GOA in court re bumpstock-ban - interesting

[RicoTX]

"Olson even cited the lack of FBI and ATF statements, studies or reports to demonstrate that there is no conclusive evidence that a bump stock was actually used by the Las Vegas shooter.

This was something of a “mic drop” moment, because when given the chance to respond, the government’s lawyer could not — in fact, he refused to — counter Olson’s statement on this point."

https://gunowners.org/alert3719/?fbclid ... Ioz29vhyXQ

Just finished reading an email from them. They expect a decision next week hopefully. We shall see. I do appreciate GOA bringing this to court.

[crazy2medic]

"Olson even cited the lack of FBI and ATF statements, studies or reports to demonstrate that there is no conclusive evidence that a bump stock was actually used by the Las Vegas shooter.

This was something of a “mic drop” moment, because when given the chance to respond, the government’s lawyer could not — in fact, he refused to — counter Olson’s statement on this point."

https://gunowners.org/alert3719/?fbclid ... Ioz29vhyXQ

Thanks Andy for posting this, I have been looking for this all day!

[longtooth]

We need this to be resolved in favor of the 2nd Amendment. We are where we are due to the chipping away of all the yrs past. No more loses even concerning the things that are not on a lot of folks wish list.

[The Annoyed Man]

I just read the email this morning, on MAC’s Patreon page. What’s fascinating is that the gov’t lawyer refused to engage on the issue of the Vegas shooting. Here’s my SWAG tinfoil hat guess as to why .... They KNOW something about that shooting that they deliberately want to keep from the public eye. Isn’t it fascinating that, in the nation’s single worst mass shooting, where law enforcement had access to the shooter’s body, his entire gun supply, his girlfriend, his house, etc., etc., etc., knowing pretty much everything about him, they STILL don’t want to share that knowledge with the public, a full year and a half later?

We knew more about the JFK assassination 18 months later (whether or not that narrative is true), than we know today about Vegas.

What’s worse is that, UNLESS there really IS some kind of nefarious gov’t coverup over Vegas, there simply isn’t any reason at all to bury the facts. IF the public portrayal of Stephen Paddock is true, you’d think that govt would WANT to lay it all out there for public view, because it would make it MUCH easier for gov’t to move toward things like banning AR15s. And yet burying the facts is exactly what the Security Branch of the DNC (AKA “FBI”) and the LV Sheriff’s office have done.

Why? There HAS to be a reason, beyond sheer incompetence. I do NOT believe that the FBI is that incompetent. What I DO believe is that they are very selectively competent. In other words, if the truth advances their power, they are extremely competent. If the truth puts them in a bad light, then they are totally incompetent. You can also read this as: “The FBI is a completely corrupted agency”. That may not be fair to some of the individual agents, but dang man, if you’re a person of integrity, it should be obvious to you whether your employer is corrupt or not; and if you think your employer might be corrupt, then you have a moral obligation to either get the heck out and go find some honorable work, or to arrest those responsible for the corruption.

We know THIS much..... we know that a gov’t attorney, representing a gov’t agency which is trying to impose an infringement upon the 2A, refuses to discuss what happened in Vegas, because discussing THAT truth would be detrimental to gov’t’s attempts at unconstitutional regulation. And that should make any reasonably minded person ill at ease about gov’t motives - in both the GOA suit, and in the Vegas investigation, but ALSO in a larger sense, about gov’t’s motives WHEREVER it concerns any part of the Bill of Rights.

[The Annoyed Man]

What’s fascinating is that the gov’t lawyer refused to engage on the issue of the Vegas shooting. Here’s my SWAG tinfoil hat guess as to why .... They KNOW something about that shooting that they deliberately want to keep from the public eye.

That's the only reason I can think of.

Up until I read that, I simply figured that some lunatic went on a rampage and nobody knows why. Now that the above information is out, I'm having some empathy for the conspiracy theorists.

Paddock may well have been a deranged lone gunman, but as more and more knowledge of the facts emerge through back-channels, that looks increasingly in doubt. Some of Paddock’s rifles were photographed with bumpstocks installed; but he was done shooting and already dead when those pictures were taken. Furthermore, the pictures weren’t immediately released to the public. It doesn’t take very long for someone to install a bumpstock. My theory is that the bumpstocks were installed by corrupt law enforcement, after the fact, to try and build a case against their use. Further, I suspect that the reason the ATF attorney didn’t want to discuss Vegas, is because there is no financial data linking Stephen Paddock to the purchase of any bumpstocks.....but there is LOTS of financial data linking him to the purchases of the rifles.

Another possibility.... I don’t know whether or not bumpstocks come with a serial number - maybe for warranty purposes or something - but lots of things like appliances and mechanical devices DO, having nothing to do with requirements in the law. If bumpstocks have some kind of serialized product number, then the identity of an individual bumpstock buyer might be traceable data. If the bumpstocks on Stephen Paddock’s rifles have some kind of serial number on them, to whom will a purchasing trace of those individual bumpstocks be traceable? The ATF maybe? Or the FBI maybe? Or to someone else who is linked with the ongoing “investigation”? I put “investigation” in quotes, because it is patently obvious that an investigation is not what’s happening in Vegas.

I have not moved off of my personal position on bumpstocks. I neither want one, nor see a practical use for one in MY life. I don’t personally own any .50 BMG rifles either, for much the same reason. They don’t fit in MY life. But what I want or need has no relevance at all to what someone else wants or needs. And neither what I or someone else wants or needs in terms of personally owned firearms and/or their accessories has ANYthing to do with the original intent and wording of the 2nd Amendment.

My personal prediction is that bumpfire stocks will still end up being banned - simply because even most of the GOP views an “armed and insolent” population as a threat to their hold on power. So if the Michigan court finds in favor of the plaintiffs, ATF attorneys will petition SCOTUS for a hearing. If SCOTUS strikes down the ATF’s attempt to rewrite the meaning of “machinegun” in the law, it will be on the grounds that ATF overstepped into Congress’s privileges. At that point, Congress will undoubtedly make bumpstocks illegal by legislatively adding them to the NFA.

The GOP has amply demonstrated, since 2016, that they will not save us from the abuses and overreaches by gov’t. I submit immigration and Obamacare as two obvious examples. Like democrats, they view us as their beasts of the fields to be managed, and they are more inclined to “benevolently save us from ourselves” than to proactively protect our liberties. Why? Because actually honoring our liberties in the breach means fewer DC cocktail party invitations. And veto-proof majority in Congress or not, it seems VERY unlikely that Trump would or could spend any of his dwindling political capital on keeping bumpstocks legal. He’s so beset on all sides by democrats and “principled” republicans, that he won’t have the energy or resources to fight off restrictions on bumpstocks.

So even though the way GAO’s attorney is handling this suit in the Michigan court is very interesting, I hold out very little hope that things will ultimately end well for owners of bumpstocks.

[bblhd672]

I hold out very little hope that things will ultimately end well for owners of bumpstocks.

I hold out very little hope that things will ultimately end well for law abiding owners of firearms.

[K.Mooneyham]

Edited (deleted) by self

[Liberty]

My personal prediction is that bumpfire stocks will still end up being banned - simply because even most of the GOP views an “armed and insolent” population as a threat to their hold on power. So if the Michigan court finds in favor of the plaintiffs, ATF attorneys will petition SCOTUS for a hearing. If SCOTUS strikes down the ATF’s attempt to rewrite the meaning of “machinegun” in the law, it will be on the grounds that ATF overstepped into Congress’s privileges. At that point, Congress will undoubtedly make bumpstocks illegal by legislatively adding them to the NFA.

The GOP has amply demonstrated, since 2016, that they will not save us from the abuses and overreaches by gov’t. I submit immigration and Obamacare as two obvious examples. Like democrats, they view us as their beasts of the fields to be managed, and they are more inclined to “benevolently save us from ourselves” than to proactively protect our liberties. Why? Because actually honoring our liberties in the breach means fewer DC cocktail party invitations. And veto-proof majority in Congress or not, it seems VERY unlikely that Trump would or could spend any of his dwindling political capital on keeping bumpstocks legal. He’s so beset on all sides by democrats and “principled” republicans, that he won’t have the energy or resources to fight off restrictions on bumpstocks.

And this is why the NRA won't only not into the fight, but actually seems to support restricting bumpstocks.

[Ed4032]

Why use a bump stock when you can accomplish the same thing with a rubber band ?

And why outlaw something that you can do with a rubber band?

[Paladin]

I will admit, it is legal actions like this that are one of the reasons I am a GOA life member.

[The Annoyed Man]

My personal prediction is that bumpfire stocks will still end up being banned - simply because even most of the GOP views an “armed and insolent” population as a threat to their hold on power. So if the Michigan court finds in favor of the plaintiffs, ATF attorneys will petition SCOTUS for a hearing. If SCOTUS strikes down the ATF’s attempt to rewrite the meaning of “machinegun” in the law, it will be on the grounds that ATF overstepped into Congress’s privileges. At that point, Congress will undoubtedly make bumpstocks illegal by legislatively adding them to the NFA.

The GOP has amply demonstrated, since 2016, that they will not save us from the abuses and overreaches by gov’t. I submit immigration and Obamacare as two obvious examples. Like democrats, they view us as their beasts of the fields to be managed, and they are more inclined to “benevolently save us from ourselves” than to proactively protect our liberties. Why? Because actually honoring our liberties in the breach means fewer DC cocktail party invitations. And veto-proof majority in Congress or not, it seems VERY unlikely that Trump would or could spend any of his dwindling political capital on keeping bumpstocks legal. He’s so beset on all sides by democrats and “principled” republicans, that he won’t have the energy or resources to fight off restrictions on bumpstocks.

And this is why the NRA won't only not into the fight, but actually seems to support restricting bumpstocks.

The NRA has a long and well-deserved reputation for gun-rights advocacy in DC. In my own small way, I helped pay for some of that advocacy. I am still a member and intend to remain one. I totally get the concept of political capital, and have posted about the concept many times on the pages of this website. What I don’t understand is why the NRA would take the position they have, when they could have said “We don’t take positions on firearms accessories”, and simply stayed out of the fight. I have had this actual conversation with someone representing the pro-abortion organization NARAL. When she told me that abortion is a constitutional right, I said, “so then, you support ALL constitutional rights, and you’re also pro-2nd Amendment, since it’s a constitutional right”. She said “we don’t take a position on the 2nd Amendment”. I don’t mention this to discuss abortion. I mention this to discuss political tactics. LOTS of advocacy groups - who are probably anti-2nd Amendment - do not take a public stand on issues that are not part of their core advocacy issue. The NRA’s advocacy issues are the right to keep and bear arms, and teaching firearms safety. If the NRA believes that a certain firearms accessory - in this case, bumpstocks - has zero chance of remaining legal, why enter the fight at all? Why take a position that is going to alienate some of your membership, and not really buy you any good behavior points in the rest of the swamp? It’s not going to change how most of the swamp views the NRA. It’s not going to change NRA critics into believers. It’s not going to suddenly place the NRA into good standing with the statists on the left. Why not simply say, “not our fight” and stay out of it? At least they might alienate fewer of the membership that way.

And it’s not about numbers either. The NRA is not advocating for the banning of REAL transferable machine guns. It seems to think that as long as the owner jumps through all of ATF’s hoops, that owning one is just fine. And yet legal owners of actual machine guns are probably a much smaller number of people than owners of bumpstocks. So I don’t necessarily buy the notion that the NRA is making a cynical calculation to sacrifice bumpstock owners because they are only a “tiny” part of the overall membership. If that were so, they would have thrown machine gun owners under the bus a long time ago.

IF, as the GOA points out, allowing the capricious reinterpretation of machine-gun definitions to stand places the legality of all semiautomatic rifle ownership in jeapordy, why isn’t the NRA taking the same position as the GOA? The whole “constructive intent” part of the GOA’s argument concerns me. The NRA obviously supports the ownership of semiautomatic rifles, including rifles like AR15s and other civilian versions of rifles that share some design features with military rifles; and they have more or less consistently defended that ownership in political outreach, in the courts, and in the court of public opinion right up to the present. Do they really believe that a President Kamala Harris (or Trump, for that matter) wouldn’t use the ATF’s expanded definition to make all such rifles illegal since pretty much all semiauto rifles can be bumpfired with a rubber band or a belt loop?

That whole “constructive intent” thing is going to rear up and bite us all on the butt if we don’t squash it right now. I’d really like it if the NRA would be part of that effort. I would really like it if the GOA would coordinate its efforts with the NRA, if the NRA can get on board with this. United, they are more powerful than they are separated. I would like both orgs to avoid playing the “stay out of my rice bowl” game, and focus instead on beating back the attacks on our rights in a unified front.

[K.Mooneyham]

I deleted my post because after re-reading it, I saw how inflammatory it was. I know there are those who still have faith in Federal law enforcement, and would not like my post one bit. I am sure there are still agents, perhaps most agents, who are great people and just trying to do their job, the same as any law enforcement agency in this nation. However, I have a lot less faith in Federal law enforcement than I used to, and I'm cynical about the motivations of the leadership of those agencies, to the point where I don't trust that those agencies are doing the mission they have been charged to do.

[RicoTX]

Well said TAM.