I would agree if the longstanding definition of what constitutes a MG were not very specific and focused on "shots per single function of the trigger". This does not account for external means of pulling the trigger faster. And it probably should but we should not just allow the bureaucracy to contradict existing Code.
I'm not arguing with you.
If you read page 11, they're saying that the phrase single function of the trigger was to mean single pull of the trigger from day 1 of the NFA in 1934 according to legislative history of thr NFA......and goes on to say that the subsequent rulings have been inconsistent and thus miss classifying these things all along.
They are, imo, clearly taking the position of clarifying and not redefining.
I do not see the difference, even if you write in caps that I do.
Please explain the legal difference to me. Either something is complies with the law or it does not... right ?
This is one of my big gripes against the NRA: its willingness to throw machine gun owners under the bus. We saw this when the NRA went along with the Hughes Amendment to FOPA in 1986, and more recently when Wayne LaPierre testified before Congress that "machine guns are already illegal." The NRA is only accepting of AR-15's and the like because there are so many of them, and their owners can't be ignored. Let's face it, even after the "Cincinnati reforms," the NRA is still a Fudd organization. This plays right into the antis' strategy of "divide and conquer."
all devices' that turn 'legal ' weapons into machine guns
I guess that means no more pants with belt loops.
Should make the china suspender factories happy.
i
I'm told Reagan played a role as well since he did sign it, and was advised by the NRA to do so since "they got theirs" as far as policy goals.
We may end up losing semi-autos in the courts because of that short-sighted decision, same as with bump stocks.
In return, we won paltry travel protections that are ignored in the worst offending states to this day.
That's not Orwellian... it's Maoist.Sometimes it is better to let people think they won then to keep poking the bear. Especially when that “bear” has a supermajority and can pass anything they want.
It would be bad enough if Stephen Paddock had used a plain old AR15. His idiotic bump stocks inflamed people who were basically on our side.
Let's try this...
It would be bad enough if Stephen Paddock had used a 10 round magazine
It would be bad enough if Stephen Paddock had used a camera monitoring system to surveil incoming police Oops he did
It would be bad enough if Stephen Paddock had used bomb devices Ooops he had it, thank God he didn't use it
It would be bad enough if Stephen Paddock had used a rifle scope
It would be bad enough if Stephen Paddock had used a silencer (although, at the shriek of Hillary, Speaker Ryan folded like an extremely wet tissue paper & pulled HPA)
etc
Let's have a 55page DoJ confiscation brief about any item used in a crime, before the final report is released for all parties to see and make informed decisions
It's bad enough, that he perpetrated EVIL upon innocents, because HE was evil not the item(s) used, which have been in use before and after with non ill effects, by lawful NON-EVIL people