Massachuettes orders residents to surrender bump stocks

[Vastator]

FK that, LOL it's unconstitutional for these pricks to even do this bs.

Second amendment says nothing about bump stocks

1st amendment says nothing about radio, television or the internet either, so what's your point?

The point is you have no constitutional right to own a bump stock

Yea you do is 2 amendment

Second amendment does not give the right to an automatic weapon

The second amendment never mentions a weapon type , nor excludes a single type...
“Shall not be infringed” sums it up nicely...

 

[2aguy]

FK that, LOL it's unconstitutional for these pricks to even do this bs.

Second amendment says nothing about bump stocks

1st amendment says nothing about radio, television or the internet either, so what's your point?

The point is you have no constitutional right to own a bump stock

Yea you do is 2 amendment

Second amendment does not give the right to an automatic weapon

Actually, in fact, it does.......

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

 

[Vastator]

Second amendment says nothing about bump stocks

1st amendment says nothing about radio, television or the internet either, so what's your point?

The point is you have no constitutional right to own a bump stock

Yea you do is 2 amendment

Second amendment does not give the right to an automatic weapon

Actually, in fact, it does.......

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

Exactly following his example the government could forbid the press to use radio, television, internet, and modern forms of print.
In addition religions such as the Mormon orthodoxy could be rendered illegal using the same logic. His flaccid argument is all fail...

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Oh for Gawd's sake, what hyperbole.

#1 If a person owns a bump stock, which it is now illegal to possess in MA, a person can voluntarily turn it in to the police. No harm no foul as the voluntary surrender demonstrates compliance with the law.

#2 If a person owns a bump stock, which it is now illegal to possess in MA, a person can voluntarily destroy it on their own without turning it into the government. (I would suggests maintaining documentation showing the destruction.) No harm no foul as the voluntary surrender demonstrates compliance with the law as the individual no longer is in possession of a bump stock.

#3 If a person owns a bump stock, which is now illegal to possess in MA and decides to violate the law and retrain the bump stock then they are subject to arrest. Upon arrest the bump stock becomes evidence of a crime and will be confiscated and held for trial. Having a trial is the very embodiment of "due process".

In which of those scenarios does the owner of the bump stock get compensated for the loss of the property that is surrendered, destroyed, or confiscated, as required by the Fifth Amendment?

 

[Pogo]

If they're not paying owners of such stocks fair market value for any such stocks turns in, then they are violating the Fifth Amendment prohibitions against taking private property without just compensation and without due process of law.

If they are giving such compensation, then they are fraudulently misusing taxpayer funds to do so.

Either way, even without taking into consideration the Second Amendment, Massachusetts is acting illegally, here.

Really? Link to the Amendment that says "the right of the People to stock up on accessories that allow mass slaughterers to mow down dozens at a time without pesky interruptions" is where again?

Do you have any clue at all of the vast difference between a Stephen Paddock arsenal, and the musket technology of the time of the writing of the 2A when the Minié Ball hadn't even been invented yet? Any clue whatsoever?

Ever heard of a mass shooting with a musket? That could be your first clue.

Hey....dumb shit....

He used 2 rifles, at least one with a bumpstock........out of the thousands in private hands......he fired over 1,000 rounds of ammo, which he could have done without the stock ,and would have actually hit more people with lethal accuracy, firing into a tightly packed crowd of over 22,000 people from a concealed position.....

He murdered 58.

A muslim terrorist in Nice, France, using a rental truck murdered 86 people in 5 minutes wounding 458.

Which is deadlier, asshole.......the rifle with a bumpstock or the rental truck...?

Link to this patent for a truck designed for killing is where again?

Dumbass.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

The point is you have no constitutional right to own a bump stock

Government has no Constitutional authority to tell us that we cannot own one.

 

[rightwinger]

Second amendment says nothing about bump stocks

1st amendment says nothing about radio, television or the internet either, so what's your point?

The point is you have no constitutional right to own a bump stock

Yea you do is 2 amendment

Second amendment does not give the right to an automatic weapon

The second amendment never mentions a weapon type , nor excludes a single type...
“Shall not be infringed” sums it up nicely...

No it doesn't

Even Heller admits the Government has a right to restrict access to certain weapons

So you can't buy an RPG or a bump stock

 

[rightwinger]

The point is you have no constitutional right to own a bump stock

Government has no Constitutional authority to tell us that we cannot own one.

Afraid they do

Read Heller

 

[WorldWatcher]

Oh for Gawd's sake, what hyperbole.

#1 If a person owns a bump stock, which it is now illegal to possess in MA, a person can voluntarily turn it in to the police. No harm no foul as the voluntary surrender demonstrates compliance with the law.

#2 If a person owns a bump stock, which it is now illegal to possess in MA, a person can voluntarily destroy it on their own without turning it into the government. (I would suggests maintaining documentation showing the destruction.) No harm no foul as the voluntary surrender demonstrates compliance with the law as the individual no longer is in possession of a bump stock.

#3 If a person owns a bump stock, which is now illegal to possess in MA and decides to violate the law and retrain the bump stock then they are subject to arrest. Upon arrest the bump stock becomes evidence of a crime and will be confiscated and held for trial. Having a trial is the very embodiment of "due process".

In which of those scenarios does the owner of the bump stock get compensated for the loss of the property that is surrendered, destroyed, or confiscated, as required by the Fifth Amendment?

Compensation isn't required under the 5th Amendment for illegal items.

Items are only confiscated under arrest for illegal possession. In which case the person is tried and the item confiscated as evidence under due process.


>>>>

 

[Pogo]

FK that, LOL it's unconstitutional for these pricks to even do this bs.

Second amendment says nothing about bump stocks

1st amendment says nothing about radio, television or the internet either, so what's your point?

The point is you have no constitutional right to own a bump stock

Yea you do is 2 amendment

Second amendment does not give the right to an automatic weapon

.
Indeed at the time it was writ, the concept of weapons that would perform that way was literally inconceivable. Let alone nukes and "smart" bombs etc. Already made this point but these violence-porn addicts who jerk off to the Second Amendment as if they were reciting their rosary oughta go look up the Minié Ball.

 

[Anathema]

Good question. Maybe when and if it's been registered when it was bought.

As a Massachusetts resident - no such registration exists for for firearms accessories in the Communistwealth.

Even the firearm purchase paperwork that would provide a de facto registration for guns in the state largely sits unprocessed in storage boxes in a warehouse because the Criminal History Records Board doesn't have enough resources to process them.

 

[Anathema]

They should go house to house and get them ..

Try that and they'll get SOMETHING from gun owners; that's for sure.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Really? Link to the Amendment that says "the right of the People to stock up on accessories that allow mass slaughterers to mow down dozens at a time without pesky interruptions" is where again?

You're just playing a silly semantic game. Changing the words “keep and bear arms” to “stock up on accessories that allow mass slaughterers to mow down dozens at a time without pesky interruptions”, doesn't change the meaning; it just shows an intent to deceive and propagandize the issue.

Do you have any clue at all of the vast difference between a Stephen Paddock arsenal, and the musket technology of the time of the writing of the 2A when the Minié Ball hadn't even been invented yet? Any clue whatsoever?

Ever heard of a mass shooting with a musket? That could be your first clue.

Same as the vast difference between standing on a soapbox in the public square, or operating an 18th-century hand-operated printing press; and using the Internet to post an opinion that can be read all over the world within seconds.

In any event, I wasn't even addressing the Second Amendment implications of a ban on bump stocks.

In the post to which you were replying, I was addressing the Fifth Amendment implications, with regard to its prohibition against depriving the people of their rightful property without just compensation or due process of law.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Second amendment does not give the right to an automatic weapon

No, it doesn't. It affirms and recognizes what its authors considered to be an inherent right that exists with or without it, to possess and carry arms. Per the flawed 1939 U.S. vs. Miller ruling, the arms most protected would be those most suitable for military use, most especially those comparable to what we issue to soldiers in our Army. That would be true assault rifles, capable of fully-automatic operation.

 

[Anathema]

If they are caught with them in their possession

Lock them up

You think those people are gonna be taken alive?

Massachusetts gun owners have a history of violently resisting gun confiscation. Just ask a whole bunch of Britsh Redcoats.

 

[miketx]

If they're not paying owners of such stocks fair market value for any such stocks turns in, then they are violating the Fifth Amendment prohibitions against taking private property without just compensation and without due process of law.

If they are giving such compensation, then they are fraudulently misusing taxpayer funds to do so.

Either way, even without taking into consideration the Second Amendment, Massachusetts is acting illegally, here.

Fuck all of that. Just put charge them with a federal felony for owning a full automatic rifle without a class 3 license.

Listen to the idiots crying here, and not one of them is capable of being honest in any way. A bump stock does not made a rifle into a machine gun. It's impossible. Just as impossible as telling you the truth will make you stop lying.

 

[Vastator]

If they're not paying owners of such stocks fair market value for any such stocks turns in, then they are violating the Fifth Amendment prohibitions against taking private property without just compensation and without due process of law.

If they are giving such compensation, then they are fraudulently misusing taxpayer funds to do so.

Either way, even without taking into consideration the Second Amendment, Massachusetts is acting illegally, here.

Really? Link to the Amendment that says "the right of the People to stock up on accessories that allow mass slaughterers to mow down dozens at a time without pesky interruptions" is where again?

Do you have any clue at all of the vast difference between a Stephen Paddock arsenal, and the musket technology of the time of the writing of the 2A when the Minié Ball hadn't even been invented yet? Any clue whatsoever?

Ever heard of a mass shooting with a musket? That could be your first clue.

Hey....dumb shit....

He used 2 rifles, at least one with a bumpstock........out of the thousands in private hands......he fired over 1,000 rounds of ammo, which he could have done without the stock ,and would have actually hit more people with lethal accuracy, firing into a tightly packed crowd of over 22,000 people from a concealed position.....

He murdered 58.

A muslim terrorist in Nice, France, using a rental truck murdered 86 people in 5 minutes wounding 458.

Which is deadlier, asshole.......the rifle with a bumpstock or the rental truck...?

Link to this patent for a truck designed for killing is where again?

Dumbass.

Do you have a link to a stock that was designed for killing...?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Compensation isn't required under the 5th Amendment for illegal items.

Items are only confiscated under arrest for illegal possession. In which case the person is tried and the item confiscated as evidence under due process.

You might have an argument ifit applied only to items which were acquired illegally in the first place. But that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about property that was legally-acquired, and legal to possess and use at the time that it was acquired, with a corrupt government deciding after the fact to make it illegal to continue to possess or use. To deprive owners of that property, without just compensation, blatantly violates the Fifth Amendment's prohibition against such.

See, also, Article I, Section 10, of the Constitution, which prohibits “ex post facto Law”. It's unconstitutional to punish someone for an act that was legal at the time it was taken, but which was made illegal afterward.

 

[Vastator]

Second amendment says nothing about bump stocks

1st amendment says nothing about radio, television or the internet either, so what's your point?

The point is you have no constitutional right to own a bump stock

Yea you do is 2 amendment

Second amendment does not give the right to an automatic weapon

.
Indeed at the time it was writ, the concept of weapons that would perform that way was literally inconceivable. Let alone nukes and "smart" bombs etc. Already made this point but these violence-porn addicts who jerk off to the Second Amendment as if they were reciting their rosary oughta go look up the Minié Ball.

Nor could the founders envision the internet, radio, television, or the plethora of new religions...
The founders weren’t stupid. They knew that times and technologies change. And knowing this full, and well they specifically, and methodically crafted, and wrote the second amendment. You’re attempt to second guess the intellect of the founders of this nation, are laughable.

 

[Vastator]

They should go house to house and get them ..

Try that and they'll get SOMETHING from gun owners; that's for sure.

You know... I’d like to believe that; but I don’t. Recent history bears this out. Remember the warrantless house to house searches for the Boston Marathon bombers? I do...