ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 8th March 2018, 02:52 PM   #1
Ranb
Philosopher
 
Ranb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: WA USA
Posts: 9,371
New Florida Gun Bill

https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/08/polit...ext/index.html
Quote:
If Gov. Rick Scott signs the bill into law, it would:

- Raise the age to purchase a firearm to 21 from 18;
- Require a three-day waiting period for firearm purchases, with some exceptions;
- Ban the sale or possession of bump fire stocks, which allow a semiautomatic weapon to fire more like an automatic weapon;
- Give law enforcement more authority to seize weapons and ammunition from those deemed mentally unfit or otherwise a threat;
- Provide additional funding for armed school resource officers and mental health services; and
- Enact the Coach Aaron Feis Guardian Program, which would allow some teachers to be armed if both the local school district and local sheriff's department agree.
The 21 year old age limit appears to apply to dealer sales only. A private sale or gift can still be done to adults under age 21. Law enforcement is exempt.

Law enforcement and hunters who possess a safety card are exempt from the three day waiting period.

The bump stock ban is a solution to a non-existent problem.
Quote:
790.222 Bump-fire stocks prohibited.—....As used in this section, the term “bump-fire stock” means a conversion kit, a tool, an accessory, or a device used to alter the rate of fire of a firearm to mimic automatic weapon fire or which is used to increase the rate of fire to a faster rate than is possible for a person to fire such semiautomatic firearm unassisted by a kit, a tool, an accessory, or a device.
Possible loophole bolded.

The bill text; https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bil...illText/er/PDF

Ranb
Ranb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th March 2018, 03:06 PM   #2
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 11,846
Originally Posted by Ranb View Post
New Florida Gun Bill
What happened? Last I heard, the florida legislature initially decided to ignore gun control in favor of targeting the evils of pornography. Then, they brought in a law that would ban the AR15, which passed a voice vote but then failed on a more formal vote.

I figured Florida would just ignore the problem, and now they've brought out a law which, while many will see as flawed, at least is better than the current status quo.
__________________
Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer

I'm Mary Poppin's Y'all! - Yondu

We are Groot - Groot
Segnosaur is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th March 2018, 03:17 PM   #3
Ranb
Philosopher
 
Ranb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: WA USA
Posts: 9,371
Well, if you only get your Florida legislature news from CNN, then it would appear to be that way. But if you get e-mailed updates from the FL gov, then this stuff tends to keep people informed. I'm one of those who gets their Florida info from the mass media. I only get updates from the MN and WA legislatures; so this was news to me too.

Last edited by Ranb; 8th March 2018 at 03:21 PM.
Ranb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th March 2018, 04:55 PM   #4
Grizzly Adams
Graduate Poster
 
Grizzly Adams's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,148
So, if this bill passes, do my pants automatically make me a felon, or do I actually have to use the belt loops for bump-firing before I break the law?
Grizzly Adams is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th March 2018, 05:09 PM   #5
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 21,059
You are not going to be arrested for wearing pants, you silly goose!
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.
William Parcher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th March 2018, 05:54 PM   #6
Grizzly Adams
Graduate Poster
 
Grizzly Adams's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,148
Originally Posted by William Parcher View Post
You are not going to be arrested for wearing pants, you silly goose!
The bill states "a conversion kit, a tool, an accessory, or a device used to alter the rate of fire of a firearm to mimic automatic weapon fire." Before there were bump-fire stocks, a number of less-sophisticated methods were used to bump fire. One involved hooking your finger through the trigger guard and into your belt loop. I would say a belt loop is a tool or a device.

If this bill passes, pants will be a felony.
Grizzly Adams is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th March 2018, 05:55 PM   #7
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 21,059
Originally Posted by Grizzly Adams View Post
If this bill passes, pants will be a felony.
No they won't, you silly goose!
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.
William Parcher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th March 2018, 06:00 PM   #8
Grizzly Adams
Graduate Poster
 
Grizzly Adams's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,148
I wonder if you could cut the loops off your pants and be within the law.
Grizzly Adams is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th March 2018, 06:10 PM   #9
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 30,433
Originally Posted by William Parcher View Post
No they won't, you silly goose!
Ah yes: The classic "I'm calling you names, so you *must* be wrong!" school of skeptical reasoning.

ETA: And reported, obvs.
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th March 2018, 06:22 PM   #10
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 11,665
Originally Posted by Grizzly Adams View Post
The bill states "a conversion kit, a tool, an accessory, or a device used to alter the rate of fire of a firearm to mimic automatic weapon fire." Before there were bump-fire stocks, a number of less-sophisticated methods were used to bump fire. One involved hooking your finger through the trigger guard and into your belt loop. I would say a belt loop is a tool or a device.

If this bill passes, pants will be a felony.
Possessing a paper clip, string, super glue and a semi automatic rifle could be constructive possession of an unregistered machinegun if too many folks learn what I'm referring to.
__________________
"When a man who is honestly mistaken, hears the truth, he will either cease being mistaken or cease being honest." - Anonymous

"Dulce bellum inexpertīs." - Erasmus
BStrong is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th March 2018, 06:30 PM   #11
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 21,059
You silly geese forgot that having fingers is a felony too.
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.
William Parcher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th March 2018, 06:33 PM   #12
Grizzly Adams
Graduate Poster
 
Grizzly Adams's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,148
Originally Posted by BStrong View Post
Possessing a paper clip, string, super glue and a semi automatic rifle could be constructive possession of an unregistered machinegun if too many folks learn what I'm referring to.
I'd tell everyone, but I don't want to be an accessory to your felony.
Grizzly Adams is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th March 2018, 06:49 PM   #13
Cleon
King of the Pod People
 
Cleon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 25,659
Originally Posted by BStrong View Post
Possessing a paper clip, string, super glue and a semi automatic rifle could be constructive possession of an unregistered machinegun if too many folks learn what I'm referring to.
It's between you and the Phoenix Foundation.
__________________
"People like me are what stand between us and Auschwitz." - Newt Gingrich
Cleon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th March 2018, 07:16 PM   #14
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 11,665
Originally Posted by Grizzly Adams View Post
I'd tell everyone, but I don't want to be an accessory to your felony.
Just as long as I don't give instructions I'm in the clear - ask me how I know!
__________________
"When a man who is honestly mistaken, hears the truth, he will either cease being mistaken or cease being honest." - Anonymous

"Dulce bellum inexpertīs." - Erasmus
BStrong is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th March 2018, 07:18 PM   #15
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 11,665
Originally Posted by Cleon View Post
It's between you and the Phoenix Foundation.
And the ATF letters from 2004 and 2005.
__________________
"When a man who is honestly mistaken, hears the truth, he will either cease being mistaken or cease being honest." - Anonymous

"Dulce bellum inexpertīs." - Erasmus
BStrong is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th March 2018, 07:22 PM   #16
Elagabalus
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 3,430
Originally Posted by Grizzly Adams View Post
The bill states "a conversion kit, a tool, an accessory, or a device used to alter the rate of fire of a firearm to mimic automatic weapon fire." Before there were bump-fire stocks, a number of less-sophisticated methods were used to bump fire. One involved hooking your finger through the trigger guard and into your belt loop. I would say a belt loop is a tool or a device.

If this bill passes, pants will be a felony.
Not to worry, Putin will soon be nuking Florida back to the stone age anyway.
Elagabalus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th March 2018, 09:12 PM   #17
Ranb
Philosopher
 
Ranb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: WA USA
Posts: 9,371
I wonder if a person who is caught with a bump stock in Florida will be able to avoid an indictment if he or she is able to demonstrate that they can also bump fire from the shoulder using only the proper technique? This would show that their bump stock does not "increase the rate of fire to a faster rate than is possible for a person to fire such semiautomatic firearm unassisted by a kit, a tool, an accessory, or a device".
Ranb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th March 2018, 09:35 PM   #18
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 17,751
Originally Posted by Ranb View Post
I wonder if a person who is caught with a bump stock in Florida will be able to avoid an indictment if he or she is able to demonstrate that they can also bump fire from the shoulder using only the proper technique? This would show that their bump stock does not "increase the rate of fire to a faster rate than is possible for a person to fire such semiautomatic firearm unassisted by a kit, a tool, an accessory, or a device".
I think that the "or" might stymie you there.
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)

PhantomWolf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th March 2018, 09:36 PM   #19
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 17,751
Originally Posted by BStrong View Post
Possessing a paper clip, string, super glue and a semi automatic rifle could be constructive possession of an unregistered machinegun if too many folks learn what I'm referring to.
Possessing them no, putting them together into the form of a device, yes.
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)

PhantomWolf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th March 2018, 09:37 PM   #20
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 17,751
Originally Posted by Grizzly Adams View Post
The bill states "a conversion kit, a tool, an accessory, or a device used to alter the rate of fire of a firearm to mimic automatic weapon fire." Before there were bump-fire stocks, a number of less-sophisticated methods were used to bump fire. One involved hooking your finger through the trigger guard and into your belt loop. I would say a belt loop is a tool or a device.

If this bill passes, pants will be a felony.
Only if you actually use them as a device to bump fire.
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)

PhantomWolf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th March 2018, 10:05 PM   #21
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 11,665
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
Possessing them no, putting them together into the form of a device, yes.
ATF loves constructive possession in N.F.A. cases.

Even in cases where a combination of parts, if installed on a host firearm could potentially cause the firearm to malfunction and "double" or produce full auto fire they have prosecuted the individual in possession.

There are parts kits where the possession of a kit along with an untouched receiver blank can trigger possession charges, without any assembly at all:

http://www.titleii.com/bardwell/us_v_evans2.txt

In United States v. Goff, supra, 677 F.Supp. 1526, the court
addressed an issue similar to that raised by the defendants herein.
[footnote 9] Specifically, the defendants in Goff moved to suppress
certain evidence seized by agents of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco
and Firearms, namely, 833 aluminum blocks alleged to be ARDCO AM
180, M-2 machine gun receivers and 366 aluminum receiver blocks
alleged to be receivers in various stages of production.
Defendants asserted the search warrants under which the BATF agents
were operating only permitted seizure of those receivers which
would qualify as "firearms."

In rejecting defendants' contentions, the court stated the
BATF agents were authorized to seize, in any stage of their
production, receivers that allegedly had been ordered by the
defendants for production after May 19, 1986, the effective date of
section 922(o). Goff, supra, 677 F.Supp. at 1545. The court went
on to state that while the defendants might question whether an
aluminum block is a "part" as contemplated in 26 U.S.C. section
5845(b), "the clear congressional intent permeating the statute is
that the prohibition on the possession of machine guns, including
receivers, extends to materials intended for use in their
production.
Here, there is no question that the aluminum blocks
seized were intended for use in the assembly or fabrication of
receivers." Id. at 1546.

In the case sub judice, it is beyond dispute that the steel
tubes at issue were destined, despite defendants' assertions to the
contrary, to be fitted as machine gun receivers. Accordingly, in
conformance with the Goff decision, this court is constrained to
conclude said tubes fall within the statutory definition of
"machine gun" and, therefore, defendants' contention that the
indictment fails to allege an offense against them is without
merit.
__________________
"When a man who is honestly mistaken, hears the truth, he will either cease being mistaken or cease being honest." - Anonymous

"Dulce bellum inexpertīs." - Erasmus
BStrong is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th March 2018, 06:46 AM   #22
Ranb
Philosopher
 
Ranb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: WA USA
Posts: 9,371
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
I think that the "or" might stymie you there.
I think they're just saying anything that increases the rate of fire. But if a person can use an unmodified ar-15 to fire quickly, as in bump firing using only the recoil of the gun and constant forward pressure of the arm on the handguard to equal that which is obtained by a bumpfire stock or other device, I think they may have shown a way to show that their bump stock (even if not attached to the rifle) is legal to possess.
Ranb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th March 2018, 07:21 AM   #23
casebro
Penultimate Amazing
 
casebro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 15,987
Back in the 30s Ad Topperwein could fire his Smith & Wesson revolver 6 shots in 4/10- second. That is faster than any machine gun except the six barreled gatling gun. And he did it without even so much as a belt loop.

So I guess bump stocks are legal for the guys with that kind of twitch? Do they plan on going to the range with the suspect to see how fast HE can fire one unaided?
__________________
Great minds discuss ideas.
Medium minds discuss events.
Small minds spend all their time on U-Tube and Facebook.
casebro is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th March 2018, 07:22 AM   #24
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 11,722
Originally Posted by Grizzly Adams View Post
The bill states "a conversion kit, a tool, an accessory, or a device used to alter the rate of fire of a firearm to mimic automatic weapon fire." Before there were bump-fire stocks, a number of less-sophisticated methods were used to bump fire. One involved hooking your finger through the trigger guard and into your belt loop. I would say a belt loop is a tool or a device.

If this bill passes, pants will be a felony.
I agree that this law is full of all sorts of sneaky tricks and traps to make everything you do illegal. I think to be safe, you should just stay locked in your home and cease all interactions with other people.
johnny karate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th March 2018, 03:08 PM   #25
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 17,751
Originally Posted by BStrong View Post
ATF loves constructive possession in N.F.A. cases.

Even in cases where a combination of parts, if installed on a host firearm could potentially cause the firearm to malfunction and "double" or produce full auto fire they have prosecuted the individual in possession.

There are parts kits where the possession of a kit along with an untouched receiver blank can trigger possession charges, without any assembly at all:

http://www.titleii.com/bardwell/us_v_evans2.txt

In United States v. Goff, supra, 677 F.Supp. 1526, the court
addressed an issue similar to that raised by the defendants herein.
[footnote 9] Specifically, the defendants in Goff moved to suppress
certain evidence seized by agents of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco
and Firearms, namely, 833 aluminum blocks alleged to be ARDCO AM
180, M-2 machine gun receivers and 366 aluminum receiver blocks
alleged to be receivers in various stages of production.
Defendants asserted the search warrants under which the BATF agents
were operating only permitted seizure of those receivers which
would qualify as "firearms."

In rejecting defendants' contentions, the court stated the
BATF agents were authorized to seize, in any stage of their
production, receivers that allegedly had been ordered by the
defendants for production after May 19, 1986, the effective date of
section 922(o). Goff, supra, 677 F.Supp. at 1545. The court went
on to state that while the defendants might question whether an
aluminum block is a "part" as contemplated in 26 U.S.C. section
5845(b), "the clear congressional intent permeating the statute is
that the prohibition on the possession of machine guns, including
receivers, extends to materials intended for use in their
production.
Here, there is no question that the aluminum blocks
seized were intended for use in the assembly or fabrication of
receivers." Id. at 1546.

In the case sub judice, it is beyond dispute that the steel
tubes at issue were destined, despite defendants' assertions to the
contrary, to be fitted as machine gun receivers. Accordingly, in
conformance with the Goff decision, this court is constrained to
conclude said tubes fall within the statutory definition of
"machine gun" and, therefore, defendants' contention that the
indictment fails to allege an offense against them is without
merit.
The trouble with your argument and your quote is that your quote says exactly what I did, that they were clearly constructing the banned products. The materials that hadn't been used were fait game because of the ones that had. Similarly, if you just had strong, paper clips, superglue and a gun, this would not be evidence of anything. If you had already constructed several of the mechanisms and had enough string, paper clips, and super glue to construct more, then they could be considered as against the law.
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)

PhantomWolf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th March 2018, 03:18 PM   #26
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 17,751
Originally Posted by Ranb View Post
I think they're just saying anything that increases the rate of fire. But if a person can use an unmodified ar-15 to fire quickly, as in bump firing using only the recoil of the gun and constant forward pressure of the arm on the handguard to equal that which is obtained by a bumpfire stock or other device, I think they may have shown a way to show that their bump stock (even if not attached to the rifle) is legal to possess.
so here is the part in question...

the term “bump-fire stock” means a conversion kit, a tool, an accessory, or a device used to alter the rate of fire of a firearm to mimic automatic weapon fire or which is used to increase the rate of fire to a faster rate than is possible for a person to fire such semiautomatic firearm unassisted by a kit, a tool, an accessory, or a device.

so the "or" breaks it into two parts....

i) “bump-fire stock” means a conversion kit, a tool, an accessory, or a device used to alter the rate of fire of a firearm to mimic automatic weapon fire, OR

ii) “bump-fire stock” means a conversion kit, a tool, an accessory, or a device used to increase the rate of fire to a faster rate than is possible for a person to fire such semiautomatic firearm unassisted by a kit, a tool, an accessory, or a device.

Since a bump stock does #1, if doesn't matter is it doesn't do #2.

What you could say is that #2 is rendered useless by the ability to bump fire without a conversion kit, a tool, an accessory, or a device and so really the written definition should just be just #1.

Perhaps what they should have said in #2 was...

“bump-fire stock” means a conversion kit, a tool, an accessory, or a device used to increase the rate of fire to a faster rate than is possible for a person to fire such semiautomatic firearm by pulling the trigger unassisted by a kit, a tool, an accessory, or a device.

This would lower the rate of fire and eliminate bump fire without a device as the user is not actually pulling the trigger during bump firing, but rather the action of the gun against the stationary finger activates the trigger.
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)


Last edited by PhantomWolf; 9th March 2018 at 03:20 PM.
PhantomWolf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th March 2018, 03:24 PM   #27
crescent
Master Poster
 
crescent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 2,794
Doesn't CA already have a ban on bump stocks, worded very similar to this one? Don't some other places as well?

Have there been problems with prosecution? Has anyone been arrested for having belt loops?
crescent is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th March 2018, 03:40 PM   #28
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 21,059
Originally Posted by crescent View Post
Has anyone been arrested for having belt loops?
Yes, this has happened more times than you would want to know. Then there is the overnight jail and the man rape in the dark corners of the jail.

The guy who was arrested for the bump pantaloons gets raped and the rapist forces him to cry out during the disgusting act, "I'm a silly goose. I'm a silly goose."

None of this would happen if America just did the right thing.
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.
William Parcher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th March 2018, 04:02 PM   #29
crescent
Master Poster
 
crescent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 2,794
Originally Posted by William Parcher View Post
The guy who was arrested for the bump pantaloons gets raped and the rapist forces him to cry out during the disgusting act, "I'm a silly goose. I'm a silly goose."
Now now William, that's just stupid. Aintcha got no learnin?

If it's a "he", then he should be crying out "I'm a silly gander."
crescent is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th March 2018, 04:06 PM   #30
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 21,059
This only happens when people wear pants when they shouldn't be wearing pants. It's about the law.
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.
William Parcher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th March 2018, 04:09 PM   #31
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 21,059
Oh and I forgot to mention. Another guy got a felony arrest for having fingers and another one was arrested for having a shoulder. All of these things happen daily because of the way laws are written.
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.
William Parcher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th March 2018, 05:48 PM   #32
Ranb
Philosopher
 
Ranb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: WA USA
Posts: 9,371
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
so here is the part in question...
What I'm getting at is if a person who owns a bump stock could show they were capable of firing just as rapidly without a a bump stock as they could with one, would their possession of the bump stock be illegal? If a device doesn't increase the rate of fire, then surely it isn't illegal according to this bill.
Ranb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th March 2018, 06:04 PM   #33
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 21,059
Originally Posted by Ranb View Post
if a person who owns a bump stock could show they were capable of firing just as rapidly without a a bump stock as they could with one, would their possession of the bump stock be illegal?
Yes, their bump stock would be illegal. But in addition to that their fingers and shoulder and belt loops would also be illegal. Each of those is a felony. They go to jail and get butt raped. Even men and women who don't have guns get the felony arrest because of course they have fingers and shoulders.

This already shows that the proposed law is no good. Too many felony arrests and jail rapings. We need to have the law rewritten so that grandmothers are not tossed in jail and then raped just because an officer found them to be in possession of fingers.
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.
William Parcher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th March 2018, 06:40 PM   #34
Trebuchet
Penultimate Amazing
 
Trebuchet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: The Great Northwet
Posts: 19,046
The NRA is suing because the bill discriminates against 18, 19, and 20 year olds. Next up is the liquor industry.
__________________
Cum catapultae proscribeantur tum soli proscripti catapultas habeant.
Trebuchet is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th March 2018, 11:43 PM   #35
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 17,751
Originally Posted by Ranb View Post
What I'm getting at is if a person who owns a bump stock could show they were capable of firing just as rapidly without a a bump stock as they could with one, would their possession of the bump stock be illegal? If a device doesn't increase the rate of fire, then surely it isn't illegal according to this bill.
Just because they are capable of bump firing it quickly without one doesn't mean that the bump stock isn't designed to increase the rate of fire so as to mimic an automatic. That's why it's the first part that is important as it has nothing to do with how fast the weapon can actually be fired by a specific person.
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)

PhantomWolf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th March 2018, 11:54 PM   #36
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 11,665
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
The trouble with your argument and your quote is that your quote says exactly what I did, that they were clearly constructing the banned products. The materials that hadn't been used were fait game because of the ones that had. Similarly, if you just had strong, paper clips, superglue and a gun, this would not be evidence of anything. If you had already constructed several of the mechanisms and had enough string, paper clips, and super glue to construct more, then they could be considered as against the law.
You need to direct me to the part where you state a piece of metal w/o any machine work constitutes a machine gun under federal law. Your post that I responded to stated:

Possessing them no, putting them together into the form of a device, yes.

The A.T.F. has successfully prosecuted individuals for constructive possession of materials that had not been, but in their institutional opinion were intended to be constructed into an illegal configuration at some later date.

Under that pov, the materials I cited could be considered to be materials establishing constructive possession of a machinegun.
__________________
"When a man who is honestly mistaken, hears the truth, he will either cease being mistaken or cease being honest." - Anonymous

"Dulce bellum inexpertīs." - Erasmus
BStrong is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th March 2018, 12:05 AM   #37
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 17,751
Originally Posted by BStrong View Post
You need to direct me to the part where you state a piece of metal w/o any machine work constitutes a machine gun under federal law. Your post that I responded to stated:

Possessing them no, putting them together into the form of a device, yes.

The A.T.F. has successfully prosecuted individuals for constructive possession of materials that had not been, but in their institutional opinion were intended to be constructed into an illegal configuration at some later date.

Under that pov, the materials I cited could be considered to be materials establishing constructive possession of a machinegun.
You need to reread your own quote again. It's not a case of them being prosecuted for having Aluminium blocks that could have been used, it's a case of them having already processed a bunch of them and so at that point the intent was entirely clear because they were already doing it. They were already processing the blocks, not just in possession of them.

Using the same principle, until you had already started creating machineguns using those materials, then you would be fine. However if you got caught while doing it, then the unused materials could be considered further evidence of the crime.

This is the difference between the scenarios. Just having a bunch of aluminum blocks that could be converted into an automatic receivers for machine guns won't get you prosecuted if you were busted. Having a bunch of aluminium blocks that could be converted into automatic receivers for machine guns along with a bunch of other aluminium blocks that you already have fully or partially converted into automatic receivers for machine guns will get you prosecuted if busted.
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)

PhantomWolf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th March 2018, 12:46 AM   #38
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 11,665
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
You need to reread your own quote again. It's not a case of them being prosecuted for having Aluminium blocks that could have been used, it's a case of them having already processed a bunch of them and so at that point the intent was entirely clear because they were already doing it. They were already processing the blocks, not just in possession of them.

Using the same principle, until you had already started creating machineguns using those materials, then you would be fine. However if you got caught while doing it, then the unused materials could be considered further evidence of the crime.

This is the difference between the scenarios. Just having a bunch of aluminum blocks that could be converted into an automatic receivers for machine guns won't get you prosecuted if you were busted. Having a bunch of aluminium blocks that could be converted into automatic receivers for machine guns along with a bunch of other aluminium blocks that you already have fully or partially converted into automatic receivers for machine guns will get you prosecuted if busted.
Had you actually read the material at the link:

http://www.titleii.com/bardwell/us_v_evans2.txt

You might have read te first two paragraphs:

Count One of the indictment charges Creed Miles Evans and John
William Burns with conspiring to cause the illegal possession of
firearms, namely, machine guns, as that term is defined by 26
U.S.C. section 5845(b), [footnote 3] in violation of 18 U.S.C.
section 371 (conspiracy to illegally receive, possess, transfer and
import firearms), 922(o) [footnote 4] and 26 U.S.C. section 5861(d)
(unlawful receipt or possession of a machine gun). Counts Two
through Ten charge John William Burns, doing business as DMB
Enterprises, with aiding and abetting the unlawful possession of
machine guns by various individuals. [footnote 5] Finally, Count
Twenty-Seven charges John William Burns with conspiring to
illegally possess a machine gun.

With respect to the conspiracy charge in Count One, the
Government asserts Burns organized DMB Enterprises for the purpose
of purchasing Sten MKII submachine gun component parts from Evans
and advertising and selling said parts as kits. The Government
further alleges Burns knew that Evans, through a business known as
BSI, was producing, advertising and selling blank receiver tubes
for Sten MKII submachine guns along with detailed step by step
instructions, including drawings and a receiver template, to be
followed in the assembly of functioning Sten MKII submachine guns
from the tube and component parts kits.
The Government maintains
Burns referred his customers to BSI for blank receiver tubes and
machine gun assembly instructions, while, on the other hand, Evans
allegedly referred his customers to DMB Enterprises for Sten MKII
submachine gun parts kits. [footnote 6] Accordingly, the crux of
the conspiracy charged in Count One is that Evans and Burns
illegally conspired to sell and deliver to any paying customer all
the parts necessary to assemble machine guns, which could not
legally be possessed or assembled by private persons after May 19,
1986, the effective date of 18 U.S.C. section 922(o).


The Goff case referencing AM180 receiver blocks was cited by A.T.F. in the above case that involved garden variety DOM tubing of the correct i.d. that with machine work could be manufactured into a receiver for a STEN submachinegun. In this particular case it involved individuals selling parts kits and tubes, but individuals have been prosecuted for simple possession of these tubes without possession of a STEN parts kit:

http://www.titleii.com/bardwell/us_v_corso.txt

On May 14, 1992, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms
("ATF") Special Agent Michael Lawrence, ("Agent Lawrence"), upon
information obtained from a firearms trace, went to defendant's
residence/business premises to inquire about a "Streetsweeper"
shotgun that defendant had allegedly sold to one Paul Sheedy. At
the premises, and with the consent of defendant, Agent Lawrence ob-
served the basement level, which had been converted into a gun-
smith work area of some kind. While there, Agent Lawrence observed
a drill press, three suspected machine gun receiver tubes, one
object resembling a firearm silencer, three more completed
silencers and one partially manufactured silencer. [footnote 1]
Agent Lawrence seized all firearm silencers. Subsequent
investigations indicated that defendant had no registered firearms
or silencers on record with the ATF nor had ATF received an
application for registration from him.


...

An examination conducted by the Firearms Technology Branch of
ATF revealed that three of the five apparent firearm silencers
functioned effectively as such and compared favorably with other
known firearm silencers. Two objects, although resembling
silencers, did not incorporate any internal silencer components and
were thus non-functional. As for the apparent receivers, one was
a section of hollow metal tubing and a template capable of being
constructed into a machine gun receiver but with no evidence of
machine or hand work on it. Two others were newly manufactured
Sten machine gun receiver tubes of the proper size and shape for
the construction of a Sten type machine gun.
The report concluded
that three of the silencers, by design, construction and function,
were "firearm silencers" as defined in 18 U.S.C. section 921(a)(24)
(1988) and as defined in 26 U.S.C. section 5845(a)(7) (1988). It
also concluded that the two Sten machine gun receivers were each a
"machinegun" as that term is defined in 26 U.S.C. section 5845(b)
(1988).


...

Defendant objects to the two-level enhancement for the number
of firearms on two main grounds. First-he contends that because he
believed that two of the silencers were "fake," he lacked the
requisite scienter. This argument was based in part on an ad-
vertisement for "fake" silencers by the company that supposedly
sold the devices to defendant.

Second, defendant argues that the two Sten machine gun
receivers should not be used in calculating the number of firearms,
because he was misled by an assurance from ATF that the receivers
were legal.
The defendant relied on a letter dated December 11,
1986, by the Chief of the Firearms Technology Branch of ATF, to
CATCo., the arms company that sold the receivers to defendant. This
letter stated in pertinent part as follows:

The receiver tube and template, in and of themselves, are not
regulated by the Gun Control Act of 1968. However, if this
tube is possessed in conjunction with other STEN submachinegun
components, the combination could be considered a combination
of parts from which a machinegun can be assembled, and subject
to the provisions of the National Firearms Act (NFA).

With respect to your question concerning the marking of a
machinegun by.an individual, Section 922(o), Chapter 44, Title
18, U.S.C., makes it unlawful for any person to possess a
machinegun which was not registered prior to the effective
date of this section. Therefore, an ATF Form 1, Application
to Make and Register a Firearm, cannot be approved if the
application is to make a machinegun.

* * * *

With respect to your question concerning component parts for
machineguns, internal parts for machineguns, in and of them-
selves, are generally not subject to the provisions of the
NFA. It is recommended that machinegun component parts only
be sold to individuals who lawfuly [sic] possess weapons for
which the parts are designed. If machinegun component parts
are possessed in conjunction with drilling fixtures,
templates and/or instructions intended for use in converting
a weapon into a machinegun, those combinations could be
subject to the provisions of the NFA.

If you plan to offer any of the above tubes, drilling fixutres
[sic], templates, or parts for sale, you should notify
customers that machineguns cannot be lawfully made from these
components.

Defendant argues that this letter represented to CATCO. and
thus to him that he could lawfully acquire the machine gun
receivers. He also relies on the advertisement for the sale of
Sten MK II receivers issued by CATCo., in which it was stated that
the receiver kits are "(BATF approved) NO FFL REQUIRED!" The
advertisement further stated that the kits come with a "[c]opy of
BATF approval letter." Based on these arguments, defendant now
appeals.


Corso attempted to claim entrapment through estoppel (The CATCo ATF letter) and failed.

The evidence - whether you wish to acknowledge it or not - is clear. WRT the A.T.F and specific firearms parts constructive possession is always a possibility.
__________________
"When a man who is honestly mistaken, hears the truth, he will either cease being mistaken or cease being honest." - Anonymous

"Dulce bellum inexpertīs." - Erasmus
BStrong is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th March 2018, 08:18 AM   #39
Ranb
Philosopher
 
Ranb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: WA USA
Posts: 9,371
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
Just because they are capable of bump firing it quickly without one doesn't mean that the bump stock isn't designed to increase the rate of fire so as to mimic an automatic. That's why it's the first part that is important as it has nothing to do with how fast the weapon can actually be fired by a specific person.
Thanks. I see your point.
Ranb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th March 2018, 08:20 AM   #40
Ranb
Philosopher
 
Ranb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: WA USA
Posts: 9,371
Originally Posted by Trebuchet View Post
The NRA is suing because the bill discriminates against 18, 19, and 20 year olds. Next up is the liquor industry.
If getting drunk was a civil right protected by the constitution, the liquor industry would have already sued.
Ranb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:44 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.