|
2nd Amend. Litigation Updates & Legal Discussion Discuss California 2A related litigation and legal topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel. |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Why you never give an inch...
Using the bump stock ban logic...now going after any type of customizable rifle
https://reason.com/2019/07/03/relyin...s-are-illegal/ What I never understood is why would anybody support a bumpstock ban? Arm braces are just the same for circumvent the NFA...should those be banned also? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
That's not really what they are saying... the lawsuit claims that because gunmakers did not design their rifles to NOT accept bump stocks, they knew they could easily be "customized" to fire full auto.
As is pointed out, their logic is literally retarded, since at the time bump stocks were 100% legal and not considered full auto. The whole suit is embarrassing. The article title and your post title imply that they want to ban rifles with features ("customized") which is misleading and not true. Quote:
|
#4
|
||||
|
||||
It is sad to see these types of lawsuits filed after a tragic loss of a family member. Some anti-gun organization or bottom feeder lawyer will convince the plaintiff, this is the way to seek revenge on the gun maker. The family will then fall victim to the thinking, this is the right thing to do, only to be let down over the loss of the suit and the feeling of being used.
Last edited by REH; 07-09-2019 at 10:20 AM.. |
#5
|
||||
|
||||
Someone should point out that the lawyer's car is similarly illegal since it can be used to run over pedestrians. He should be suing every aftermarket car part manufacturer by that logic.
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
This is what I’m seeing as the lawyers flawed logic. People will modify anything. Should manufacturers have to continually modify their products because some other company is making products for it? Which could only happen, after that product was publicly available. If so, where are the lawsuits on Chevy, Toyota, and just about every other car company? If putting on a bump stock makes a gun more dangerous, then wouldn’t putting on super charger, NOS, random suspension kits, even aftermarket tires on cars make them more dangerous? |
#9
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
big gun's...i love big gun's |
#10
|
||||
|
||||
Fed Statute
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
"People say nothing is impossible, but I do nothing every day.” "Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently-talented fool." "The things that come to those who wait may well be the things left by those who got there first." |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
But the real stumbling block is that simply because a machine--as any machine--can be altered still re quires that the alterations itself or the use of the alteration is illegal, i.e., post-manufacturing modifications for which no producer of a product should be held liable. Again (and again and again), it ain't the arrow, it's the indian. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
The Plaintiff's complaint: https://reason.com/wp-content/upload...Colt-FILED.pdf
|
#14
|
||||
|
||||
Oh, you mean the "child murderer 3000"? Yeah, the ads look sweet. I wonder how the car companies are going to dodge the lawsuits that criminals use these things to get away from crimescenes and the police. Ca should impose a 10 hp limit. Nobody needs a high-cap engine
|
#15
|
|||
|
|||
That is historically inaccurate and completely irrelevant.
Quote:
Note the auto sear pin on the first AR-15. Armalite's original machine shop being in Hollywood, CA is ironic. About 30,000 fully automatic AR-15s were issued in the US military. Note the “Colt AR-15” and “PROPERTY OF US GOVT.” roll marks plus auto sear pin on this model 602. Obviously, this is all irrelevant. The Second Amendment says the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, without limitations to hunting rifles or exclusions for "military arms." Yes, they were designed to kill people. Unfortunately, the amount of force required to reliably stop attacks is often enough to kill people. That means our right to protection from assault, rape, murder, and genocide requires lethal force. It trumps agressors' right to safety in situations they chose to instigate. Last edited by Drew Eckhardt; 07-18-2019 at 7:47 AM.. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|