Second Amendment Advocates Should Reject DOJ “Bump Stock” Infringement
BY Herschel Smith
6 years, 7 months ago
That said, and since it looks like the fix is in, it may also be fair to wonder what good it will do to comment on this latest iteration of the proposed rule on “rate-enhancing devices.” There are several reasons to go ahead and submit a comment in spite of such misgivings, not the least of which is it’s the right thing to do.
Well, maybe it is. I just know that I’ve read the response to the comments submitted on the proposal to propose a rule (some of them were mine), and they may as well have bent over and crapped on the constitution and everyone who made comments about what it said.
It’s an amazing thing to see a group of people so okay with being so hated, detestable and disgusting. I encourage my own readers to make comments even though the fix is indeed in. Post them here. If I make comments again, I won’t be as nice as I was the first time around.
|
|
On April 2, 2018 at 7:53 am, Fred said:
I had never commented on a regulation before. The very first thing I did was to promptly ignore the suggested guidelines. The very fact of the oh so prim and proper guidelines pisses me off. It might as well say; “while your government is hard at work to destroy your liberty please be polite while you submit to unlawful government rule.” Anyway, they didn’t post my comment (I don’t think) probably because I wasn’t New England puritan enough in my writing. Assholes!
In other news the legislature of Tennessee, as an extension of Donald “Take the guns first” Trump’s articulated policy preference, is about to grant authority to police to take anybodies guns. No crime, no trial, no jury. King George’s, er, the governors/mayors men just take your property…AT GUNPOINT!
These are acts of war.
On April 2, 2018 at 9:32 am, Marshall said:
Herschel,
“I won’t be as nice as I was the first time around”.
My sentiments as well. I am currently drafting my comment offline so I can give it the proper “tone”. I am using words/phrases like: unconstitutional, disingenuous, intellectually dishonest, factually incorrect, inspiring contempt for the law, will not comply, and “I didn’t think my opinion of the ATF could go any lower, but I was wrong”.
For some reason, the image of Captain Picard (Trump) giving an order and turning to Number 1 (Sessions) and saying “make it so” keeps coming to mind.
Marshall
On April 2, 2018 at 10:04 am, moe mensale said:
Luckily I saved my original comments and will be re-submitting them and follow that up with a new shorter comment telling them to (nicely) go suck a blowpop.
On April 3, 2018 at 9:26 am, LiberTarHeel said:
After reading the explanation from BATFE for the latest round of “discussion” and “comment”, I readied my comment before reading in depth their latest screed here:
https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=ATF-2018-0002-0001
And after having done so, I literally have nothing to say in a comment that BATFE has not considered and summarily rejected from the earlier batch of comments. I agree that “the fix” is most definitely in, and all I could do now is rail at their hypocrisy, their lack of logical thinking, and their arbitrariness. But I am fully aware that none of that matters a jot to them, nor does it advance a new argument that they have not already binned. I am, however, open to friendly advice to the contrary of my position.
On April 3, 2018 at 1:11 pm, Marshall said:
OK, just in case they decide to not post it, here is what I submitted:
I fully oppose the proposed ban on bumpstocks. The proposed ban is clearly an unconstitutional overreach that rightfully deserves the contempt of the American people. This contempt could easily lead to massive non-compliance of this regulation and a contempt for all future and past regulations written by the ARF that are just as arbitrary. The verbal gymnastics you are attempting to pull off by saying rapid multiple pulls of a semi-automatic trigger is the same thing as a single pull of a machine gun trigger is disingenuous, factually incorrect, legally false, and intellectually insulting. This rule exceeds the legal authority of the ATF and attempts to create a rule that is stronger than the law. I didn’t think it was possible for the reputation and integrity of the ATF to go any lower, but you have proven me wrong.
Marshall
On April 3, 2018 at 7:47 pm, Fred said:
I went back and re-submitted my comment. This time I edited it for the PG audience at the ATF who is willing to blow up compounds in Texas but are offended by words in common use during the middle ages and ones that are even in the bible.
Neither comment has posted yet. Codrea’s comment is pretty funny in it’s simplicity.
https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=ATF-2018-0002-0013
On April 4, 2018 at 1:33 pm, Fred said:
JWR at Survival Blog
https://survivalblog.com/slippery-slope-proposed-atf-rule-redefining-machinegun/
On April 5, 2018 at 6:58 pm, Fred said:
They published my comment, naughty anti puritan words and all.
Here is the bulk:
“Turning law abiding patriotic Americans, veterans, suburban moms, and men just trying to raise their families into criminals? Really? Why would I give a flying rat’s backside about a country that does this? Why? Why would I have any loyalty to this country if its government simply takes whatever it wants? I’m sure the irony is completely lost on you but are you going to send men with guns to take them? If you’re going to just up and ban things don’t you make the case for us to stockpile weapons and ammo? Do you know the definition of irony? The courts won’t help. The congress won’t help. The executive won’t help. What redress do we have? Why not just redefine and then ban all of the component parts and accessories of the common rifle? Are you going to ban them one at a time and hope that nobody will notice? Is this not tyranny? Do you want war with your own neighbors? Seriously? I’m only writing this so that I know I’ve done my part to avoid civil war. Now do your part, be for liberty…. I don’t want war so it’s your war to start or avoid. Please choose wisely.”
Rest:
https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=ATF-2018-0002-2616