent to guilty, an example being pre trial custody. The entire concept of bail is built on that being constitutionally permissible. Same is true of assumption of connection to crimes by being present in a location that has met the burden of a warrant. This guy isn’t the poor bastard that responded to noise in the night and the door kickers got the address wrong, this dude is living in a house knowing or ignoring his actions as a felon and expecting to be treated the same as the guy that isn’t doing that. Sorry not sorry, no different than running human trafficking out of your basement, you are actively engaged in crime, so the idea he could have innocently thought it was anybody but law enforcement is a made up argument.

Look I can’t stand the ATF, because they are redundant and clown shoe in their professionalism compared to other agency’s, but using this shooting as evidence of the police state is a bad hill to die on. This wasn’t invented charges, or victimless crimes, and if this dude had been slinging Coke/meth/etc and killed by the DEA it wouldn’t have been a blip on the Glocktalk/NRA/USSA forum type circles or generate any action in Congress.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[busdriver]

7 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

But, the police absolutely assume guilt before a trial, and have to. Explain how you have an authority to arrest, under any circumstances, if the police must assume innocence. It falls apart. That doesn't mean they take on the role of sentencing, but it would be insane if the police weren't using an assumption of guilt as the filter by which they decide whether or not to arrest someone. Arrest everyone?

The presumption of Innocence is a judicial concept.

Presumption of innocence does not mean anyone is brain washed into thinking the dirt bag Crip is actually a saint.  It means the burden of proof is on the state.  The standard in court (beyond reasonable doubt) is high because the risk to liberty is high.  Police officers act on a much lower standard (probable cause), because the presumption is a much lower risk to liberty.

When making arrests the police are not acting on a presumption of guilt, they are acting on probable cause to believe that a crime occurred.  If a crime occurred, then there is another party whose rights/liberty were violated, whether that party is an actual accuser or the public at large.

Yes, the actual cops think the dude they're grabbing is a complete shit-head.  But that is completely different than their authority/place within the common law tradition.  It may seem like semantics, but this is very important within the context of how the law is supposed to work.

[raimius]

The ATF had a warrant to look for evidence, but they chose to break down the dude's door at 6AM with a SWAT team loaded for bear.  They CHOSE to pick a fight when their authority was to go rummage around the guy's records.

It won't be ruled criminal negligence leading to homicide, but it should be....

[Swizzle]

2 hours ago, raimius said:

The ATF had a warrant to look for evidence, but they chose to break down the dude's door at 6AM with a SWAT team loaded for bear.  They CHOSE to pick a fight when their authority was to go rummage around the guy's records.

It won't be ruled criminal negligence leading to homicide, but it should be....

So Q- because they evaluate themselves?

Heard somewhere, forget where, a new litigation TTP being used is hiring DA's with outspoken targets, then pursuing federal crimes in state courts under state rules.  Think AR has it in them? How are their state rules?

[raimius]

11 hours ago, Swizzle said:

So Q- because they evaluate themselves?

With them...probably a Q1 with a few commendables.  They still post on the anniversary of Waco painting themselves as heroes...

[arg]

"an LCSO Special Operations Unit sniper fired a "planned and deliberate shot through a computer monitor"

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/sniper-fatally-shoots-bank-robber-holding-hostages-through-computer-monitor/ar-BB1nXm5c

[DirkDiggler]

1 hour ago, arg said:

"an LCSO Special Operations Unit sniper fired a "planned and deliberate shot through a computer monitor"

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/sniper-fatally-shoots-bank-robber-holding-hostages-through-computer-monitor/ar-BB1nXm5c

Let's be honest, we've all been there after a frustrating day trying to fill out grade sheets in ePex or vouchers on DTS.

  In all seriousness, good on the officers in this situation.

[HeloDude]

Some good news today.  Not that I’m personally a huge fan of using bump stocks other than for a fun range toy, but it once again tells the ATF that they can’t redefine something just because they don’t like it.  Hopefully this will lead to the forced reset triggers being able to be sold again.

https://www.fox13news.com/news/bump-stock-ban-struck-down-supreme-court

[brabus]

When can we kill the NFA - taxing me to exercise a constitutional right, GTFO!

[Lord Ratner]

4 hours ago, brabus said:

When can we kill the NFA - taxing me to exercise a constitutional right, GTFO!

I think there's a good chance that happens in the next few years. But it'll be piece by piece. Silencers will probably be first. *Maybe* barrel length. Automatic weapons, probably never.

[brabus]

8 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

I think there's a good chance that happens in the next few years. But it'll be piece by piece. Silencers will probably be first. *Maybe* barrel length. Automatic weapons, probably never.

I really hope you’re right…except for the auto part! But it’d be a big win to shitcan suppressors and SBRs.

Edited June 16 by brabus

[Lord Ratner]

9 hours ago, brabus said:

I really hope you’re right…except for the auto part! But it’d be a big win to shitcan suppressors and SBRs.

You know, I have a hard time justifying the legalization of full auto. I'm open to the idea of approvals for post 1984 automatic weapons, but under the same process. 

The Glock switches have shown that full-auto has a criminal market where most gun crime happens (inner city gang activity), and I'm just not convinced the gain for 2A purposes outweighs the downside the law enforcement would have to deal with. The NFA at least introduces a tracking element that almost entirely squashes the training of those weapons. 

 

I'm a bit wishy washy on this one, and I'm not sure how well it holds under Bruen, but the difference between a 16" AR-15 and a 7" AR-15 as far threat to social order is miniscule. With full-auto I think it's a more difficult conversation. 

[brabus]

I’m not saying abolish background checks, because really what does the NFA do besides trample constitutional rights…the same background check. If you can pass a background check, then there should be no limit to what firearm you can buy/own. I’m not advocating people should be able to buy RPGs, tanks with functional main guns, etc. The worst part about the NFA is it’s a gun registry, which is the last thing we should ever let those fucks in DC do. That is communist dictatorship 101, yet here we are, with a form of a gun registry. It needs to be completely killed immediately.

[HeloDude]

1 hour ago, Lord Ratner said:

You know, I have a hard time justifying the legalization of full auto.

Shocker.  This is the same slippery slope rationalization used to continue to erode our rights.  How about the 2nd Amendment means what it means?