I find it difficult to believe that the courts will support a ban on a device that enables an action that itself is not illegal.
It's happened many times before, a few years back the FAA prodded by the Obama Administration decided to classify hobby drones as aircraft in violation of PL 336, the courts clipped their wings back and sent them home, in turn they developed FAR 107 and sliced out hobby drones under PL336 which was still a problem for the NAS. It was kicked back to Congress, who under the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 slipped in somewhere around page 577, a new law cancelling out PL 336, once again gave the FAA authority to regulate and register hobby drones. "(d) RESTORATION OF RULES FOR REGISTRATION AND MARKING OF UNMANNED AIRCRAFT.—The rules adopted by the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration in the matter of registration and marking requirements for small unmanned aircraft (FAA-2015-7396; published on December 16, 2015) that were vacated by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in Taylor v. Huerta (No. 15-1495; decided on May 19, 2017) shall be restored to effect on the date of enactment of this Act." So yes, U.S. administrative agencies have a long history of overstepping their legal boundaries and when they do, it's off to court to set their arse's back in place where they belong. What you fail to understand is administrative agencies, answer to their master, who ever that might be at the moment, they can do as they wish, be it legal or not, they only price they pay (out of the taxpayers wallet) is to have their decisions, if overstepped, overturned in court. When it doesn't work out it is then up to Congress to actually do their job and rewrite the applicable law. However when it comes to firearms, many if not most in Congress understand that is a hot button third rail issue, they will pander to their constituents and bloviate about regulating firearms, but when it comes down to actually doing anything, they pull back and go about getting reelected. So what does an administration do, they shove the problem off to an administrative agency to make it look like they did something, Trump with bump stocks, Obama with drones. It's all showmanship, costing the taxpayers millions, upon millions of dollars in legal costs to make it look like something has been done, when nothing has actually changed.
Both the department of justice as an organization, and Donald Trump as an individual, have been accused of engaging in significant illegal activity in the past. It is hardly a stretch of the imagination to believe that it would be doing the same thing in this particular case. Or is it being stated on the part of yourself that there was no actual collusion between Donald Trump and the nation of Russia?
Nope, either you are in or out, if you're right, I pay the forum $100, if you are wrong, you pay the forum $100. Put your money where your mouth is or fold-em and go home. Still in?
It’s as effective as a bump stock. Is a bump stock more effective than semi auto aimed fire?... well, I have my opinion. But the first question would be, more effective at what?
Why can’t it be enforced? I’m not saying I agree with the ban, but if they are banned, and you are caught with one, you’re going to jail. How is that not being enforced?
The numbers dont lie. You guys like to kill and won't be denied the opportunity by any legislation . You crave it.... which makes you savages
You are so full of crap it isn't funny, you are so clueless of Americans, other than what you have been programmed to believe, it isn't funny. Take your tripe and stick it where the sun doesn't shine. Your country is so full of murder and suicide it's horrible, non-excusable and barbaric, yet you divert to us as a problem. Fix your problems at home, and get back to us when that is completed until then put a lid on it.
I’m not following. Unless a court rules the ban u constitutional, you are going to jail if caught with one.
Then stop addressing them and stay out of their way, before the savages decide to declare war on the country of yourself and invade.
I'd be inclined to no-bill such an action if the cops acted the way they did in some highly publicized cases. However, if someone say shot the cop in the back of the head without any provocation-that would merit an indictment for sure far more hits
if cops are heavy handed and some get wasted, it will really be problematic for the government-especially if juries or grand juries engage in nullification.
For the simple reason that the device in question, unlike firearms, possess no identifying serial numbers that would allow for their tracking or identifying who does or does not own them. There is no telling how many are presently owned, there is no telling have been made at home on 3D printers. Beyond that matter, law enforcement is not authorized to try and locate them. Even if they were, they cannot execute search warrants for every motor vehicle and private residence they may encounter, on the off chance that such a device may be located there. Nor can they conduct random stops of private citizens to determine if they are carrying such a device on their person. The only way the rule can actually be enforced, will be if someone is already engaged in a criminal act while utilizing such a device for a deliberate purpose, which means it is no more effective or beneficial than the existing laws pertaining to the legal use and possession of firearms.
But this has nothing to do with enforcing a ban. Drugs are banned. They don’t have serial numbers etc. but if you are caught in possession, you are going to jail. Again, this is no different than illegal drugs. Just like drugs. So, it is just as enforceable as drug laws.
