Harris Promises to TRAMPLE 2nd+4th Amendment Rights, Violate

[jdege]

Executive orders are supposed to be orders to the executive branch. The President telling the people who work for them what to do.

They should never be considered binding on anyone who doesn't work for a federal administrative agency.

[Lumpy]

Especially egregious has been reclassification: taking an existing law about something, and then insisting that something falls under that law that wasn't previously considered applicable e.g. "bump stocks are machine gun parts". Remember when the BATFE decided that green tip M855 ammunition was really armor piercing?

[Ranb]

Especially egregious has been reclassification: taking an existing law about something, and then insisting that something falls under that law that wasn't previously considered applicable e.g. "bump stocks are machine gun parts". Remember when the BATFE decided that green tip M855 ammunition was really armor piercing?

It was proposed, then the Obama administration backed down after considerable push back. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/veto-for-the-crony/

[Ranb]

How a firearm is defined is being decided right now amongst the Supremes in Garland vs. VanDerStok. We'll find out next spring I think.

You have a myopic hatred of Trump. You remind me of someone I know that has Asperger's. They are very intelligent. They grab on to an idea and pursue it like a dog with a bone, to the detriment of the rest of their daily life. They see everything in black and white, which at times is admirable, but makes it difficult for them to live in the real world. You are a gun guy, I don't want to be your enemy. I'm done arguing with you.

You push back against nearly any suggestion that Trump is anti-gun, even when presented with evidence that proves it. You make foolish claims about gun control law that you have no rational reason to believe are true in an attempt to prop up Trump's anti-gun agenda. You present yourself as the authority on gun control law when it is obvious to the most casual observer that you know little or nothing about it.

You try to get people to ignore the fact that bump stocks were illegal to possess from 2019 to 2024; as if as many as half a million law abiding Americans were never even affected by the gun grab.

When confronted with opinions that are contrary to yours, you evade answers to questions seeking to clarify your position and you will accuse another forum member of lying or having a neurological disorder.

Why shouldn't I dislike gun grabbers and anti-gun zealots like Bush, Trump, Reagan, Clinton and Biden? They really do not intend to protect our civil rights. But you would defend the likes of some of them no matter what they do to us. You are the enemy of all American gun owners because your would throw our civil rights under the bus just to support your favorite politician.

Instead of making any reasonable effort to debate, you retreat to personal attacks and suggest that I have a autism spectrum disorder. I am neither very intelligent nor do I have any neurological disorders.

Your chicken-sh*t style of debate has no place on any forum at all.

[Ranb]

Here are some links to track Garland v Vanderstok

https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/doc ... 3-852.html
https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/c ... anderstok/

[crbutler]

While I can appreciate your negative view of Trump, and I share it, how about commenting on the other side?

As bad as Trump is, from a purely 2A point of view, Harris is worse.

Yes, Trump used the admin state to attack both guns and hunting.

Any thoughts on if Harris would do the same or worse?

Heck, I suspect that if Harris had been involved, she would have came up with a bump stock ban that held up to SCOTUS scrutiny. The Dems have better deep state underlings than the GOP.

[Ranb]

I have commented on Harris. From a 2nd Amendment standpoint, I don't like her as she wants more gun control. I have made this clear in other posts. There is no way for gun owners to win in 2024.

But people here are not making excuses as to why a Harris gun grab is okay, like some people here are perfectly eFing fine with the Trump gun grab or even deny that it happened. I don't have to try to convince anyone that Harris is an anti-gun zealot.

[Ranb]

Heck, I suspect that if Harris had been involved, she would have came up with a bump stock ban that held up to SCOTUS scrutiny. The Dems have better deep state underlings than the GOP.

How do you think she could have done this and not escaped a reversal by the Supreme Court? The last bump stock ruling was divided on party lines. I doubt that the conservative Justices would have allowed any Harris gun grabbing EO or directive to the ATF to stand when they struck down Trump's gun grab.

Biden had the perfect opportunity to ban nearly all center fire semi-auto firearms in the same way Trump grabbed bump stocks. All he had to do was something like this;

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms,
and Explosives
27 CFR Parts 447, 478, and 479
[Docket No. 2022R–22F; AG Order No.
4367–2022]
RIN 1140–AA52
Semi-automatic firearms capable of bump firing.
AGENCY : Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
Firearms, and Explosives; Department of
Justice.
ACTION : Final rule.

SUMMARY : The Department of Justice is amending the regulations of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) to clarify that center fire semi-automatic firearms capable of bump firing are ‘‘machineguns’’ as defined by the National Firearms Act of 1934 and the Gun Control Act of 1968 because such firearms allow a shooter of a semi-automatic firearm to initiate a continuous firing cycle with a single pull of the trigger. Specifically, these firearms are capable of operating in the same manner as a machinegun by harnessing the recoil energy of the semiautomatic firearm in a manner that allows the firearm to recoil rearward and the trigger to reset and continue firing without additional physical manipulation of the trigger by the shooter, provided the shooter applies continuous forward pressure on the firearm with the supporting arm. Hence, a semiautomatic firearm which is capable of bump firing is able to produce automatic fire with a single pull of the trigger.

The above is simply a re-write of the final ATF rule on Trump's gun grab. I cannot come of with this kind of insanity on my own.

Would the ATF write a rule like this if ordered to by president Biden? Probably. They did it for Trump and wrote an opinion for Bush that resulted in thousands of people having to surrender the spring from the Akin Accelerator. They wrote a letter for Biden when he wanted to grab forced reset triggers. The ATF is the president's lapdog.

Now of course someone (almost everyone?) would be expected to raise a justifiable stink like they did with bump stocks in 2019. And eventually the case would reach the Supreme court where we would expect them to reverse such a gun grab. But how many months or years would it take after it went into effect and people started to destroy or surrender their firearms like they did their bump stocks?

Is anyone here stupid enough to claim that the gun grab was okay, or did not happen as long as the courts reversed it? Yes, there is at least one person on this forum would would say that crap.

[crbutler]

You miss the point that how you write a law (or regulation) makes a big difference.

Also, if the law is written by a congress and gets a president of the same party to sign off, SCOTUS has shown itself remarkably malleable in justifying legislative choices. Look at how FDR got the new deal passed through court scrutiny despite it being in violation of long standing precedent. Also see Obamacare, which somehow became a tax instead of healthcare insurance regulation when the conservative majority in SCOTUS got a hold of it.

If the bump stock ban had been written as it now requires a tax stamp, and we will grandfather all the old ones in, that may well have been seen as "reasonable" by the court.

Pointing out Trump's flaws is easy. Condemning both is easy. Convincing your opponents that you are doing things the right way is hard.

I can certainly see why folks are supporting Trump. I may not agree with them fully (or for that matter all that much), but I agree with them more than I agree with Harris supporters on the direction that the country should move in.

Bismark's comment re sausage making and politics applies. Ideological (or single issue) purity is not a possibility in our system. The only way to get your way 100% is to run for office and get enough others to vote you in (after they undoubtedly have compromised their views to vote for you...)

[Ranb]

If the bump stock ban had been written as it now requires a tax stamp, and we will grandfather all the old ones in, that may well have been seen as "reasonable" by the court.

This was addressed in the ATF final rule. Contraband is never registered. The ATF wrote the rule to ensure that no one would be allowed to keep their bump stocks. That is what Trump wanted; he wanted those bump stocks gone. After all, what good would his gun grab have been if Americans were allowed to keep their new machine guns? https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR- ... -27763.pdf Search for the word contraband. The ATF even addressed 4th amendment concerns.

Pointing out Trump's flaws is easy. Condemning both is easy. Convincing your opponents that you are doing things the right way is hard.

What did Trump do that was right in this case? His gun grab was not intended to save a single life; surely he knew that.

I can certainly see why folks are supporting Trump. I may not agree with them fully (or for that matter all that much), but I agree with them more than I agree with Harris supporters on the direction that the country should move in.

Can you explain why gun owners are supporting Trump when he has grabbed more guns than any other president and would like to have a gun confiscation program without due process? https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4716589/ ... ess-second

[crbutler]

I can’t explain why they supported Trump in the primaries if firearms are their principal voting concern.

I didn’t support him. I voted for Haley for a number of reasons.

That being said, you are now at the point where you are attacking the party that is more likely to resist additional gun control from a policy perspective.

I may not vote for Trump, but I’m not going to give aid and comfort to the party that pretty much opposes 90% of my political beliefs.

If the GOP calls and asks me why I’m not donating to Trump, I’m more than happy to tell them why. I’ve said enough here in the past that if Trump does something anti second amendment, I can certainly tell the Trump supporters that I told you so. You are correct that Trump has done anti 2A acts. It does confuse me the wholesale support he gets from gun owners because of that. It should be a bit more conditional, or as I prefer, to point out how much more anti 2A the democrats are- gun control is in their party platform for crying out loud.

Again, I don’t like Trump.

I’m mad that the MAGA types made this election as close as it is by tying conservatives to a populist old man who has huge negatives.

But I don’t think the current democrat party is any better than Trump, and all attacking Trump does is gives them a better chance of winning.

Being anti bump stock is spitting into the wind compared to wanting to ban semiautomatic magazine fed rifles.

[Ranb]

That being said, you are now at the point where you are attacking the party that is more likely to resist additional gun control from a policy perspective.

I disagree. The GOP 2024 platform does not even address firearms or the 2nd Amendment anymore. https://www.2024gopplatform.com/assets/ ... atform.pdf This will leave Trump free to continue his anti-gun agenda without any official platform to oppose him. You want to see the age limit to buy guns raised from 18 to 21? Trump does. You want gun confiscation without due process? Trump demands that it be that way. Who is going to stop him? The GOP wants Trump and his anti-gun agenda in the White House. Don't fall for his crap.

The GOP is anti-1st Amendment now because they seek to protect the christian religions and no others. Creating a "Federal Task Force on Fighting Anti-Christian
Bias", but no other religions, is directly against the 1st Amendment which says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". Perhaps Trump will assemble his own group of Sturmabteilung (brown shirts) to punish those with imagined anti-christian bias? While that seems rather far fetched, it is what he wants for red flag laws; no due process.

It should be a bit more conditional, or as I prefer, to point out how much more anti 2A the democrats are- gun control is in their party platform for crying out loud.

Yes, the Democrat party platform is anti-gun. https://democrats.org/wp-content/upload ... 8a2cf8.pdf They want universal bkgd checks, hi-cap mag ban, AWB, safe storage, end immunity from liability, red flag laws (with due process?), and increased funding for the ATF.

No where does it say they want to confiscate guns without due process or use the power of the executive branch to bypass Congress to enact gun grabs. This is why I claim Trump is a larger potential threat to our civil rights than Harris.

Being anti bump stock is spitting into the wind compared to wanting to ban semiautomatic magazine fed rifles.

Why do you think Trump will not go after all semi-automatic rifles seeing as how they are capable of bump firing?

[Lumpy]

The only way your anti-Trump stance makes any logical sense is if:

1. Enough gun owners are convinced of your logic that they withhold enough votes from Trump that he loses the election.
2. That this "punishes" the Republicans for refusing to more strongly support gun rights.
3. That the Republicans realize that this single issue cost them the election.
4. That they reform their platform as a result.
5. And that in the meantime, four years of Harris as president doesn't set absolutely disastrous precedents for wholesale infringement of the rtkaba far in excess of any harm a Trump presidency would have done.

Or do you still insist that with enough pressure Trump will bow out of the election? What pressure, that wouldn't amount to spitting on a forest fire?

Frankly I could almost believe you were a Democrat misinformation propagandist trying to slander Trump with the pro-gun crowd. Take it from me, Trump can't get any more slandered than he is already, but we're not going to hand Harris the election. Yes Trump, like too many Republicans, turned out to be a lackluster friend of gun rights. There's absolutely nothing you can do about that; suck it up and stop pouting.

[crbutler]

That being said, you are now at the point where you are attacking the party that is more likely to resist additional gun control from a policy perspective.

I disagree. The GOP 2024 platform does not even address firearms or the 2nd Amendment anymore. https://www.2024gopplatform.com/assets/ ... atform.pdf This will leave Trump free to continue his anti-gun agenda without any official platform to oppose him. You want to see the age limit to buy guns raised from 18 to 21? Trump does. You want gun confiscation without due process? Trump demands that it be that way. Who is going to stop him? The GOP wants Trump and his anti-gun agenda in the White House. Don't fall for his crap.
The GOP platform doesn't address firearms... as opposed to the other party's active advocacy of what you are claiming Trump will do... even though he says otherwise now.

The GOP is anti-1st Amendment now because they seek to protect the christian religions and no others. Creating a "Federal Task Force on Fighting Anti-Christian
Bias", but no other religions, is directly against the 1st Amendment which says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". Perhaps Trump will assemble his own group of Sturmabteilung (brown shirts) to punish those with imagined anti-christian bias? While that seems rather far fetched, it is what he wants for red flag laws; no due process.
Where did that come from? We already have a bunch of laws against religious bias. We already have task groups about antisemitism. I don't care for an additional federal task force, but there are already laws and policies that actually allow for this kind of thing.

Establishment of a state sponsored religion is forbidden. Look at historical practice by the men who wrote the constitution to show that they were not against the mention of god in the public arena.

Where the heck is the no due process part with red flag laws coming from? As I understand it, all restraining orders are kind of after the fact due process, but the places that have done them and not had due process are all democrat constituencies.

It should be a bit more conditional, or as I prefer, to point out how much more anti 2A the democrats are- gun control is in their party platform for crying out loud.

Yes, the Democrat party platform is anti-gun. https://democrats.org/wp-content/upload ... 8a2cf8.pdf They want universal bkgd checks, hi-cap mag ban, AWB, safe storage, end immunity from liability, red flag laws (with due process?), and increased funding for the ATF.

No where does it say they want to confiscate guns without due process or use the power of the executive branch to bypass Congress to enact gun grabs. This is why I claim Trump is a larger potential threat to our civil rights than Harris.
The same place that Trump says it. Biden has said he wants to enact EO's on gun control. Harris talks that way on the stump. I get Trump did that on bump stocks, but where did that get him?

Being anti bump stock is spitting into the wind compared to wanting to ban semiautomatic magazine fed rifles.

Why do you think Trump will not go after all semi-automatic rifles seeing as how they are capable of bump firing?

Historical. Which party has done an AWB? I also think that Trump has the sense that an actual ban of AR 15's is impossible in this country. Its possible that Trump learned something after his bump stock ban failed. He's certainly courted the pro 2A crowd politically, unlike the democrats.

Do I trust him there? No. But at least his appointed judges seem to be a bit more on our side than the ones Biden has appointed.

As to your prior point, while contraband is never registered, the things were not contraband when they were purchased. That's part of why this rule got overturned. There are a lot of machine guns legally in this country, and his rule did nothing about those. Frankly, the whole rule is one of the things why I don't like Trump. Most of the time he goes off half-assed and doesn't attend to detail. In this case, it worked in our favor, but in other instances it caused good policy attempts to fall apart.

Why did Trump go after bump stocks? Because he is not a gun guy, it was a populist position to take, there just had been a bunch of people killed with them (Las Vegas shooting, never mind that proper weapon use would have killed a lot more people..) and as he doesn't have personal skin in the issue, it was a low hanging fruit for him to show that he is "reasonable" to the left. It didn't work, but that's probably how his mind works.

Look at his wall that Mexico was going to pay for... the guy is a shoot from the hip big ideas type who isn't particularly burdened by thinking about consequences. Contrast that with the anti gun democrats who are aware of the consequences and think that is just dandy.

Your points seem to be that we should not vote for Trump.

I think I am pretty consistent that I think neither is worth voting for, but each individual voter can make their own call own call on which is more likely to cause issues.

I would certainly say that Harris has been more consistently anti gun than Trump in her positions but that both of them are currently trying to seem moderate on that issue. Walz has been very vocally anti gun over the recent past, but actually had a pro gun record until relatively lately. Vance has never been actively anti 2A. That does say that the GOP ticket on its balance is probably slightly better for the single issue pro 2A crowd than the Democrat one.

Trump's problems to me are more other than gun rights.

For all your commentary about being anti-Harris, it seems you have just about admitted you are pro Harris... saying a party who is silent on an issue is a greater danger than someone who openly advocates for the issue involved?

[Ranb]

The only way your anti-Trump stance makes any logical sense is if:.....

My anti-Trump stance is a personal stance, that is it. Trump is a gun grabber, he is anti-gun to the extreme. That is just one of this faults. He constantly lies and thinks we are stupid enough to believe us. He disrespects the military, especially POW's. The list of rational reasons to be anti-Trump is very long.

Frankly I could almost believe you were a Democrat misinformation propagandist trying to slander Trump with the pro-gun crowd. Take it from me, Trump can't get any more slandered than he is already, but we're not going to hand Harris the election. Yes Trump, like too many Republicans, turned out to be a lackluster friend of gun rights. There's absolutely nothing you can do about that; suck it up and stop pouting.

What have I ever said about Trump is that is not true?

The RNC is trying to hand the election to Harris. Why else would they nominate a old fool whose mental faculties are so obviously on the decline?

If I was a democrat, I would have been in favor of Trump's gun grab and push to raise the age limit for buying guns to 21 like Trump wants. Other than being anti-Trump, what have I said that leads you to believe I'm a democrat?