DaveTN

It’s a shame people feel they keep having to question the legality of killing someone that is committing a criminal act putting them in danger. Hopefully some day that will change.

I don’t have anything to offer, but have a question. Why .22 mag? Not disagreeing with your choice, just wondering if I need one and why?

Reading is fundamental; you need to go back and reread what I wrote; you didn’t comprehend it first go around. I never said or implied I thought it was okay; quite the opposite. It’s a discussion not an opportunity for you attack what you perceive as my attitude. Your hatred is blinding you.

No, as I stated in the post, this was not an Eminent Domain issue. I was commenting on Chucks comment about property rights. I’m just surprised the SCOTUS ruled in favor of it.

I don't understand your comment?

My step-son had them in his mid 30’s. He went through a bunch of shots. You may already know this but if anyone in your family (or close around you) hasn’t been immunized for chicken pox or already had them; you are contagious. You need to get off here and quit watching the news; you are supposed to avoid stress when you have them.

Because even the all powerful NRA could not promise Trump anything if he stayed out of the Bump Stock fray. A lot of Americans wanted something for Vegas. The guy that did it was dead; so it was Bump Stocks or go through the AR heat again. The choice was simple. Sorry that you and 8 of your friends didn’t make the cut. But sometimes that’s just how it works out.

Why the distress over the NRA? They couldn’t do anything; no votes were for sale. NRA, GOA, fill in your favorite gun rights group…. they either buy votes or they pay for legal action. No one was voting and the legal action went as far as it could go…..twice. I can’t believe I’m saying this…. money would not have helped. Dang man, that comes from someone that believes money can buy happiness and if it can’t; it sure can rent it. It hurt me to say that. The 2020 election is a long way off and a lot could change by then. But if you care anything about gun rights or privileges, especially being able to keep your AR’s, I’ll bet you don’t have anyone other than Trump to vote for.

I agree with you except for the justification part. He opened fire on gas tanks and would have killed innocent people if he had set them off. Heck with that; had he lived he would have needed to go to prison for a bunch of years, and life if he killed anyone. However, Eminent Domain is an egregious trampling of a persons property rights. But the SCOTUS put their stamp of approval on it. I’m surprised more people haven’t lost their lives trying to enforce that. Not that they used it with him; but they could have.

He has to walk a fine line. He can’t tell the background check folks to piss up a rope and the gun folks can’t elect him on their own. We will see how he works the art of the deal. Bump stocks don’t mean zip; there aren’t 9 people out there that give a rip or believe Trump turned his back on gun owners over them. Suppressors are another story. They are already illegal for everyone other than those willing to pay the tax. I doubt he is thinking about banning them for everyone; but who knows. Since he isn’t running his mouth a lot, I don’t think he is up to speed on these issues.

When Judges do it; its called legislating from the bench. Making up their own interpretations of the law based on their own feelings. That’s what the ATF is doing. Whether it happens in the courtroom or in an ATF office; there is recourse. The ultimate recourse is the SCOTUS. Its been to them twice and they have failed to hear it. The only recourse to that is to try again.

I’ll add this… The role of a School Resource Officer changed when the school shootings started. It went from the day to day enforcement of the laws in school, drugs, violence, etc., to being responsible for engaging an active shooter. Scot Peterson was too old and too out of shape to be doing that. And I don't think he had the ability to deal with that situation. Our schools need Officers capable of handling the threat, not giving the job to someone as a pre-retirement gift, or someone that wasn’t good on the streets. Our SRO’s when I was a kid was cops going from the street headed to the bureau. They were more than capable of doing the job. When I retired one of my friends ask why I didn’t go back into Law Enforcement if I wanted to do something. I laughed and told him I would get my azz kicked and I’m not chasing anyone unless I’m in a car. While I’m sure with my experience I could find a Department to hire me; my common sense tells me that would be stupid. The streets are a young mans job. I have never made the assumption criminals aren’t trained in the use of weapons or violence. Taking on a serious threat would require good training and being in shape. I know that with absolute certainty because I have experienced it firsthand when I was a young man in good shape.

Trump asked the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) to promulgate a new rule banning them. Previously, the ATF had said the National Firearms Act did not give the ATF the power it would need to classify them as illegal. Bump stocks “were not classified as machine guns,” ATF determined, because they were “unable to convert a weapon to shoot automatically.” Thus, “ATF does not have the authority to restrict their lawful possession, use, or transfer.” The newly drafted regulation, however, changes ATF’s interpretation of “automatic” and asserts that bump stocks allow a shooter to fire more than one round “by a single function of the trigger.” Now, these devices can be regulated under the NFA. The Supreme Court refused to reverse the ATF ruling. Chief Justice John Roberts turned down one effort. The second was referred to the full court by Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor, but it was denied without any public dissent. Suppressors on the other hand would require amending or repealing the NFA to make them legal. Make machines guns legal while that's happening.

Well dang, ya got me there Chuck. I have to agree.

The intent of the law was to outlaw machine guns. How much simpler can it possibly be? It can be argued that someone got lost in the technicalities by trying to add in unnecessary verbiage. Make the argument that a single pull of the trigger is the deciding factor and run it up the flag pole in court. Get back to us with the results. Here are other examples of where that happened: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. should be: The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. or how about… Any person that can lawfully posses a handgun in this state can posses a handgun in their private vehicle.

These might help you get started...

Sure I can, I can argue it either way. You won’t agree with me if I make a case on why they banned; so I won’t try. Money can't bring bump stocks back; so it matters not what either of us think. I don’t agree with the way he did it. I’m just saying the ban was inevitable and he seized the opportunity. During the Vegas shooting all the so call “gun experts” were saying “That’s automatic weapon fire!” including myself. So when I heard it was bump stocks, common sense told me they were gone; regardless of what I thought about it. Kamila Harris or whatever Dem gets in is already going to try an executive order outlawing private sales without a background check. They have already said that and it has nothing to do with what Trump does. They will then try an AR ban; turning all of us that refuse to comply into criminals. I suspect states will step in and that will quickly go to the SCOTUS. I guess how fast could depend on who they appoint AG. I know you think he a tyrant. But he is the elected President. I said the same thing right here when people called for the impeachment of Obama. He was elected not once, but twice. You can’t impeach a President because you don’t like him. I hated him and I think he did more to hurt this country than any President I have ever seen; and I believe it was intentional. The voters disagreed with me. However, beyond that, to compare Trump to Obama on gun control is laughable; it can’t be discussed seriously.

I wondered the same thing; but it won’t matter to the media. I also want to hear Trump expand on his brief comment.

That was 33 years ago. I hope you aren’t trying to hold your breath. You obviously won’t get legislation though Congress making machine guns legal now, or in the near future. They only way that could happen would be a Supreme Court ruling.

That’s what he did and they killed him. He gained nothing and changed nothing. He’s a victim of the city government; not a hero of the people. No need to start waving flags.

I agree. I’ve always said that if I was being questioned by the cops after a good shooting; I’ll talk to them without a lawyer. But if the FBI wanted to talk to me about anything; I would either refuse or tell them I need a lawyer. And I would tell them its because they can charge me with a crime, simply if they don’t believe what I’m saying. Good grief man, if cops could do that you would have to start building super big jails right away. Most criminals can’t do anything other than lie to the Police; even when its something that has nothing to do with the case.

Interpreting the spirit of the law or the letter of the law is what lawyers and Judges do; like it or not. The guy that decided a bump stock was legal; was wrong. And he was overturned; its just that simple. It was a very obvious attempt at getting around the machine gun ban. And it worked; until someone showed the world it was a machine gun. Trump is the type that makes things happen. He obviously used the bump stock ban for political gain. He probably should have waited and let Congress outlaw them; but he didn’t want them to steal his thunder. And since the ATF in this case didn't do their job; Congress will eventually step in and pass a law banning them. If the Democrats ever get control of both the house and Senate again; they will also try to ban AR’s. I guess your question would get into a whole 2nd amendment debate. But that really doesn’t matter because your state doesn’t recognize that you have 2nd amendment rights. Do I think a ban on machine guns is a violation of the 2nd amendment? Yes, of course it is if you believe you having one is required for a well regulated Militia, maintaining the security of a free State. But if you believe that, what about Tanks, Fighter Aircraft, Missiles, MOAB’s and Nukes? If you believe the intent of the 2nd amendment was ever to allow the people to overthrow our government; you would need those things also. The bottom line is, if you abide by the Constitution of the United States, we have a system in place to answer Constitutional questions when they arise. It is the Court System and ultimately the Supreme Court of the United States. Is someone going to spend the money to try to get the bump stock ban to the SCOTUS? Maybe, but doubtful, it’s an obvious outright violation of the intent of the machine gun ban. You could try to get the machine gun ban overturned; that would be great!

This is where I think it stands now.

It’s a misdemeanor; they can’t do anything more to Peterson than has already been done. Other than maybe push him to suicide. This is all about politics and the civil case. I have to laugh every time I see the FBI charge someone with no crime other than lying to the FBI. We don’t want this…I can assure you. But it sure would have made it a lot easier for us to get dirtbags off the street when I was a cop.