"Don't be silky. No one is coming for your guns!"

ATF nominee tells lawmakers he supports AR-15 ban
​

David Chipman, President Biden's nominee for director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), said at his confirming hearing Wednesday he supports banning the AR-15.

A Senate panel vetted Chipman, along with other nominees for Justice Department posts, and Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) questioned his position on the AR-15.

"I support a ban as has been presented in a Senate bill and supported by the president. The AR-15 is a gun I was issued on ATF's swat team and it's a particularly lethal weapon and regulating it as other particularly lethal weapons, I have advocated for," Chipman said.


https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehil...nee-tells-lawmakers-he-supports-ar-15-ban?amp

Again, lies are being told so that the Democrats can infringe upon the property rights of individuals. I do not understand how anyone in good conscience could follow such a den of liars.

​

 

"Don't be silky. No one is coming for your guns!"

But, but, but....

 

Chipman couldn't even define what an 'assault weapon' is but you can bet he will be targeting what he doesn't know.

 

That gun grabber should read Caetano:

"The Court has held that “the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding,” District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570, 582 (200, and that this “Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States,” McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742, 750 (2010)."

"As the per curiam opinion recognizes, this is a conjunctive test: A weapon may not be banned unless it is both dangerous and unusual."

"
As to “dangerous,” the court below held that a weapon is “dangerous per se” if it is “ ‘designed and constructed to produce death or great bodily harm’ and ‘for the purpose of bodily assault or defense.’ ” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692 (quoting Commonwealth v. Appleby, 380 Mass. 296, 303, 402 N. E. 2d 1051, 1056 (1980)). That test may be appropriate for applying statutes criminalizing assault with a dangerous weapon. See ibid., 402 N. E. 2d, at 1056. But it cannot be used to identify arms that fall outside the Second Amendment. First, the relative dangerousness of a weapon is irrelevant when the weapon belongs to a class of arms commonly used for lawful purposes. See Heller, supra, at 627 (contrasting “ ‘dangerous and unusual weapons’ ” that may be banned with protected “weapons . . . ‘in common use at the time’ ”). Second, even in cases where dangerousness might be relevant, the Supreme Judicial Court’s test sweeps far too broadly. Heller defined the “Arms” covered by the Second Amendment to include “ ‘any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.’ ” 554 U. S., at 581. Under the decision below, however, virtually every covered arm would qualify as “dangerous.”

 Were there any doubt on this point, one need only look at the court’s first example of “dangerous per se” weapons: “firearms.” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692. If Heller tells us anything, it is that firearms cannot be categorically prohibited just because they are dangerous. 554 U. S., at 636."

"
As the foregoing makes clear, the pertinent Second Amendment inquiry is whether stun guns are commonly possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes today. The Supreme Judicial Court offered only a cursory discussion of that question, noting that the “ ‘number of Tasers and stun guns is dwarfed by the number of firearms.’ ” 470 Mass., at 781, 26 N. E. 3d, at 693. This observation may be true, but it is beside the point. Otherwise, a State would be free to ban all weapons except handguns, because “handguns are the most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home.” Heller, supra, at 629.

 The more relevant statistic is that “[h]undreds of thousands of Tasers and stun guns have been sold to private citizens,” who it appears may lawfully possess them in 45 States. People v. Yanna, 297 Mich. App. 137, 144, 824 N. W. 2d 241, 245 (2012) (holding Michigan stun gun ban unconstitutional); see Volokh, Nonlethal Self-Defense, (Almost Entirely) Nonlethal Weapons, and the Rights To Keep and Bear Arms and Defend Life, 62 Stan. L. Rev. 199, 244 (2009) (citing stun gun bans in seven States); Wis. Stat. §941.295 (Supp. 2015) (amended Wisconsin law permitting stun gun possession); see also Brief in Opposition 11 (acknowledging that “approximately 200,000 civilians owned stun guns” as of 2009). While less popular than handguns, stun guns are widely owned and accepted as a legitimate means of self-defense across the country. Massachusetts’ categorical ban of such weapons therefore violates the Second Amendment."

AR-15s are in common use for lawful purposes, and are not "dangerous and unusual".

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/14-10078

 

They comprise a statistically negligible number of firearm homicides. They are no more dangerous than Mini14s. They do not fire a high calibre or high power cartridge.

They do look cool though and they're a symbol for a civil rights cause to rally around. Can't have that. It's the same everywhere.

Even in Australia handguns are perfectly legal to obtain for any citizen over the age of 18 provided they jump through the hoops. They're always targeting the guns not responsible for the vast majority of crime.

What does that tell you?

Time to stand up for your constitutional rights, Americans.

 

Even in Australia? Lol. Such a ridiculous point given how much stricter our gun laws are.

Some people just love pressing the button of neurotic gun owners, I guess...

 

28 day wait for non-semi auto rifles, 6 month for handguns, semi-auto rifles illegal, bunch of irrelevant cosmetic prohibitions.

That's a lot harsher, but not functionally a lot harder in practice. Most of the stringency of our gun laws are on the peripheral: illegality of airsoft, cosmetic features, police harassment, etc. Any Australian citizen can get a repeating rifle in 28 days, including yourself.

You can get semi-auto firearms, they just have to be the sort that are readily concealable and used in the vast majority of gun homicides and criminal activity.

 

A life long bureaucrat turns out to support stripping people of their rights and property. I'm shocked.

 

I'm assuming the title of this thread was a typo, but I'm going to start telling people to not be silky anyway.

 

Wanna see an agency with police powers and the vast resources of the Federal Government RUN AMOK? Then put this POS in charge of the ATF....NOPE, NYET, NADA!!!

 

If he was on a BATF SWAT team he was issued a M4, not an AR-15, either the guy is lying or quite ignorant.

 

The definition he came up with was any rifle that accepts a detachable magazine. Basically most rifles.

 

Nice to know my 1917 Springfield Armory British .303 is an assault rifle!

 

He can't be ignorant. His bio says he's an "assault weapons" expert.

https://giffords.org/people/david-chipman/

 

The projectile, while no different than those leaving the barrel of a ranch rifle, knows it left the barrel of an AR-15 and makes a conscious decision to be more lethal.

 

machine guns are banned too, have no issues with that

tell me when they come after normal guns vs assault rifles and machine guns

 

No they aren't

I have all kinds of issues with it.

 

to many they are.... they are not easy to buy

but ok, your right, lets do the same to ar-15's (it's not a ban)

 

It's a unconstitutional restriction.

 

is it? not sure the courts agree, when the SC changes the laws on machine guns, let me know

 

What is the point of putting AR-15s on the NFA list?

 

to reduce mass murders, same as machine guns

 

That isn't why machine guns were restricted under NFA 1934. How would it reduce mass murders, given that with 25 million AR-15s they've been used in mass murders fewer than 25 times in over 50 years?

 

why were they restricted

 

You cannot demonstrate the necessity for, or efficacy of, putting the AR15 on the NFA list.