“Here’s the bottom line,” GOA concluded. “If bump stocks can be defined as ‘machine guns’ because they supposedly cause a semi-automatic to fire automatically, then, using the same line of reasoning, semi-automatics are machine guns too.” [More]
What's inexcusable -- after this latest act of judicial treachery proving what some of us were warning about has come to pass -- is that there are still some ignoramuses on "our side" dumb enough to think the ban was just about "stupid toys" not worth going to the wall over.
2 comments:
Been pointing that out for years. (And Firearms News still won't let me in. 403 Forbidden.)
This whackjob appointee of the kinyun needs to get his arse whupped in his own courtroom. It is clear what he is on about.
Arns makers ebeing sued MUST up the ante.... until full on ballistics tests are run from ALL the guns up in that nest in Las Vegas, and the very round that killed that woman is PROVEN beyond a reasonable doubt to have come from a specific weapon, there IS NO PROOF that manufacturer bears any responsibility for her death.
Further, it must be proven that that specific gun had a bump stock fitted to it WHEN that round was fired. If this cnan't be done. no fault falls to the manufacturer.
Further, the manufacturer would have an "out" in that the weapon was modified and not used as the manufacturer had designed it to be used, and thus beyond the control of the manufacuturer.
If a Chevy Impala had a gutless inline six in it, someone retrofitted a monster 600 horse 427, how could any sane (the operant word here) court lay any fault at GM's feet?
Tionico
Post a Comment