Sup /k/, figured I'd make a thread regarding the new SCOTUS decision about stun guns in MA. Apparently they say the 2nd amendment applies to "all bearable arms", which would imply select fire and bearable arms regardless of time period. While I myself would love to see the Hughes amendment repealed and am familiar with Miller v US, I find it unlikely that we'll get anywhere with Hollis. Not because it isn't a valid argument, but simply because "the chilluns". Can anyone give any insight to what this may mean as far as the Hollis case?
Pic semi related, let's see if we can summon the Alex with copious amounts of butthurt at the mere thought of his trust fund evaporating with an overnight judicial ruling.
>>29373035
We will win..
>>29374474
bump and I hope so. I really do.
>>29373035
Honestly, everything seems to be in place for a favorable outcome.
My biggest fear is they'll just go "Lol, we don't need to follow the constitution"
Republicans aren't going to vote for garland, then Clinton is gonna win and nominate another Sotomayor. RIP
>>29373035
I wonder if this will include expandable batons too, a lot of states are very unclear about whether you can carry them with or without a permit
>All of you Fudds actually follow the unconstitutional BATF laws...
LOL!
How does it feel to be perpetually in fear?
>>29374474
Fuck yeah, that's the type of attitude we need, even if we lose, we at least tried our best
>>29374474
I sure fucking hope so, I want manufacturers to flood the market with delicious modern autos so fucking badly
>>29374474
>>29374562
>>29374707
>>29374775
>tfw /k/ talks mad shit about arfcom activities
>tfw /k/ says " we will win" but does not donate money to NOLO to support his legal fees and travel fees for the court cases
i hate all of you
>>29374474
Our chance died with Scalia.
>>29374729
>fudd
Nice try buddy, I've been hunting once in my life and it was for hogs because my buddy asked me to help clear some pigs off his farmland.
>actually follow the unconstitutional BATF laws
Yeah, it sucks. It really does. The NFA is retarded. I sucked it up and bit my tongue and paid for a stamp for an SBR and honestly it may be the last stamp I ever purchase I feel so salty about it. It's asinine.
>fear
Nope. Just don't want my boy to grow up without daddy and my wife to live on a single paycheck.
>>29374707
Probably, but many states will still say "fuck the recent case law" until they are called out and sued on it.
>>29374591
Yeah. Probably.
>>29374811
You know as well as I do this would be a pro-bono case if need be. There isn't necessarily a correlation between money a judicial outcome. I've seen some fantastic public defenders and state's attorneys that make $40k a year. Nolo has as much dog in the fight as the rest of us. I'm also not in a position to risk my car payment for a legal outcome that I can physically survive without.
I totally support the bill of rights and your right to own any kind of arm.
Even with that being the case, automatic weapons scare me for some reason, even if they aren't any more effective at killing than semi-autos.
>>29375197
>don't want my boy to grow up without daddy and my wife to live on a single paycheck
>not in a position to risk my car payment
Try again, only this time with more:
>Is life so dear, or peace so sweet
>Maj. Sullivan Ballou's last letter
>our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor
>>29373035
it was unsigned which means it doesn't set precedent.
the Hollis lawyer can use it in his arguments but it's not a great big huge thing
>>29375211
>automatic weapons scare me for some reason
This is the problem right here. If machineguns were as popular as short barreled rifles and suppressors they would be much harder to ban. But since they were banned long before most people even had any idea how to get one legally they're screwed.
>>29375265
This
>>29375235
If you're implying I have no "honor" because I won't go to war with my government over the right to own automatic weapons, you're ridiculous. This is not a pressing issue for the American people.
>>29373035
there has literally never been a child killed in the USA with a legally registered full auto.
never
>>29375552
Maybe because the people wealthy enough to purchase one don't want to jeopardize their social and financial standings by killing someone?
>>29375197
>I'm also not in a position to risk my car payment for a legal outcome
>I'm also not in a position to risk some convenience for a freedom
ya know, if you let the government put cameras into every room of your house, youd never have to worry about criminals! just the police when you jerk off in your own bathroom
>>29375628
This.
Not that I agree with the NFA or the Hughes Amendment, but there are too many irresponsible gun owners out there that inevitably there will be people whose lives are lost because of these guns. That being said, these people would have had a semi-auto firearm if not a full auto. It's not like we are going to see an increase in crime, simply an increase in crime with full automatic firearms. Crime overall will stay about the same.
Guns will continue to be stolen from cars. Guns will continue to be stolen from homes. People will continue to sell guns to convicted felons through private sale.
Does this mean I think we should ban full autos? No. Does this mean I think we should ban guns from being kept in a car? No. Does this mean I think we should require guns be kept in a safe approved by the government when not in use like many other countries? No. Does this mean I think we should ban private sale? No.
I just think people should understand that with great power comes great responsibility, and unfortunately, if the NFA goes poof, the media will have a field day with the fucktard gun owners out there.
>>29375654
Fantastic Strawman, good sir.
This would imply that not only I haven't taken a non-expiring oath to the constitution twice, but that I did not care for or understand it. I would lay my life down in the name of freedom. That being said, the overwhelming majority of Americans think that full-autos are rightfully illegal. This is like saying that owning a sports car is fine and perfectly legal, however a sports car that exceeds 120 MPH is illegal if it is made after 1986. Most people are going to say...
>Golly gee willickers, I don't need a car to go that fast. Why would anyone? Fuck cars that go that fast, people would be all over the road and it could kill me!
Is it a logical argument? No not really, because these cars aren't going to be driving past 120 MPH on your local major thoroughfare, and if they do, there are dire legal consequences already in place, and that individual will likely lose the legal ability to drive after doing something to put the public in danger. It's the same argument, albeit that firearms ownership is constitutionally protected and vehicle ownership isn't. Most people owning a Lambo do so responsibly, and making it so that anyone could own a Lambo, most people would drive them responsibly as well. My point is, is that human logic and fear is completely irrational and how can we possibly fight irrational arguments with logic? We can't.
>>29375727
Which is why we need to kill off all of the right people
Alright I might be an idiot, but it seems like we are going all in straight for the brass ring. I know why it's machine guns, but why can't we find a way to get SBR's removed from the NFA? The law does nothing to prevent criminals from putting a stock on a rifle caliber pistol. Wouldn't it be smarter to chip away at it one piece at a time. That's how the anti's have gotten away with so much. Machine guns have so many enemy's even the people who have them want to fight making them legal to manufacture again. I'm all for MDA tears, but realistically what would be the most realistic and useful thing to get removed? I think SBR's
>>29374474
One thing is for sure and I should have added....Ammo prices will be insane until the increase supply, and 22LR will be no where to found.
>>29374648
She will not win and if she does, fuck it take our balls IE states and leave the Union.
>>29374811
First Fuck the mods on that site, namely NorCal who bans you for life for posting great questions and I did chip in money this month.
>>29375552
What about the ATF/FBI murdering innocent people at Waco?
>>29375674
>, but there are too many irresponsible gun owners out there that inevitably there will be people whose lives are lost because of these guns
Who gives a fuck? Why should we be punished because of what others might do and suffer the punishment of things we did not do.
>>29373035
>let's see if we can summon the Alex with copious amounts of butthurt at the mere thought of his trust fund evaporating with an overnight judicial ruling.
Fuck you.
>>29375990
Go kill yourself with one of your daddy's guns, cockbreath.
>>29375986
I agree, and I said I agree. I very clearly said I agree.
>>29374875
>TFW you knew his son
He was a cool guy.
>>29376048
So what was the point of your post?
>>29374811
>/k/
>having money to donate
Pick one
>>29375986
>I just think people should understand that with great power comes great responsibility, and unfortunately, if the NFA goes poof, the media will have a field day with the fucktard gun owners out there.
I guess /k/ can't read.
>>29376167
Where do you think you are?
>>29375237
It's not a precedent-setting case. It's an affirmation of Heller. That's why it was unanimous, because the MA court decision was so blatantly in disregard of Heller.
Here's a discussion of the overall situation and ramifications. See if you can spot the bias while you're reading.
http://www.ammoland.com/2016/03/supreme-court-ruling-kicks-ma-stun-gun-case-in-the-groin/#axzz43vS0BIke
>>29375979
Not the anon you're responding to, Waco wasn't technically murder by FA gunfire. Likewise, the killing of Randy Weaver's son was by bolt action rifle.
However, your point is an excellent one and should be used to flog the antis when they trot out their same tired arguments. You just have to be careful with the wording.
Just say that the only documented murders of children were committed by police carrying FA weapons.
>>29377802
Some of the davidians were shot.
>>29377802
It really does work, they are left speehless.
22LR mini gun
>>29373035
Nothing will happen until Marbury v Madison is overturned, and the supreme court uses the constitution and not case law to justify their rulings.
You would hope that when ruling on the constitutionality on an issue, one would use the constitution to do so...
Excited for that slimy sleazeball lawyer NoloContender to take more of ARFCOM's money with his "Hollis v. Holder" scam he's got going!
>>29375843
That slippery slope kinda turned into a cliff.
>>29375727
>This would imply that not only I haven't taken a non-expiring oath to the constitution twice, but that I did not care for or understand it.
Obango, is that you?
>>29381820
So how many machine guns do you own and fear losing value fuck face?
>>29382108
I own zero
>>29376167
As much as I'd like to see the NFA go away, people with bad intentions will always ruin things for others. Though I would like to own a FA firearm, making it so readily available would be a nightmare were something to happen. The hoops we jump through now could be lessened while still discouraging those with 'less than good' intentions.
However, I don't feel we can handle FA ownership without ridiculous hoops to jump through.
>>29382152
But anon, murder and assault are already illegal you fucking retard.
>>29382161
And we come back to the neverending back and forth. Despite it being illegal, people do illegal things. Readily available FA firearms would quickly become center points in plots. Such as an active shooter scenario where they followed all the rules to obtain the firearm, and are aiming for suicide by cop. We cannot plan for every scenario and I feel there would be many more like this.
SBR's and suppressors? Sure.
FA firearms? Too much risk.
>>29382320
Why? Nothing makes that FA fundamentally more dangerous, possibly less so since it will not force the shooter to take time between shots and instead a noob will just sling lead wildly and not hit shit.
You are such a fudd Jesus christ
>>29375906
I actually think it would be easier to overcome the Hughes amendment than it would be to get SBR's off the NFA.
>>29375628
Or maybe they just don't kill people in the first place.
>>29382152
What if they remove suppressors, SBRs, SBSs and take foregrip pistols out of the AOW category?
>>29375552
Western MA, uzi, suicide. A few years ago.
>>29382373
It doesn't necessarily need to be true. In our day and age, people view them as more deadly. FA's will always be viewed that way regardless of whatever people are told. Don't think I don't want it to happen. I would love to own some FA's, but it's a long road of problems to address and misinformation to clear.
>>29382559
>suicide
Cry me a river
>>29382320
>freedom?
>Too much risk
Move to europe faggot.
>>29382320
Do to bed, Alex
>>29382559
A legal UZI in Massachusetts? I think not
>>29382578
>it doesn't necessarily need to be true
Holy shit what is wrong with you?
>>29375990
Unban me from your blog, bitch.
>>29382823
It's not his blog, he just weaseled his way into a "senior writer" position by letting the editor play with his dad's guns and buying him lunch afterwards.
>muh baylor degree
>>29382320
You can't stop people from breaking the law, so why outlaw actions that don't hurt people?
Criminals will always do as they please, but with reasonable laws everyone is more free. There are no downsides.
If someone wants to kill/harm you and murder/assault laws wouldn't stop them, why would any other law work?
Checkmate eurofaggot.
And before you take this to the extreme, yes, I do believe people should have the right to construct nuclear reactors/bombs, provided:
- they remain at least 10% below critical mass (read: use nickel foil or implosion style)
- keep them stored in a state where NOTHING could detonate them (ex: shaped charges unwired, propellant and slug absent, tamper material separated, etc)
- the calculated blast radius and radiation, assuming a 105% efficient reaction, remains entirely on your property. This rule may be violated provided you have notarized written informed consent from ALL current potentially affected property owners (mineral rights too).
- they inform the government before detonation (don't want to start a war)
Why do I believe this? Because the knowledge/math of how to actually fabricate nuclear weapons is incredibly basic, and will become common knowledge the same way that gunpowder did soon enough.
If someone wanted to build and detonate a nuclear device, no law would stop them. So why have a law that would punish those who clearly have no ill intent?
>tl;dr the old adage/meme 'if I wanted you dead, you would be dead' is true independent of any laws. So why have laws that do more than harm those who do wrong?
>>29382931
>And before you take this to the extreme, yes, I do believe people should have the right to construct nuclear reactors/bombs, provided:
I like your style, /k/omrade.
>>29383562
Thanks anon-kun.
My view is that the only legitimate limits on the right to keep and bear arms are based on property rights and physics.
>>29382691
It was post 86 demo. And fuck that kid.
>>29382320
>Readily available FA firearms would quickly become center points in plots. Such as an active shooter scenario where they followed all the rules to obtain the firearm, and are aiming for suicide by cop. We cannot plan for every scenario and I feel there would be many more like this.
>SBR's and suppressors? Sure.
>FA firearms? Too much risk.
No sense at all? More over do you think if a person does not care about murdering others they care about small things like gunlaws?
>>29382134
Sure thing Alex.
>>29375552
>http://crooksandliars.com/2014/08/flashback-2008-8-year-old-killed-while
Unless you meant on purpose.
>>29382931
>105% projected yield
>US of Fucking A is commonly off by 15-20%
No one will be able to build these things with margins that thin. Also, what about geometries where the addition of water moderates the core to full critical?
>>29375727
Vehicle ownership is constitutionally protected, for the same reason handgun ownership is protected. You have a right to bear arms and a right to travel freely. Per Heller, popular means of utilizing a right cannot be banned. Hence, the government cannot ban vehicle ownership.
Gun owners of all people need to lay off the 'driving is a privilege' bullshit.
>>29386224
It's fine, most reactions wouldn't close to 100% efficient.
But you have a point, we could boost it to 120 or 125% efficient.
But the all potentially impacted parties must agree pretty much makes this a non issue, because the likelyhood of that happening is pretty low. And anywhere where it doesn't is likely to have such large parcels of land under the ownership of so few people as to not matter.
Basically, all this realistically would do is let people detonate low yield nukes for recreation and have private reactors/breeders without the government trying to fuck things up.
>>29382931
Absolutely. I completely understand that point. Places where guns have been banned are the perfect example. Gun crime goes down, knife crime goes up. There's no stopping crime, that point is clear. It's a very good argument as to why we should be allowed rights to FA firearms.
The only problem is conveying that point to the common man. Anti-gunners and the media have painted FA ownership as a hideous monster.
Despite the crime or murder rate with legally owned FA's being nonexistent, people don't listen to numbers. "FA's can shoot 100 bullets per second and kill the chilluns"
Why can't judges just use the constitution for their rulings on constitutionality?
>>29382931
I don't think you understand how difficult it is to enrich uranium.
>>29388580
I don't know, he just might have a centrifuge full of hexafluoric acid lying around.
>>29388663
Or he might have a device that can heat uranium to the point of being gaseous! We just don't know!
You've got to look at this like the rest of America looks at their problems:
NFA is only for the rich, and that's unacceptable! Feel the bern!
>>29388691
Government subsidized rifles for everyone when?
>>29388691
Fuck off Alex.
>>29382931
I would add:
- keep them locked up so they can't be easily stolen (we'd have to decide what constitutes an acceptable level of security).
- submit to regular/constant surveillance and inspections.
- Various devices should be attached to the nuke that alert the authorities if the weapon is being readied, or if the devices themselves are being tampered with.
>>29388811
Or you could just fucking ban them, it's worked pretty well
>>29388691
Fuck off Alex.
>>29389051
>Or you could just fucking ban them
Why? As long as they're stored safely by responsible owners, I don't see what the issue is. I mean, that's the only reason we're OK with the government owning them, right?
Besides, I think it's good for power to be spread around. It forces all parties to be more diplomatic. Just imagine how shitty things would be if only 1 country on Earth had nukes. They could demand whatever they wanted.
>>29386357
>Hence, the government cannot ban vehicle ownership.
Correct. However, the government can regulate the fuck out of where and how you may use your vehicle. The government can also provide a 'reasonable alternative' to vehicle ownership in the form of mass transit.
>>29388811
>keep them locked up so they can't be easily stolen
Independent of the easy of fabrication, the expense of materials means that those with enough resources to construct them have a vested interest in keeping them.
There would be no need for this. The weight of a nuke with a high enough yield to be of concern would make it secure.
If anything, you would only need safe storage laws for (relatively) low mass nukes, say below 2 tons.
>submit to regular/constant surveillance and inspections
Why? The only reasonable limitation would be harsh penalties for improper storage (able to detonate in a manner that would harm other people or their property without complete, current, and informed consent.
If you are that concerned about it then just commit a felony and anonymously submit a false tip to law enforcement that it is stored improperly. Then they can get a warrant and confirm that you had nothing to worry about.
>Various devices should be attached to the nuke that alert the authorities if the weapon is being readied
Durr, I can properly calculate the physics/math necessary and have the resources (wealth) necessary to fabricate this device, but I'm not smart enough to figure out how to trick the 'warranty void if removed' sticker the government put on with hot glue...
Gee I can't see how that is retarded at all.
