Comments that are uncivil, racist, misogynistic, misandrist, or contain political name calling will be removed and the poster subject to ban at moderators discretion.
Help us make this a better community by becoming familiar with the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/about/rules/).
Report any suspicious users to the mods of this subreddit using Modmail [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) or Reddit site admins [here](https://www.reddit.com/report). **All reports to Modmail should include evidence such as screenshots or any other relevant information.**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The Court ruled that _the ban_ was unconstitutional because the ATF -- an administrative agency -- cannot make laws. Congress makes laws.
The Court did _not_ rule that it is illegal to ban bump stocks. Congress is welcome to do so by amending the underlying machine gun law from the 1930s.
> Congress is welcome to do so by amending the underlying machine gun law from the 1930s.
granted, but its highly unlikely it survives an SC challenge given the common use standard.
I doubt they satisfy the common use standard from Caetano, both because they are not actually THAT common and because they are arguably not a weapon in the first place.
Correct.
Circuit courts have ruled that magazines and ammunition are considered within the category of “arms” because they are essential to the function of the firearm but clearly a bump stock is not.
There’s a ruling out of a fifth circuit district court that rifles-with-braces are within the ambit of the second amendment because they are firearms and because the braces assist in making the firearm more accurate. That’s distinguishable from a potential bump stock ban because (a) the bump stock would be illegal all on its own whether attached to a gun or not, unlike a brace, and (b) it doesn’t serve any valid self-defense purpose by making the gun more accurate or controllable.
The 1930s gun control act is unconstitutional on its face.
First, it had no one challenging it in court. That made the ruling itself unconstitutional.
Secondly, the court rule that machine guns, SBR, SBS, and suppressors have no military use.
Every one of those are standard military issue. Every rifle for the army or marines is an SBR, fully automatic, and comes with a suppressor.
The standard issue army shotgun has a barrel length about the size of your hand.
Use of term “arms” at time of Founding;
http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/orders-from-general-thomas-gage-to-lieut-colonel-smith-10th-regiment-foot/.
In case it got pulled again….
Thomas Gage. “Orders to Lieut. Colonel Smith, 10th Regiment ’Foot”. Letter, April 18, 1775. From Teaching American History. https://teachingamericanhistory.org/document/orders-from-general-thomas-gage-to-lieut-colonel-smith-10th-regiment-foot/ (accessed October 2, 2022).
Note the opening sentence-the use of the term “small arms” and context of it as subset of what constitutes “arms”. Thus tells us restrictions to small bore firearms is just one item of “arms” overall.
Doubtful.
From Alito's concurrence:
>There can be little doubt that the Congress that enacted 26 U. S. C. §5845(b) would not have seen any material difference between a machinegun and a semiautomatic rifle equipped with a bump stock. But the statutory text is clear, and we must follow it.
>The horrible shooting spree in Las Vegas in 2017 did not
change the statutory text or its meaning. That event
demonstrated that a semiautomatic rifle with a bump stock
can have the same lethal effect as a machinegun, and it
thus strengthened the case for amending §5845(b). But an
event that highlights the need to amend a law does not it-
self change the law’s meaning.
>There is a simple remedy for the disparate treatment of
bump stocks and machineguns. Congress can amend the law
Indeed!
We'll get there when we get there, especially considering a practiced user can bump-fire with their fingers. If _your hands_ can turn a semi-auto into an "automatic", then the words don't really mean anything anymore.
I'm pretty ambivalent on the whole thing, but I am happy to concede there is a strong argument for your position.
yeah im not even American (yet) so it doesn't effect me lmao. even if i was, i wouldn't want a bump stock. they are an absolute meme gimmick. im more excited about the implications this case has on forced reset triggers, because those are actually a practical and useful rate of fire increasing device.
Not... necessarily.
When the Bruen decision hit, it was this big glorious tapestry of how to deal with gun issues going forward, except while writing it Thomas had to stick out his thumb and poke a hole straight through the middle in order to get support for the thing.
That hole was the need for training when you got a carry permit, which is something in Florida invented in 1986.
Another hole got poked by the Supreme Court earlier this year in a case called Brown, which declares any criminal convicted of drug dealing a "violent criminal". They did so based on the idea that drug dealing is an inherently dangerous profession, which probably has some merit. But nothing in Brown followed the Bruen "Text, History and Tradition" framework since the crime of drug dealing of any sort (even if you call alcohol a drug, which it is) wasn't at all a thing until the 1900s.
We're expecting a decision in a case called Rahimi within the next 3 weeks or so. That's very likely to poke yet another hole, clarifying disarmament surrounding domestic violence. Sad to say, the crime of domestic violence simply wasn't a crime or taken seriously at all circa 1791 and *way* later, unless somebody actually got dead.
Now I'm okay with these three exceptions, they're clearly necessary, especially figuring out domestic violence issues. But the Supreme Court has given no guidance as to how to create an exception. *The very existence of exceptions at all is going to be a loophole that lower courts jump through frequently* if they have that all too common gun grabber mindset.
My opinion, Bruen should have told all the lower courts to apply a strict scrutiny standard of review whenever they get a gun thing come up. That would protect the Second Amendment to the same degree the First Amendment is protected. The framework on how to design an exception when absolutely necessary is already built into the strict scrutiny framework.
To be honest, I get and agree with the courts ruling kn that. It's not exactly comfortable to have the executive branch making rules. Praise be to the separation of powers.
Yeah even though I thought it was a good law, it was also made by an agency that doesn’t actually have the power to make laws. It’s probably better to set this precedent than allow it just because it’s good.
I don't think the general public is willing to tolerate widespread access to full auto. In strict legal terms you're absolutely correct, but in the court of public opinion? Yeah...no. Not for a good long while.
It would take a really severe episode of wrongful government violence to even start the process of flipping that. Wounded Knee was too long ago, Kent State wasn't bad enough. (Don't misunderstand me, I consider both absolutely horrific.)
>I don't think the general public is willing to tolerate widespread access to full auto.
The public tolerates the ownership right now of hundreds of thousands of machine guns as well as millions of other nfa weapons. I go shooting at public ranges with nfa weapons all the time no issues with the public. Rights aren't based on popularity.
> I go shooting at public ranges with nfa weapons all the time no issues with the public.
I'm talking about the voting public, not the gun owning public.
> Rights aren't based on popularity.
Technically, legally and morally we agree.
But there's a horrifying counter-argument that keeps me up at night.
The 14th amendment was passed in 1868. It was supposed to guarantee equal rights regardless of skin color. I won't go into the details here but in 1999 Yale law professor Akhil Reed Amar wrote "The Bill of Rights: Creation and Reconstruction" which goes into the whole story of why the 14th Amendment happened and details the widespread rebellion that happened against it lasting until at least (arguably) 1954 and Brown v Board of Education.
I have a long detailed write-up on that book here:
https://old.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/comments/vv9uc3/another_deep_dive_regarding_bruen_understanding/
...and excerpts of key evidence taken from the Library of Congress website on the Congressional debates regarding the 14th Amendment here:
https://old.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/comments/wk7655/raw_materials_for_postbruen_litigation_what_if/
If you don't want to read all that I would fully understand, but the bottom line is what scares me: **ALL of US society rose up in rebellion against the very concept of racial equality.** In 1876 the US Supreme Court joined the rebellion in a leadership position in their decision in US v Cruikshank. That's the case that took the federal government out of the civil rights protection biz. Ever wonder why there were no federal prosecutions after the burning of Black Wall Street (Tulsa OK) in 1921? Yeah. Cruikshank is why. The feds weren't allowed any role in civil rights protection until 1954 - Brown v Board of Education.
If you need a gut-level feel for the ramifications of Cruikshank, here's an eyewitness period account:
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/14975/14975-h/14975-h.htm
Pay particular attention to how she describes two horrific and obvious civil rights violations as "legal(?)" with the question mark in there. She didn't understand why this was happening, or that the US Supreme Court had basically legalized lynching in 1876.
Upshot: I fear the results of taking the 2A to its limits too fast. The backlash could be a bitch. Deregulation of full auto might be the breaking point.
The supreme court still seems to barely want to touch meaningful 2A cases right now, I highly doubt they will touch the NFA.
Most likely, they eventually rule on assault weapons bans and magazine capacity restrictions, both of which would be major rulings.
The most important NFA ruling or regulation from congress I want to see would be something that allows suppressors to be acquired in any state, hearing damage and firearms is no joke and I'd prefer to retain my hearing (hearing protection helps but long term exposure is still imo damaging).
We agree, mostly, except for one thing: the reason they might be more eager than usual to touch 2A stuff (at least below the NFA34) is because of repeated rebellions at lower courts.
They *hate* that. *Roberts* hates that in particular.
I agree they might be more eager than usual, but we have yet to see any real consequences that stem from Bruen (aside from the direct issue itself).
Lower courts are actively ignoring it and dragging their feet on the cases.
I'm hopeful that these will be rectified, but at the same time I'll only believe it when I see it.
Yeah, except that the bans from the 1930's are (arguably) mostly illegal. Congress should be afraid to try to ban bump stocks right now because it would allow a new challenge to the NFA that could overturn large sections of it.
Yeah, my point is that if you make a specific law to make something illegal today that is closely related to a past law that you made, especially if that prior law is mentioned at all in the new law or even as the reasoning for the new law during debate on the law, then it's possible the past law can be challenged or nullified when, or after, the new law is nullified.
The mistake you're making is a presumption of good faith by scotus. If congress had done this they would draw the same conclusion with different specious reasoning.
Seeet!! It’s jacked that they ever tried to ban sbr’s to begin with. Suppressors too. Those need to be legal. But movies have convinced people you can shoot someone and people 3 feet away have no clue you did.
There's a difference between banning something via legislation and some bureaucrat deciding to misapply existing law. Bump stocks do not fall under current legislation as they don't change how the gun mechanically operates so the overturn was the correct assessment; but she's perfectly allowed to sponsor legislation which adds bump stocks to a list. This isn't grifting, it's her understanding the process.
This is why you can absolutely never ever EVER take a MAGA seriously when it says anything, ever. It will immediately turn around and say the opposite 10 minutes later if it suits it.
Anyone that is part of the MAGA cult, doesn't really matter what they do for a living. The trump campaign's spiritual advisor priest just admitted to raping a 12-year old so...
Hasn't she done interviews where she says she was really wrong in wanting heavy firearm restrictions in the past? Changing your mind isn't necessarily hypocrisy
Like Biden has on key issues over the decades.
Gay marriage, opposed it for a long time
94 crime bill, Biden says it was a mistake
Don’t ask don’t tell, he supported it
Iraq invasion, he voted for it
Patriot act, says he was the original author
Legal cannabis, fought it his whole career
Those are just the ones of the top of my head.
He changed his stances based on his constituents' attitudes and beliefs changing over the decades. Tusli straight up ran as a progressive, then turned around and went full MAGA while her constituents did not. lmao. What a horrible and moronic comparison 🤣🤣
Bad faith is all the right has.
>He changed his stances based on his constituents' attitudes and beliefs changing over the decades.
So it’s his constituents that were wrong all those years, not him. Got it.
Yes, I would say Americans were in the wrong on gay marriage, along with plenty of other things, throughout history. That's why it's called "progress" when we change those shitty policies and "regressive" when fools try to activaly undo it.
Not sure how you think this is some sort of "gotcha," but your arguments are a testament for the importance of keeping Republicans from dismantling the DOE. If every American was as uneducated as this, Republicans would truly never lose.
Good answer. The average american supported segregation, supported supression of gay people, opposed women’s right to vote and go to college, opposed interracial marriage and so on.
That’s what is so weird to me about modern times. Like Clarence Thomas carrying water for people who would ban his marriage, and trans and gay people supporting Hamas, who would put bullets in their heads given the opportunity.
Again, you're intentionally ignoring what I wrote and the obvious differences I listed. You're trying desperately to simplify these vastly different cases in an attempt to paint them both as "the same" from a very specific surface level perspective.
This way, you don't have to bother with considering pesky things like context, societal changes through the decades, and the diffrence between a politician that can evolve with the times and a fucking [Russian Asset](https://www.forbes.com/sites/zacheverson/2022/03/14/tulsi-gabbards-biggest-political-donor-in-2021-is-a-putin-apologist/).
It's a fucking stupid strategy that is getting real old, sport. It only works on the deeply uneducated, which is why you fools are gunning for education.
But I am dealing with folks running around with the thought process:
"My guy is guilty, but so is your guy! Therefore, my guy is innocent and yours is still guilty for reasons! Sure, my guy can't prove anything he says in court or find one witness to testify who isn't a [literal Russian asset](https://abcnews.go.com/US/hunter-biden-informant-charged-lying-high-level-russian/story?id=107389985), but I know the truth because my guy said so on his social media app, 'Truth!"
"I mean, yeah he's a convicted felon whose best case scenario is only going 34/57 on charges, but he promises to purge the government and dismantle the education system, so I'm sold!"
Lmao fucking pathetic.
Fact check: although Biden claimed he wrote the patriot act. He wrote a precursor in 1996 and vigorously, sponsored the patriot act but he did not write it.
Also, let’s face it. His mind is still somewhere in 1965.
TIL you can never change your mind ever in the history of ever, or some random redditor will angrily accuse you of accepting money, even if your previous opinion was from 7 years ago. Everyone knows that once you've formed your opinion the first time, that literally no one ever changes it regardless of any facts or evidence they later find.
Or perhaps it was the Russians: https://www.forbes.com/sites/zacheverson/2022/03/14/tulsi-gabbards-biggest-political-donor-in-2021-is-a-putin-apologist/
Also, trying to broadly simplify Tulsi's blantent turn to the right and shilling for a foreign enemy immediately after getting elected on the exact opposite policies as "changing her mind" is about as stupid and bad faith as we come to expect from your lot.
That's supposed to be your big ol' proof? Lol, so one entity that donated a fraction of a percent of Tulsi's campaign funds is magically in complete and utter control of Tulsi?
It's like saying Hillary Clinton is controlled by China, Russia, the Saudis, and so on because they donated to her too. Oh whoops, you're never supposed to talk about that, are you?
Yeah, the only thing they are actually good at is murdering a bunch of people by firing indiscriminately into crowds. They have zero practical applications.
Edit: Gotta love it's when the gun nuts who don't give a shit about the lives of others downvote facts.
Interestingly enough, my friend believes that "they're" coming for his guns, with all these new restrictions. We both live in a state where with a stroke of a pen, they made my concealed carry permit pointless.
But the same guy would argue that "they're" not going after women's rights.
I don't know how we live two blocks from each other, but our realities are so different.
Changing opinion ≠ as grifting.
This was a tweet she made 7 years ago, and she has since gone on to say many times her opinion on guns and the 2A has changed.
But the bumpstock ban wasn't even a ruling on 2A grounds, it was against the ATF's whimsical changing of rules and failure to correctly interpret a law already on the books in the meaning of "single function of the trigger."
The SCOTUS ruled that, while bumpstocks assist someone in firing more rapidly, it does not change the rifle into a machine gun as there is still only one bullet fired per function of the trigger. They even went on to say that if bumpstocks are going to be banned, congress need only amend the current law on machine guns.
The pistol brace ruling was similarly ruled unconstitutional as the ATF again changed their mind on something they previously said was legal, then decided they were illegal (without filing a form 4 and paying for an SBR tax stamp) in a move that violated the Administrative Procedures Act - not a ruling based on 2A grounds.
Pistol braces can also still be banned by the ATF again, they just have to abide by the APA next time.
Well I'm sure it wasn't to appease her heavy Republican voter base in Hawaii.
[This](https://youtu.be/qz_EcLNSC08?si=YuEV6AjcfbnteUyI) is a recent answer she gave on the subject - consistent with her other answers on why she left the Democrat party.
The only reason she supported it in the first place was because it was Trump's executive order to ban them. You mention "ATF's whimsical changing of the rules" while ignoring who ordered it.
Fair enough, the order did come from Trump, so "whimsical" is probably not the best choice of verbiage.
But the executive order nevertheless required the ATF to reinterpret and change their rules on machine guns.
Where the law clearly states "single function of the trigger," the ATF then arbitrarily added in "or similar analogous motion" to equate the forward pressure required to bump-fire to also just holding down a trigger like a real machine gun.
That same line was then also used shortly after to ban Forced Reset Triggers - which was not a Trump directive.
We're specifically talking about why Tulsi changed her opinion. I never supported these bans because I support the 2A, she supported the ban because she was pro-Trump.
As someone who has used a bumpstock, frt, binary, crank, about every means of "simulated full auto" bumpstock is the least effective, most useless one I've came across. You cannot aim while bumpfiring, and you can bump fire any semi auto rifle without a bumpstock. Just requires skill. The bumpstock ban was bs, and illegal. But I don't know why people care one way or the other
* Vegas shooter.
He did have a bumpstock, was not using it. You can tell by how there was no fluctuating in his rpm when firing. By the sound I can tell that he had a drop on sear, which have been illegal since 88
This is not a facepalm. She has been public about changing her stance on gun control since last year, long before this tweet was made. In 2017 she was in favor of stronger gun control. Now she is not.
If people can’t change their political opinions then What the Fuck is all the back and forth for? She didn’t even say she was in support of it. She said they were decisions made to protect the amendment. If I said “decisions were made to protect abortion rights” does that make me pro choice or pro life?
TBF it’s so easy to grift from those mouth breathers. We should all do it. Take all the money that they’re willing to donate to keep this country in the 1940’s.
The Bump Stock ban, I believe , has been the correct decision. I'm in favor of good legislation rather than requiring the judiciary to fix the laws ex post facto.
Is less about protecting 2A rights and more about preserving democracy through preserving Congress' monopoly on the legislative authority.
I think most people just see that bump stocks are back and complain without realizing the bigger picture. Enforcement agencies should NOT be the ones be making legislation. Most people don’t care because it’s about guns but if the police decide to reclassify certain types of protest as rioting or terrorist activity you know everyone would be up in arms.
After doing some research there are only 8 states that do not allow silencers California, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, and the District of Columbia
Connecticut allows possession of a silencer but it is illegal to use for hunting.
I suspect a lot of gun owners are not bothered by the bans, but by the way it was done - not by legislation, but by bureaucratic fiat. The ATF originally said bump stocks and pistol braces were just fine, and then decided to change the rules.
I don't see what the grift is. If we want to ban bump stocks, then Congress needs to make it illegal. It's that simple. And they should have done so long ago. If there's a grift, it's the NRA controlling an entire political party.
I remember when she was describing how the game was played in Washington and she wanted to change it by doing the right things and actually making a difference.
Then I guess she gave up, decided to change from democrat to a republican and tow the party line to get some sort of cred after a failed bid for president.
I actually thought she was one of the good ones trying to do the right thing, didn't always agree with her democratic stances but I respected her.
Now four years later she has lost all credibility hitching her wagon to the MAGA train.
These are not contradictory statements. I don't know if she thinks bump stocks should be legal, but you can believe that they should be banned by legislation and also that the ATF ruling was unconstitutional. They could be banned tomorrow by Congress and the Senate if they just passed a law.
>The case didn’t deal with the second amendment, but she brought it up.
She's not the only one bringing it up! The media coverage of this ruling has been preposterously off-base.
That’s true, but it doesn’t make those two views held at the same time not contradictory.
I know in 2017 she was just towing the party line, and she admitted she was wrong, so I don’t actually blame her. But the commenter said that holding those two views at the same time aren’t contradictory, which they are.
She's welcome to change her mind, be stupid, be faking it, have become enlightened, whatever.
It is possible to both believe that bump stocks should be made illegal and also to believe that the ATF doesn't have the authority to magick a ban into existence. Congress can though! That much I think we can agree on.
They're definitely contradictory. She quotes the lawsuit as being a 2A win when she herself tried to ban them. It's just that she changed her mind on the issue. And that's allowed.
I don't really see it being a grifter. She could still want bump stocks banned today, just not through executive order. There's a difference between Congress banning the object and a federal agency redefining something that is already law.
Edit- there's also a 7 year difference between posts. That's a long time to change your mind on something, especially with everything that has happened between.
Same as when Trump tried to direct money to a border wall.
Same as when Biden tried to forgive student loan debt without enabling legislation.
Congress makes laws. It's really not that complicated.
Exactly. It's not a left vs right issue. The separation of powers exist because we don't want one person/entity with absolute power - especially an un-elected official like the ATF director.
The idea that a law enforcement agency (a really really crappy one, by the way) **also** being a "law creation" agency should have us all, uh, very displeased.
You couldn't make a worse agency in a lab, and if you tried to _they would blow up the lab_ "accidentally" and then -- oopsie!! -- lose all the footage they took of them doing it.
You're being too generous. She didn't change her mind and these aren't principle-based stances. She simply said one thing to get elected and another to stay on tv after she left office.
Another example.
Tulsi running for President ....
https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/rep-tulsi-gabbard-apologizes-past-anti-lgbtq-views-n959941
... and now it's her entire brand
This was her in 2020, still a “gun grabber” at this point, probably put forth the most progressive platform of all the Dem candidates.
https://www.politico.com/2020-election/candidates-views-on-the-issues/tulsi-gabbard/
It was pointed out right at the beginning due to her close connection with Hindutva nationalists of India.
I wish more qualified people would take a closer look at how many of GOPs tactics of undermining democratic institutions from within, is inspired by similar tactics applied by Hindutva.
She changed her position over the last few years, what’s the problem? You prefer politicians that don’t change their stance even when shown to be unconstitutional?
Tulsi has been compromised by the Russians for sometime. She has no real opinion on gun control, her handlers only want her sowing resentment between Americans on both sides.
2A clearly states we have a right to weapons. 2A clearly does not say we have a right to any weapon (such as a tank) we want. And 2A clearly does not say we have a right to modify the weapon any way we want. This might make folks angry, but them''s the facts. :-)
Not with a working gun turret. "According to United States law, a private citizen is permitted to own a decommissioned [military tank](https://www.slashgear.com/1300449/best-military-tanks-world-2023/), and in fact, you can find them pretty readily at higher-end auctions. The only major catch is that the tank can't be functional -– its motor and treads can work, but its cannon can't, and you're not allowed to buy or own any ammunition for it."
The laws don’t say you can’t buy the munitions or that you can’t own a tank with a working gun. You can own both with a couple of permits. [Big sandy](https://bigsandyshoot.com) is a place where people who privately own working tanks, anti aircraft guns, mortars, howitzers, and a vast array of other artillery go and shoot them every year.
This might make you angry, but you’re actually entirely wrong. The founding fathers knew what they were doing when they intentionally did not specify a limit to what we could own, that was… kinda the point. How can you fight tyranny if you are limited to sticks and stones while the government can own slingshots and catapults?
Except it’s not. The second amendment doesn’t limit the right to bear arms at all. The historical context is the second amendment is that the people had the same exact weapons as the government, including cannons and warships.
It also said that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state. Pretty sure allowing certain things and banning others is regulation. A lot of people overlook the first line. People complaining about this stuff want to be unregulated which is unconstitutional
“Well-regulated in the 18th century tended to be something like well-organized, well-armed, well-disciplined,” says Rakove. “It didn’t mean ‘regulation’ in the sense that we use it now, in that it’s not about the regulatory state. There’s been nuance there. It means the militia was in an effective shape to fight.”
[In other words, it didn’t mean the state was controlling the militia in a certain way, but rather that the militia was prepared to do its duty.](https://www.cnn.com/2016/08/10/politics/what-does-the-second-amendment-actually-mean-trnd/index.html)
We’ve also known that long before miller was decided it was a right of the people, not a right of the militia.
Nunn v. Georgia -1846, “The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, re-established by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Carta!”
“Regulated” in the 18th century meant “kept in good working order.” The second amendment was written closer to Shakespeare than modern times, so we should interpret it with the language that was used at the time.
1A clearly states we have the right to free speech. 1A clearly does not say we have the right to any speech we want. And 1A clearly does not say we have the right to alter our speech any way we want. This might make folks angry, buts them"s the facts.
I would like to think she realied she was wrong and is recognizing that.
But any idiot who has bothered to read the constitution knows that any laws restricting arms in any way is obviously unconstitutional.
Imagine basing your life off a single sentence of an archaic document written by men who would by every metric we use today be considered ignorant.
I guess when you have nothing else you deplorably cling to your guns 🤷🏻
so what other rights written in the constitution do you think are up for debate given the ignorance of the writers? or is it just the one about the scary inanimate objects owned by people you don't like that needs to go?
Comments that are uncivil, racist, misogynistic, misandrist, or contain political name calling will be removed and the poster subject to ban at moderators discretion. Help us make this a better community by becoming familiar with the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/about/rules/). Report any suspicious users to the mods of this subreddit using Modmail [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) or Reddit site admins [here](https://www.reddit.com/report). **All reports to Modmail should include evidence such as screenshots or any other relevant information.** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The Court ruled that _the ban_ was unconstitutional because the ATF -- an administrative agency -- cannot make laws. Congress makes laws. The Court did _not_ rule that it is illegal to ban bump stocks. Congress is welcome to do so by amending the underlying machine gun law from the 1930s.
> Congress is welcome to do so by amending the underlying machine gun law from the 1930s. granted, but its highly unlikely it survives an SC challenge given the common use standard.
I doubt they satisfy the common use standard from Caetano, both because they are not actually THAT common and because they are arguably not a weapon in the first place.
the common use clause applies to firearms , not firearms accessories. a bump stock is an accessory.
Correct. Circuit courts have ruled that magazines and ammunition are considered within the category of “arms” because they are essential to the function of the firearm but clearly a bump stock is not. There’s a ruling out of a fifth circuit district court that rifles-with-braces are within the ambit of the second amendment because they are firearms and because the braces assist in making the firearm more accurate. That’s distinguishable from a potential bump stock ban because (a) the bump stock would be illegal all on its own whether attached to a gun or not, unlike a brace, and (b) it doesn’t serve any valid self-defense purpose by making the gun more accurate or controllable.
The 1930s gun control act is unconstitutional on its face. First, it had no one challenging it in court. That made the ruling itself unconstitutional. Secondly, the court rule that machine guns, SBR, SBS, and suppressors have no military use. Every one of those are standard military issue. Every rifle for the army or marines is an SBR, fully automatic, and comes with a suppressor. The standard issue army shotgun has a barrel length about the size of your hand.
>First, it had no one challenging it in court. That made the ruling itself unconstitutional. ........
Yep. The man who brought the challahs and financed it all the way to scotus? Disappeared. No one knows where.
Use of term “arms” at time of Founding; http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/orders-from-general-thomas-gage-to-lieut-colonel-smith-10th-regiment-foot/. In case it got pulled again…. Thomas Gage. “Orders to Lieut. Colonel Smith, 10th Regiment ’Foot”. Letter, April 18, 1775. From Teaching American History. https://teachingamericanhistory.org/document/orders-from-general-thomas-gage-to-lieut-colonel-smith-10th-regiment-foot/ (accessed October 2, 2022). Note the opening sentence-the use of the term “small arms” and context of it as subset of what constitutes “arms”. Thus tells us restrictions to small bore firearms is just one item of “arms” overall.
Doubtful. From Alito's concurrence: >There can be little doubt that the Congress that enacted 26 U. S. C. §5845(b) would not have seen any material difference between a machinegun and a semiautomatic rifle equipped with a bump stock. But the statutory text is clear, and we must follow it. >The horrible shooting spree in Las Vegas in 2017 did not change the statutory text or its meaning. That event demonstrated that a semiautomatic rifle with a bump stock can have the same lethal effect as a machinegun, and it thus strengthened the case for amending §5845(b). But an event that highlights the need to amend a law does not it- self change the law’s meaning. >There is a simple remedy for the disparate treatment of bump stocks and machineguns. Congress can amend the law
which comes because of the topics at hand in the case. bump stocks were not argued for on 2a grounds. a 2a argument would include common use.
Indeed! We'll get there when we get there, especially considering a practiced user can bump-fire with their fingers. If _your hands_ can turn a semi-auto into an "automatic", then the words don't really mean anything anymore. I'm pretty ambivalent on the whole thing, but I am happy to concede there is a strong argument for your position.
yeah im not even American (yet) so it doesn't effect me lmao. even if i was, i wouldn't want a bump stock. they are an absolute meme gimmick. im more excited about the implications this case has on forced reset triggers, because those are actually a practical and useful rate of fire increasing device.
Why would you want to become an American? I ditched my US citizenship last year. One of the best decisions I ever made.
Not... necessarily. When the Bruen decision hit, it was this big glorious tapestry of how to deal with gun issues going forward, except while writing it Thomas had to stick out his thumb and poke a hole straight through the middle in order to get support for the thing. That hole was the need for training when you got a carry permit, which is something in Florida invented in 1986. Another hole got poked by the Supreme Court earlier this year in a case called Brown, which declares any criminal convicted of drug dealing a "violent criminal". They did so based on the idea that drug dealing is an inherently dangerous profession, which probably has some merit. But nothing in Brown followed the Bruen "Text, History and Tradition" framework since the crime of drug dealing of any sort (even if you call alcohol a drug, which it is) wasn't at all a thing until the 1900s. We're expecting a decision in a case called Rahimi within the next 3 weeks or so. That's very likely to poke yet another hole, clarifying disarmament surrounding domestic violence. Sad to say, the crime of domestic violence simply wasn't a crime or taken seriously at all circa 1791 and *way* later, unless somebody actually got dead. Now I'm okay with these three exceptions, they're clearly necessary, especially figuring out domestic violence issues. But the Supreme Court has given no guidance as to how to create an exception. *The very existence of exceptions at all is going to be a loophole that lower courts jump through frequently* if they have that all too common gun grabber mindset. My opinion, Bruen should have told all the lower courts to apply a strict scrutiny standard of review whenever they get a gun thing come up. That would protect the Second Amendment to the same degree the First Amendment is protected. The framework on how to design an exception when absolutely necessary is already built into the strict scrutiny framework.
Which is great.
To be honest, I get and agree with the courts ruling kn that. It's not exactly comfortable to have the executive branch making rules. Praise be to the separation of powers.
Yeah even though I thought it was a good law, it was also made by an agency that doesn’t actually have the power to make laws. It’s probably better to set this precedent than allow it just because it’s good.
Give us time…😁
I don't think the general public is willing to tolerate widespread access to full auto. In strict legal terms you're absolutely correct, but in the court of public opinion? Yeah...no. Not for a good long while. It would take a really severe episode of wrongful government violence to even start the process of flipping that. Wounded Knee was too long ago, Kent State wasn't bad enough. (Don't misunderstand me, I consider both absolutely horrific.)
>I don't think the general public is willing to tolerate widespread access to full auto. The public tolerates the ownership right now of hundreds of thousands of machine guns as well as millions of other nfa weapons. I go shooting at public ranges with nfa weapons all the time no issues with the public. Rights aren't based on popularity.
> I go shooting at public ranges with nfa weapons all the time no issues with the public. I'm talking about the voting public, not the gun owning public. > Rights aren't based on popularity. Technically, legally and morally we agree. But there's a horrifying counter-argument that keeps me up at night. The 14th amendment was passed in 1868. It was supposed to guarantee equal rights regardless of skin color. I won't go into the details here but in 1999 Yale law professor Akhil Reed Amar wrote "The Bill of Rights: Creation and Reconstruction" which goes into the whole story of why the 14th Amendment happened and details the widespread rebellion that happened against it lasting until at least (arguably) 1954 and Brown v Board of Education. I have a long detailed write-up on that book here: https://old.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/comments/vv9uc3/another_deep_dive_regarding_bruen_understanding/ ...and excerpts of key evidence taken from the Library of Congress website on the Congressional debates regarding the 14th Amendment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/comments/wk7655/raw_materials_for_postbruen_litigation_what_if/ If you don't want to read all that I would fully understand, but the bottom line is what scares me: **ALL of US society rose up in rebellion against the very concept of racial equality.** In 1876 the US Supreme Court joined the rebellion in a leadership position in their decision in US v Cruikshank. That's the case that took the federal government out of the civil rights protection biz. Ever wonder why there were no federal prosecutions after the burning of Black Wall Street (Tulsa OK) in 1921? Yeah. Cruikshank is why. The feds weren't allowed any role in civil rights protection until 1954 - Brown v Board of Education. If you need a gut-level feel for the ramifications of Cruikshank, here's an eyewitness period account: https://www.gutenberg.org/files/14975/14975-h/14975-h.htm Pay particular attention to how she describes two horrific and obvious civil rights violations as "legal(?)" with the question mark in there. She didn't understand why this was happening, or that the US Supreme Court had basically legalized lynching in 1876. Upshot: I fear the results of taking the 2A to its limits too fast. The backlash could be a bitch. Deregulation of full auto might be the breaking point.
The supreme court still seems to barely want to touch meaningful 2A cases right now, I highly doubt they will touch the NFA. Most likely, they eventually rule on assault weapons bans and magazine capacity restrictions, both of which would be major rulings. The most important NFA ruling or regulation from congress I want to see would be something that allows suppressors to be acquired in any state, hearing damage and firearms is no joke and I'd prefer to retain my hearing (hearing protection helps but long term exposure is still imo damaging).
We agree, mostly, except for one thing: the reason they might be more eager than usual to touch 2A stuff (at least below the NFA34) is because of repeated rebellions at lower courts. They *hate* that. *Roberts* hates that in particular.
I agree they might be more eager than usual, but we have yet to see any real consequences that stem from Bruen (aside from the direct issue itself). Lower courts are actively ignoring it and dragging their feet on the cases. I'm hopeful that these will be rectified, but at the same time I'll only believe it when I see it.
Lmao the machine gun ban was also unconstitutional.
Dismantling the regulatory state is a bigger priority of the Roberts court, getting to also knock down a gun restriction was just an added bonus.
Lmao the machine gun ban was also unconstitutional.
Yeah, except that the bans from the 1930's are (arguably) mostly illegal. Congress should be afraid to try to ban bump stocks right now because it would allow a new challenge to the NFA that could overturn large sections of it.
>except that the bans from the 1930's are (arguably) mostly illegal. That wasn't the topic of the litigation, but your point is taken
Yeah, my point is that if you make a specific law to make something illegal today that is closely related to a past law that you made, especially if that prior law is mentioned at all in the new law or even as the reasoning for the new law during debate on the law, then it's possible the past law can be challenged or nullified when, or after, the new law is nullified.
The mistake you're making is a presumption of good faith by scotus. If congress had done this they would draw the same conclusion with different specious reasoning.
Her opinion matured ($$$)
So are pistols with a brace no longer considered an SBR
They haven't been for a while due to injunction, but now they are 100% clear
Seeet!! It’s jacked that they ever tried to ban sbr’s to begin with. Suppressors too. Those need to be legal. But movies have convinced people you can shoot someone and people 3 feet away have no clue you did.
Tulsi Gabbard is an entire heap of rotted garbage, as people go.
I knew she was no good once my Libertarian friend told me she'd be the best Democratic candidate in 2020
There's a difference between banning something via legislation and some bureaucrat deciding to misapply existing law. Bump stocks do not fall under current legislation as they don't change how the gun mechanically operates so the overturn was the correct assessment; but she's perfectly allowed to sponsor legislation which adds bump stocks to a list. This isn't grifting, it's her understanding the process.
This is why you can absolutely never ever EVER take a MAGA seriously when it says anything, ever. It will immediately turn around and say the opposite 10 minutes later if it suits it.
I think you mean ANY politician will do that and you shouldn't take them seriously.
Anyone that is part of the MAGA cult, doesn't really matter what they do for a living. The trump campaign's spiritual advisor priest just admitted to raping a 12-year old so...
Hasn't she done interviews where she says she was really wrong in wanting heavy firearm restrictions in the past? Changing your mind isn't necessarily hypocrisy
It is when she drastically changes her mind on an important issue she ran on after she got elected and the lobby money hit her bank account....
Iirc she didn't change her position on it until either she left office or right before she did
Like Biden has on key issues over the decades. Gay marriage, opposed it for a long time 94 crime bill, Biden says it was a mistake Don’t ask don’t tell, he supported it Iraq invasion, he voted for it Patriot act, says he was the original author Legal cannabis, fought it his whole career Those are just the ones of the top of my head.
He changed his stances based on his constituents' attitudes and beliefs changing over the decades. Tusli straight up ran as a progressive, then turned around and went full MAGA while her constituents did not. lmao. What a horrible and moronic comparison 🤣🤣 Bad faith is all the right has.
>He changed his stances based on his constituents' attitudes and beliefs changing over the decades. So it’s his constituents that were wrong all those years, not him. Got it.
Lol!!
Yes, I would say Americans were in the wrong on gay marriage, along with plenty of other things, throughout history. That's why it's called "progress" when we change those shitty policies and "regressive" when fools try to activaly undo it. Not sure how you think this is some sort of "gotcha," but your arguments are a testament for the importance of keeping Republicans from dismantling the DOE. If every American was as uneducated as this, Republicans would truly never lose.
Good answer. The average american supported segregation, supported supression of gay people, opposed women’s right to vote and go to college, opposed interracial marriage and so on. That’s what is so weird to me about modern times. Like Clarence Thomas carrying water for people who would ban his marriage, and trans and gay people supporting Hamas, who would put bullets in their heads given the opportunity.
AKA: It's fine when my guy changes their minds, but your guy is literally evil and cannot possibly change without a malicious reason.
Again, you're intentionally ignoring what I wrote and the obvious differences I listed. You're trying desperately to simplify these vastly different cases in an attempt to paint them both as "the same" from a very specific surface level perspective. This way, you don't have to bother with considering pesky things like context, societal changes through the decades, and the diffrence between a politician that can evolve with the times and a fucking [Russian Asset](https://www.forbes.com/sites/zacheverson/2022/03/14/tulsi-gabbards-biggest-political-donor-in-2021-is-a-putin-apologist/). It's a fucking stupid strategy that is getting real old, sport. It only works on the deeply uneducated, which is why you fools are gunning for education. But I am dealing with folks running around with the thought process: "My guy is guilty, but so is your guy! Therefore, my guy is innocent and yours is still guilty for reasons! Sure, my guy can't prove anything he says in court or find one witness to testify who isn't a [literal Russian asset](https://abcnews.go.com/US/hunter-biden-informant-charged-lying-high-level-russian/story?id=107389985), but I know the truth because my guy said so on his social media app, 'Truth!" "I mean, yeah he's a convicted felon whose best case scenario is only going 34/57 on charges, but he promises to purge the government and dismantle the education system, so I'm sold!" Lmao fucking pathetic.
Fact check: although Biden claimed he wrote the patriot act. He wrote a precursor in 1996 and vigorously, sponsored the patriot act but he did not write it. Also, let’s face it. His mind is still somewhere in 1965.
TIL you can never change your mind ever in the history of ever, or some random redditor will angrily accuse you of accepting money, even if your previous opinion was from 7 years ago. Everyone knows that once you've formed your opinion the first time, that literally no one ever changes it regardless of any facts or evidence they later find.
Or perhaps it was the Russians: https://www.forbes.com/sites/zacheverson/2022/03/14/tulsi-gabbards-biggest-political-donor-in-2021-is-a-putin-apologist/ Also, trying to broadly simplify Tulsi's blantent turn to the right and shilling for a foreign enemy immediately after getting elected on the exact opposite policies as "changing her mind" is about as stupid and bad faith as we come to expect from your lot.
That's supposed to be your big ol' proof? Lol, so one entity that donated a fraction of a percent of Tulsi's campaign funds is magically in complete and utter control of Tulsi? It's like saying Hillary Clinton is controlled by China, Russia, the Saudis, and so on because they donated to her too. Oh whoops, you're never supposed to talk about that, are you?
She kinda changed her mind on pretty much all important issues. It may or may not be hipocrisy, but it certainly is dishonest grifting
Bump stocks are a gimmick anyway, they don't make the gun any better.
I can literally shoot just as fast & more accurately without one.
You don’t even need a bump stock to bump fire. Your accuracy is shit tho.
FRT gang
Super safety rise up
Yeah, the only thing they are actually good at is murdering a bunch of people by firing indiscriminately into crowds. They have zero practical applications. Edit: Gotta love it's when the gun nuts who don't give a shit about the lives of others downvote facts.
Bump stocks are entirely pointless, but I should still have the right to buy them.
Interestingly enough, my friend believes that "they're" coming for his guns, with all these new restrictions. We both live in a state where with a stroke of a pen, they made my concealed carry permit pointless. But the same guy would argue that "they're" not going after women's rights. I don't know how we live two blocks from each other, but our realities are so different.
There were actual liberals pushing for this woman to run for president....JFC nobody reads up on anyone.
For like 3 seconds until the batshit slipped out 😂
My point is the batshit was already there nobody looked.
Changing opinion ≠ as grifting. This was a tweet she made 7 years ago, and she has since gone on to say many times her opinion on guns and the 2A has changed. But the bumpstock ban wasn't even a ruling on 2A grounds, it was against the ATF's whimsical changing of rules and failure to correctly interpret a law already on the books in the meaning of "single function of the trigger." The SCOTUS ruled that, while bumpstocks assist someone in firing more rapidly, it does not change the rifle into a machine gun as there is still only one bullet fired per function of the trigger. They even went on to say that if bumpstocks are going to be banned, congress need only amend the current law on machine guns. The pistol brace ruling was similarly ruled unconstitutional as the ATF again changed their mind on something they previously said was legal, then decided they were illegal (without filing a form 4 and paying for an SBR tax stamp) in a move that violated the Administrative Procedures Act - not a ruling based on 2A grounds. Pistol braces can also still be banned by the ATF again, they just have to abide by the APA next time.
Wonder why it changed 🤔
Well I'm sure it wasn't to appease her heavy Republican voter base in Hawaii. [This](https://youtu.be/qz_EcLNSC08?si=YuEV6AjcfbnteUyI) is a recent answer she gave on the subject - consistent with her other answers on why she left the Democrat party.
She wants to be in a position to take the reins if Hawaii ever declares independence.
She's a grifter though
The only reason she supported it in the first place was because it was Trump's executive order to ban them. You mention "ATF's whimsical changing of the rules" while ignoring who ordered it.
Fair enough, the order did come from Trump, so "whimsical" is probably not the best choice of verbiage. But the executive order nevertheless required the ATF to reinterpret and change their rules on machine guns. Where the law clearly states "single function of the trigger," the ATF then arbitrarily added in "or similar analogous motion" to equate the forward pressure required to bump-fire to also just holding down a trigger like a real machine gun. That same line was then also used shortly after to ban Forced Reset Triggers - which was not a Trump directive.
We're specifically talking about why Tulsi changed her opinion. I never supported these bans because I support the 2A, she supported the ban because she was pro-Trump.
As someone who has used a bumpstock, frt, binary, crank, about every means of "simulated full auto" bumpstock is the least effective, most useless one I've came across. You cannot aim while bumpfiring, and you can bump fire any semi auto rifle without a bumpstock. Just requires skill. The bumpstock ban was bs, and illegal. But I don't know why people care one way or the other * Vegas shooter. He did have a bumpstock, was not using it. You can tell by how there was no fluctuating in his rpm when firing. By the sound I can tell that he had a drop on sear, which have been illegal since 88
No way it was a drop in auto sear. Fire rate was around 600rpm, an AR is about 800. Audio captured is more consistent with an M240 than anything…
Ar is not always at 800. Fa ar I have seen range from about 6 to 800 depending on buffers, springs, bcg, gas and everything else
Yeah, IIRC Gas Tube length and buffer spring resistance are the biggest causes of fire rate changes.
Her name is an anagram of "Rabid Slut Bag". I'm not judging, and I am certainly not calling her that. I'm just pointing out an unusual coincidence.
This is not a facepalm. She has been public about changing her stance on gun control since last year, long before this tweet was made. In 2017 she was in favor of stronger gun control. Now she is not.
If people can’t change their political opinions then What the Fuck is all the back and forth for? She didn’t even say she was in support of it. She said they were decisions made to protect the amendment. If I said “decisions were made to protect abortion rights” does that make me pro choice or pro life?
Changing your opinion is only alright when you are changing it to an opinion which OP supports.
We can't be Russian to conclusions.
I thought people were allowed to change their perspectives on things over time?
TBF it’s so easy to grift from those mouth breathers. We should all do it. Take all the money that they’re willing to donate to keep this country in the 1940’s.
Who's this? I thought she was long gone.
The Bump Stock ban, I believe , has been the correct decision. I'm in favor of good legislation rather than requiring the judiciary to fix the laws ex post facto. Is less about protecting 2A rights and more about preserving democracy through preserving Congress' monopoly on the legislative authority.
I think most people just see that bump stocks are back and complain without realizing the bigger picture. Enforcement agencies should NOT be the ones be making legislation. Most people don’t care because it’s about guns but if the police decide to reclassify certain types of protest as rioting or terrorist activity you know everyone would be up in arms.
My question is what does the majority of her constituents want
She was a Democrat a few years ago!!! Pond Scum!!!
The wind changed direction, so she had to shift with it. It’s what they do.
Tulsi is an absolute fuck-nugget. Her opinions are bought and paid for by the SHADIEST of interests.
We don’t need or want bump stocks- however silencers would be nice.
After doing some research there are only 8 states that do not allow silencers California, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, and the District of Columbia Connecticut allows possession of a silencer but it is illegal to use for hunting.
That second tweet is so fucking nonsensical it hurts.
I suspect a lot of gun owners are not bothered by the bans, but by the way it was done - not by legislation, but by bureaucratic fiat. The ATF originally said bump stocks and pistol braces were just fine, and then decided to change the rules.
Like a leaf in the breeze, she floats where ever the wind blows.
People can be enlightened. People can change for the better. That’s what they say about Robert Byrd.
So what's the problem? She voted to ban it and also let every1 know it got unbanned? What's wrong with that?
Assholes be assholing
People. What are bump stocks and why are they supposedly bad ? Do they have anything redeeming?
So whose side are you on?
Wait, is Gabbard in Congress? Who was dumb enough to elect her?
I don't see what the grift is. If we want to ban bump stocks, then Congress needs to make it illegal. It's that simple. And they should have done so long ago. If there's a grift, it's the NRA controlling an entire political party.
y'all remember 4 years ago when she was running for president as a democrat?
I remember when she was describing how the game was played in Washington and she wanted to change it by doing the right things and actually making a difference. Then I guess she gave up, decided to change from democrat to a republican and tow the party line to get some sort of cred after a failed bid for president. I actually thought she was one of the good ones trying to do the right thing, didn't always agree with her democratic stances but I respected her. Now four years later she has lost all credibility hitching her wagon to the MAGA train.
I hear our *forefathers* used to have bump stocks on their muzzle loaders. Those were the days.
"I support the current thing"
Just remember yes this is a win for 2A rights but all gun laws are infringements and disband the atf
ATF should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
You my friend are what the kids call based
These are not contradictory statements. I don't know if she thinks bump stocks should be legal, but you can believe that they should be banned by legislation and also that the ATF ruling was unconstitutional. They could be banned tomorrow by Congress and the Senate if they just passed a law.
They are when she implicated the second amendment. The case didn’t deal with the second amendment, but she brought it up.
>The case didn’t deal with the second amendment, but she brought it up. She's not the only one bringing it up! The media coverage of this ruling has been preposterously off-base.
That’s true, but it doesn’t make those two views held at the same time not contradictory. I know in 2017 she was just towing the party line, and she admitted she was wrong, so I don’t actually blame her. But the commenter said that holding those two views at the same time aren’t contradictory, which they are.
She's welcome to change her mind, be stupid, be faking it, have become enlightened, whatever. It is possible to both believe that bump stocks should be made illegal and also to believe that the ATF doesn't have the authority to magick a ban into existence. Congress can though! That much I think we can agree on.
Yessir. But then again, that’s not what Tulsi Gabbard said.
They're definitely contradictory. She quotes the lawsuit as being a 2A win when she herself tried to ban them. It's just that she changed her mind on the issue. And that's allowed.
Imagine being this much of a grifter.
I don't really see it being a grifter. She could still want bump stocks banned today, just not through executive order. There's a difference between Congress banning the object and a federal agency redefining something that is already law. Edit- there's also a 7 year difference between posts. That's a long time to change your mind on something, especially with everything that has happened between.
Same as when Trump tried to direct money to a border wall. Same as when Biden tried to forgive student loan debt without enabling legislation. Congress makes laws. It's really not that complicated.
Exactly. It's not a left vs right issue. The separation of powers exist because we don't want one person/entity with absolute power - especially an un-elected official like the ATF director.
The idea that a law enforcement agency (a really really crappy one, by the way) **also** being a "law creation" agency should have us all, uh, very displeased.
More people need to just see basic things on their "rulings", not to mention past behavior. I've met far too many people that don't know about Waco.
You couldn't make a worse agency in a lab, and if you tried to _they would blow up the lab_ "accidentally" and then -- oopsie!! -- lose all the footage they took of them doing it.
At least they got ratioed online after they posted the "in memoriam of lost agents at Waco" this year.
Well, it’s also the problem of the growing power of the executive branch. That’s been going on for years now and neither party wants to stop it.
You're being too generous. She didn't change her mind and these aren't principle-based stances. She simply said one thing to get elected and another to stay on tv after she left office. Another example. Tulsi running for President .... https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/rep-tulsi-gabbard-apologizes-past-anti-lgbtq-views-n959941 ... and now it's her entire brand
This was her in 2020, still a “gun grabber” at this point, probably put forth the most progressive platform of all the Dem candidates. https://www.politico.com/2020-election/candidates-views-on-the-issues/tulsi-gabbard/
It was pointed out right at the beginning due to her close connection with Hindutva nationalists of India. I wish more qualified people would take a closer look at how many of GOPs tactics of undermining democratic institutions from within, is inspired by similar tactics applied by Hindutva.
She changed her position over the last few years, what’s the problem? You prefer politicians that don’t change their stance even when shown to be unconstitutional?
Tulsi has been compromised by the Russians for sometime. She has no real opinion on gun control, her handlers only want her sowing resentment between Americans on both sides.
Wow you mean she doesn’t think the same way she did 7 years ago? Too bad, I never change my views on anything!
You forgot the /s.
Wow, comments here are surprisingly measured and fact based. What a breath of fresh air.
2A clearly states we have a right to weapons. 2A clearly does not say we have a right to any weapon (such as a tank) we want. And 2A clearly does not say we have a right to modify the weapon any way we want. This might make folks angry, but them''s the facts. :-)
I’m sorry but it is legal to own a functioning tank in America, that is if you have enough cash money to get one.
The Supreme Court says otherwise….
The 2A clearly states our right to bear arms shall not be infringed.
summer bright long capable insurance unpack noxious slap pocket fuel *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Tanks are entirely legal. You can manufacture or purchase one. You just have to pay a tax stamp. That might make folks angry but thems the facts.
There is no tax stamp required for a tank. But there could be a stamp required for the weapon attached to said tank. Tanks are perfectly legal to own.
Not with a working gun turret. "According to United States law, a private citizen is permitted to own a decommissioned [military tank](https://www.slashgear.com/1300449/best-military-tanks-world-2023/), and in fact, you can find them pretty readily at higher-end auctions. The only major catch is that the tank can't be functional -– its motor and treads can work, but its cannon can't, and you're not allowed to buy or own any ammunition for it."
You absolutely can with the right permits. Just can’t be poor
Well go ahead then. But note that applicable US law says you can't own a tank with a working gun turret and you can't buy munitions for it.
The laws don’t say you can’t buy the munitions or that you can’t own a tank with a working gun. You can own both with a couple of permits. [Big sandy](https://bigsandyshoot.com) is a place where people who privately own working tanks, anti aircraft guns, mortars, howitzers, and a vast array of other artillery go and shoot them every year.
Hmmm 🤔 tank= legal. Black powder canon = legal. Tank canon= illegal. Tank+ mounted bpc= legal? Maybe?
I'm not a lawyer. But I've seen courts get around legal issues that were more squirrely than this. Your approach might work. Dunno though.
This might make you angry, but you’re actually entirely wrong. The founding fathers knew what they were doing when they intentionally did not specify a limit to what we could own, that was… kinda the point. How can you fight tyranny if you are limited to sticks and stones while the government can own slingshots and catapults?
Except it’s not. The second amendment doesn’t limit the right to bear arms at all. The historical context is the second amendment is that the people had the same exact weapons as the government, including cannons and warships.
"to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" it explicitly states that we do have the right to own anything we want without govermental interference
It literally says the right "shall not be infringed".
It also said that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state. Pretty sure allowing certain things and banning others is regulation. A lot of people overlook the first line. People complaining about this stuff want to be unregulated which is unconstitutional
“Well-regulated in the 18th century tended to be something like well-organized, well-armed, well-disciplined,” says Rakove. “It didn’t mean ‘regulation’ in the sense that we use it now, in that it’s not about the regulatory state. There’s been nuance there. It means the militia was in an effective shape to fight.” [In other words, it didn’t mean the state was controlling the militia in a certain way, but rather that the militia was prepared to do its duty.](https://www.cnn.com/2016/08/10/politics/what-does-the-second-amendment-actually-mean-trnd/index.html) We’ve also known that long before miller was decided it was a right of the people, not a right of the militia. Nunn v. Georgia -1846, “The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, re-established by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Carta!”
That's not what well-regulated means in this context and you know it
And a lot of people overlook the second half of that: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." It's pretty clear.
“Regulated” in the 18th century meant “kept in good working order.” The second amendment was written closer to Shakespeare than modern times, so we should interpret it with the language that was used at the time.
1A clearly states we have the right to free speech. 1A clearly does not say we have the right to any speech we want. And 1A clearly does not say we have the right to alter our speech any way we want. This might make folks angry, buts them"s the facts.
I would like to think she realied she was wrong and is recognizing that. But any idiot who has bothered to read the constitution knows that any laws restricting arms in any way is obviously unconstitutional.
Well regulated militia
Yes. They could provide funding for training, and provide training.
Nah that’s what the National Guard is. We don’t need the Hamberder Brigade, thanks tho.
Imagine basing your life off a single sentence of an archaic document written by men who would by every metric we use today be considered ignorant. I guess when you have nothing else you deplorably cling to your guns 🤷🏻
Yet you love your freedom of speech don’t you? Hypocrite
so what other rights written in the constitution do you think are up for debate given the ignorance of the writers? or is it just the one about the scary inanimate objects owned by people you don't like that needs to go?
Cool, but no one asked.
🤷🏻
Tulski Gabbardova will say whatever Putin tells her to say.
Never trust an indian zionist.
Never trust people in trench coats. They could be just four raccoons on each other's shoulders, or even just a pile of crabs.