New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

The Mike Bloomberg gun safety plan....Keep all weapons out of the wrong hands

Constitutional Sheepdog

][][][%er!!!!!!!
https://www.mikebloomberg.com/policies/gun-safety?gclid=Cj0KCQiA_rfvBRCPARIsANlV66P9tyAICDjG12s3URA_HdFihJaGYrYI2t2JRAV7k8qFOQMBpdLANmYaAvqJEALw_wcB

Mike Bloomberg sees the gun violence crisis as a true national emergency and has promised that gun safety will be a top priority as president. He understands that every day, 100 Americans are killed with guns and hundreds more are injured, and that the impact of gun violence reaches well beyond these casualties — shaping the lives of millions of Americans who witness it, know someone who was shot, or live in fear of the next shooting.

Mike’s Plan
Mike believes we need a president who will make gun violence a top priority – and who has a track record of taking on the NRA… and winning. He’s done it.

Mike’s candidacy is about getting things done. That’s why he has offered a new gun safety policy proposal aimed at stopping the epidemic of gun violence in America. This comprehensive gun safety policy includes five key pillars designed to create an effective background checks system, keep guns away from people who pose a danger to themselves or others, protect young people in schools and Americans in their homes, tackle daily gun violence in the hardest-hit communities, and confront the gun industry head-on.

Mike’s comprehensive gun safety policy proposal includes:

More effective background checks
Create an effective background check system so that no one can purchase a gun without passing a completed background check.

  • Require point-of-sale background checks for all gun sales and finally close the private sale loophole, which enables prohibited people to buy guns simply by finding unlicensed sellers at gun shows or on the Internet.
  • Require every gun buyer to get a permit before making a purchase.
  • Use sales records to identify crime guns and notify local police when individuals have been prohibited from having a gun. A central system will let local authorities know when a gun owner has become barred from having firearms – due to a criminal conviction or a restraining order.
  • Allow for extreme risk screening before guns are purchased so that issuers would be equipped to deny licenses to troubled people who pose a danger to themselves or others.
  • Curb the dangers of downloadable guns and ghost guns by reversing Trump’s proposed firearm export regulations that loosen oversight of gun exports—and make it easier to publish 3D-printing gun blueprints online. And work to pass legislation barring online publication of those files.
So do you want the status quo or do you want to end 3d printed guns and keep all weapons out of the wrong hands?

The future is up to you now
Pimping for Bloomberg
 

Constitutional Sheepdog

][][][%er!!!!!!!
Wrong Trump banned bump stocks against the wishes of the NRA
From the court filing:

The Final Rule is void as a matter of law because, as ATF has conceded, it lacked “the authority to engage in ‘gap-filling’ interpretations of what qualifies as a ‘machinegun’” under the Gun Control and National Firearms Acts. (See Appellees’ Br. at 41.) The Final Rule, however, was designed to do just that—expand the definition of a “machinegun” to now include bump stocks, with such new legislative regulations taking effect only “after the effective date of th[e] regulation.” Final Rule, 83 Fed. Reg. 66523 (emphasis added). The Final Rule is therefore invalid and unenforceable.

Recognizing that it has the lawful authority to issue legislative rules only if there is a statutory ambiguity, ATF concedes that “the Rule’s application of the terms used to define ‘machinegun’ in the National Firearms Act is correct, and there is no ambiguity[.]” (Appellees’ Br. at 35-36.) ATF then goes one step further and concedes that it has no legislative rulemaking authority at all. (Appellees’ Br. at 40.) ATF agrees that “Congress did not expressly task the Attorney General with determining the scope of the criminal prohibition on machinegun possession” and that “statutory scheme does not … appear to provide the Attorney General the authority to engage in ‘gap-filling’ interpretations of what qualifies as a ‘machinegun[.]’” (Appellees’ Br. at 40-41.) ATF then argues that the Final Rule is an “interpretive” rule that does nothing more than provide “the best interpretation of the statute” that bump stocks “were machineguns at the time of classification[.]” (Appellees’ Br. at 36, 38, 40-41.) ATF has thus staked out the untenable position that the Bump Stock Final Rule is valid, only because it represents nothing more than a mere interpretation of an already unambiguous statutory prohibition.

This means that ATF agrees that the district court committed legal error. After all, the district court upheld the Final Rule only after concluding that “the Attorney General has been implicitly delegated interpretive authority to define ambiguous words or phrases in the NFA and the GCA” and that the term “machinegun” was ambiguous. (Aplt. App. at A133.) ATF’s present defense of the Final Rule therefore tries to make up for what it agrees was the district court’s erroneous legal analysis. (See Appellees’ Br. at 35-36, 40-41.)

Beyond showing its disagreement with the district court, ATF’s present argument also mean that if this Court decides that the Final Rule is legislative, ATF has conceded that is was promulgated without any lawful “authority” and is therefore void. (See Appellees’ Br. at 40.)
https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/atf-admits-it-lacked-regulatory-authority-to-ban-bump-stocks/
 

Constitutional Sheepdog

][][][%er!!!!!!!
Do you want me to show you the 30000 gun laws that say you have no rights to anything banned?

LOL in your simpletons mind you have the right to plutonium
In order for a firearm to be protected by the second amendment, it must have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, in common use of the time, and supplied by the citizen. U.S. vs Miller 1939
 

Winston

Do you feel lucky, Punk
From the court filing:

The Final Rule is void as a matter of law because, as ATF has conceded, it lacked “the authority to engage in ‘gap-filling’ interpretations of what qualifies as a ‘machinegun’” under the Gun Control and National Firearms Acts. (See Appellees’ Br. at 41.) The Final Rule, however, was designed to do just that—expand the definition of a “machinegun” to now include bump stocks, with such new legislative regulations taking effect only “after the effective date of th[e] regulation.” Final Rule, 83 Fed. Reg. 66523 (emphasis added). The Final Rule is therefore invalid and unenforceable.

Recognizing that it has the lawful authority to issue legislative rules only if there is a statutory ambiguity, ATF concedes that “the Rule’s application of the terms used to define ‘machinegun’ in the National Firearms Act is correct, and there is no ambiguity[.]” (Appellees’ Br. at 35-36.) ATF then goes one step further and concedes that it has no legislative rulemaking authority at all. (Appellees’ Br. at 40.) ATF agrees that “Congress did not expressly task the Attorney General with determining the scope of the criminal prohibition on machinegun possession” and that “statutory scheme does not … appear to provide the Attorney General the authority to engage in ‘gap-filling’ interpretations of what qualifies as a ‘machinegun[.]’” (Appellees’ Br. at 40-41.) ATF then argues that the Final Rule is an “interpretive” rule that does nothing more than provide “the best interpretation of the statute” that bump stocks “were machineguns at the time of classification[.]” (Appellees’ Br. at 36, 38, 40-41.) ATF has thus staked out the untenable position that the Bump Stock Final Rule is valid, only because it represents nothing more than a mere interpretation of an already unambiguous statutory prohibition.

This means that ATF agrees that the district court committed legal error. After all, the district court upheld the Final Rule only after concluding that “the Attorney General has been implicitly delegated interpretive authority to define ambiguous words or phrases in the NFA and the GCA” and that the term “machinegun” was ambiguous. (Aplt. App. at A133.) ATF’s present defense of the Final Rule therefore tries to make up for what it agrees was the district court’s erroneous legal analysis. (See Appellees’ Br. at 35-36, 40-41.)

Beyond showing its disagreement with the district court, ATF’s present argument also mean that if this Court decides that the Final Rule is legislative, ATF has conceded that is was promulgated without any lawful “authority” and is therefore void. (See Appellees’ Br. at 40.)
https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/atf-admits-it-lacked-regulatory-authority-to-ban-bump-stocks/
None of that relates to the other 30000 gun laws.
 

Winston

Do you feel lucky, Punk
In order for a firearm to be protected by the second amendment, it must have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, in common use of the time, and supplied by the citizen. U.S. vs Miller 1939
A well regulated militia would need anti aircraft missiles

How many you got genius
 

Constitutional Sheepdog

][][][%er!!!!!!!
Your dodge is noted as to not answering the question how can a well regulated militia exist without anti aircraft missiles

You gonna shoot down the commies with your musket Charles Altzheimer


Duooy
I didn't dodge I stayed on track with your quoted post
You said
"Wrong Trump banned bump stocks against the wishes of the NRA"

I posted to that quote of yours with this
From the court filing:

The Final Rule is void as a matter of law because, as ATF has conceded, it lacked “the authority to engage in ‘gap-filling’ interpretations of what qualifies as a ‘machinegun’” under the Gun Control and National Firearms Acts. (See Appellees’ Br. at 41.) The Final Rule, however, was designed to do just that—expand the definition of a “machinegun” to now include bump stocks, with such new legislative regulations taking effect only “after the effective date of th[e] regulation.” Final Rule, 83 Fed. Reg. 66523 (emphasis added). The Final Rule is therefore invalid and unenforceable.

Recognizing that it has the lawful authority to issue legislative rules only if there is a statutory ambiguity, ATF concedes that “the Rule’s application of the terms used to define ‘machinegun’ in the National Firearms Act is correct, and there is no ambiguity[.]” (Appellees’ Br. at 35-36.) ATF then goes one step further and concedes that it has no legislative rulemaking authority at all. (Appellees’ Br. at 40.) ATF agrees that “Congress did not expressly task the Attorney General with determining the scope of the criminal prohibition on machinegun possession” and that “statutory scheme does not … appear to provide the Attorney General the authority to engage in ‘gap-filling’ interpretations of what qualifies as a ‘machinegun[.]’” (Appellees’ Br. at 40-41.) ATF then argues that the Final Rule is an “interpretive” rule that does nothing more than provide “the best interpretation of the statute” that bump stocks “were machineguns at the time of classification[.]” (Appellees’ Br. at 36, 38, 40-41.) ATF has thus staked out the untenable position that the Bump Stock Final Rule is valid, only because it represents nothing more than a mere interpretation of an already unambiguous statutory prohibition.

This means that ATF agrees that the district court committed legal error. After all, the district court upheld the Final Rule only after concluding that “the Attorney General has been implicitly delegated interpretive authority to define ambiguous words or phrases in the NFA and the GCA” and that the term “machinegun” was ambiguous. (Aplt. App. at A133.) ATF’s present defense of the Final Rule therefore tries to make up for what it agrees was the district court’s erroneous legal analysis. (See Appellees’ Br. at 35-36, 40-41.)

Beyond showing its disagreement with the district court, ATF’s present argument also mean that if this Court decides that the Final Rule is legislative, ATF has conceded that is was promulgated without any lawful “authority” and is therefore void. (See Appellees’ Br. at 40.)
https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/atf-admits-it-lacked-regulatory-authority-to-ban-bump-stocks/
The dodge is all yours
 

Winston

Do you feel lucky, Punk
I didn't dodge I stayed on track with your quoted post
You said
"Wrong Trump banned bump stocks against the wishes of the NRA"

I posted to that quote of yours with this
From the court filing:

The Final Rule is void as a matter of law because, as ATF has conceded, it lacked “the authority to engage in ‘gap-filling’ interpretations of what qualifies as a ‘machinegun’” under the Gun Control and National Firearms Acts. (See Appellees’ Br. at 41.) The Final Rule, however, was designed to do just that—expand the definition of a “machinegun” to now include bump stocks, with such new legislative regulations taking effect only “after the effective date of th[e] regulation.” Final Rule, 83 Fed. Reg. 66523 (emphasis added). The Final Rule is therefore invalid and unenforceable.

Recognizing that it has the lawful authority to issue legislative rules only if there is a statutory ambiguity, ATF concedes that “the Rule’s application of the terms used to define ‘machinegun’ in the National Firearms Act is correct, and there is no ambiguity[.]” (Appellees’ Br. at 35-36.) ATF then goes one step further and concedes that it has no legislative rulemaking authority at all. (Appellees’ Br. at 40.) ATF agrees that “Congress did not expressly task the Attorney General with determining the scope of the criminal prohibition on machinegun possession” and that “statutory scheme does not … appear to provide the Attorney General the authority to engage in ‘gap-filling’ interpretations of what qualifies as a ‘machinegun[.]’” (Appellees’ Br. at 40-41.) ATF then argues that the Final Rule is an “interpretive” rule that does nothing more than provide “the best interpretation of the statute” that bump stocks “were machineguns at the time of classification[.]” (Appellees’ Br. at 36, 38, 40-41.) ATF has thus staked out the untenable position that the Bump Stock Final Rule is valid, only because it represents nothing more than a mere interpretation of an already unambiguous statutory prohibition.

This means that ATF agrees that the district court committed legal error. After all, the district court upheld the Final Rule only after concluding that “the Attorney General has been implicitly delegated interpretive authority to define ambiguous words or phrases in the NFA and the GCA” and that the term “machinegun” was ambiguous. (Aplt. App. at A133.) ATF’s present defense of the Final Rule therefore tries to make up for what it agrees was the district court’s erroneous legal analysis. (See Appellees’ Br. at 35-36, 40-41.)

Beyond showing its disagreement with the district court, ATF’s present argument also mean that if this Court decides that the Final Rule is legislative, ATF has conceded that is was promulgated without any lawful “authority” and is therefore void. (See Appellees’ Br. at 40.)
https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/atf-admits-it-lacked-regulatory-authority-to-ban-bump-stocks/
The dodge is all yours
I only read a max of 5 words, you aint no Steven King you know

But you are triggered
 

Winston

Do you feel lucky, Punk
it was a cut and paste link was provided
IN short, the ATF said they had no authority to ban the bump stock
the ban will end because of that.
Grow up kid, the ATF does not make or interpret laws, they can not reverse any ban.

Judges do that simpleton and the judges agreed with Trump

More delusions
 

Constitutional Sheepdog

][][][%er!!!!!!!
Grow up kid, the ATF does not make or interpret laws, they can not reverse any ban.

Judges do that simpleton and the judges agreed with Trump

More delusions
If you would read the cut and paste I provided
The ATF in court told the judge they had no legal authority to ban bump stocks
Therefore the ban will be rescinded
 
Top