MNGunTalk.com

Erud wrote:H&H, I’m not sure I understand what your issue is with what jshuberg posted. He’s taken a lot of time to very clearly articulate his point, and then you just keep dropping back in to lash out at him without making any counterpoints or explaining what the problem is. So what’s the deal?

Sorry, I have to agree.

Grayskies wrote:

Erud wrote:H&H, I’m not sure I understand what your issue is with what jshuberg posted. He’s taken a lot of time to very clearly articulate his point, and then you just keep dropping back in to lash out at him without making any counterpoints or explaining what the problem is. So what’s the deal?

Sorry, I have to agree.

Having time to type large posts on a gun forum does not make one correct.

His point is that Bumps stocks are illegal already in MN correct? Yet they have been sold here and have been generally considered legal until this latest ATF mandate. His avatar seems to indicate that he represents the pro-gun lobby in this state however he continually posts an anti gun argument. He would be better served with his time determining the strategy to fight this ban at both the federal and state levels.

Holland&Holland wrote:

Grayskies wrote:

Erud wrote:H&H, I’m not sure I understand what your issue is with what jshuberg posted. He’s taken a lot of time to very clearly articulate his point, and then you just keep dropping back in to lash out at him without making any counterpoints or explaining what the problem is. So what’s the deal?

Sorry, I have to agree.

Having time to type large posts on a gun forum does not make one correct.

His point is that Bumps stocks are illegal already in MN correct? Yet they have been sold here and have been generally considered legal until this latest ATF mandate. His avatar seems to indicate that he represents the pro-gun lobby in this state however he continually posts an anti gun argument. He would be better served with his time determining the strategy to fight this ban at both the federal and state levels.

He’s not posting a pro-gun argument, he’s just pointing out what the current law says. After reading it, I’d have to guess that he is probably correct. There hasn’t been a test case to find out for sure, but it would probably lose, based on how the law is written and who would be in charge of deciding on it here in MN. That doesn’t mean that he is in favor of banning bump stocks. I don’t know if he has an official position with GOCRA or not (I think he does), but if he does, it’s probably pretty safe to say that he’s doing a lot more than most of us are for gun rights in MN.

Holland&Holland wrote:

Grayskies wrote:

Erud wrote:H&H, I’m not sure I understand what your issue is with what jshuberg posted. He’s taken a lot of time to very clearly articulate his point, and then you just keep dropping back in to lash out at him without making any counterpoints or explaining what the problem is. So what’s the deal?

Sorry, I have to agree.

Having time to type large posts on a gun forum does not make one correct.

His point is that Bumps stocks are illegal already in MN correct? Yet they have been sold here and have been generally considered legal until this latest ATF mandate. His avatar seems to indicate that he represents the pro-gun lobby in this state however he continually posts an anti gun argument. He would be better served with his time determining the strategy to fight this ban at both the federal and state levels.

Assuming he is part of a pro-gun lobbying group; I would think part of that job would include raising awareness of issues which I think he is doing right now.

As for the legality of bump stocks in Minnesota, They could easily be ruled illegal in MN by these Leftist judges we have. Would you really want to be a test case no matter how good the laws looked to your lawyer?

Note: Personally I dis-like bump stocks and would never own one, that said I think banning them is stupid. IMO It will turn out to be about as worth while as banning bayonet lugs turned out to be.

Erud wrote:
He’s not posting a pro-gun argument, he’s just pointing out what the current law says. After reading it, I’d have to guess that he is probably correct. There hasn’t been a test case to find out for sure, but it would probably lose, based on how the law is written and who would be in charge of deciding on it here in MN. That doesn’t mean that he is in favor of banning bump stocks. I don’t know if he has an official position with GOCRA or not (I think he does), but if he does, it’s probably pretty safe to say that he’s doing a lot more than most of us are for gun rights in MN.

Erud,
I believe your assumptions and speculations are spot on.
jshuberg is an asset to MN Gun Rights advocates.

I don’t think I’d consider a finger an instrumental component of a trigger activator. Seems to me it’s a component of a hand.

I suppose if you cut it off and attach it to the bumpstock I would agree.

xd ED wrote:

Erud wrote:
He’s not posting a pro-gun argument, he’s just pointing out what the current law says. After reading it, I’d have to guess that he is probably correct. There hasn’t been a test case to find out for sure, but it would probably lose, based on how the law is written and who would be in charge of deciding on it here in MN. That doesn’t mean that he is in favor of banning bump stocks. I don’t know if he has an official position with GOCRA or not (I think he does), but if he does, it’s probably pretty safe to say that he’s doing a lot more than most of us are for gun rights in MN.

Erud,
I believe your assumptions and speculations are spot on.
jshuberg is an asset to MN Gun Rights advocates.

Ok, fine if you want to crown him, crown him.

H&H: You're acting like a two-year-old.

JS has laid out several very well thought out, well informed, and intellectually honest posts describing exactly how the communists are going to try to classify bump-stocks as "trigger activators" in MN. The communists are incapable of logic unless they are trying to figure a way to twist and distort something to fit their incorrect heart-felt beliefs. In order to FEEL right rather than BE right the communists will expend nearly limitless energy into twisting and distorting the public's perception of reality to match their incorrect beliefs.

You tell JS to do something about it... You "do something about it": become the test-case. On inauguration day march into Kieth Ellison's office with your bump-stock in one hand and your big swinging cyber-PEN15 in the other hand and demand that he prosecute you for owning a "trigger-activator" in MN.

If, after you become the test-case, bump-stocks are illegal in MN then you have failed.

Wow, I didn’t realize posting what I did would be so controversial!

I’ve worked with both GOCRA and the Gun Owners Caucus, but have taken a step back from the caucus for reasons I won’t get into here. I’m just a member like many others and am no longer part of the leadership team. My avatar is still the caucus logo simply because I haven’t gotten around to changing it. I suppose I should change it at some point to avoid confusion. My opinions are my own, and don’t reflect any organization I might be a member of, or that I’ve worked with in the past.

One thing for certain though is I’m not anti-gun. That accusation is beyond absurd!




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

First, let me state that prior to moving to MN, I owned a Select Fire Izhmash built AK-47 and a H&K 91 with select fire (yes, they had the proper documentation). I sold both, prior to moving to MN. Partially to cover my moving expenses and a divorce.

I have never owned, nor fired a rifle equipped with a "Bump Stock". But after watching many videos of them being utilized, and instructions on how they are actually activated, I see fault with the ruling that they can be classified as a "Machine Gun". In order to make the bump stock function, it requires a forward force on the firearm (usually the other hand, but other methods can be used). If you rest a firearm (let's specify a rifle for $hits and giggles) on a rest, sandbag, bench etc. with no forward pulling force on the rifle. you will get one (1) round fired by pulling the trigger. You must release tension on the trigger to allow it to reset. Without that forward pulling force, whether it be free hand/arm, bench, bag etc. the bump stock functions exactly as a semi-automatic rifle is supposed to. One round fired, with each "function" of the trigger. It will only function as a device that can possibly increase the cyclic rate of a semi-auto, if it has a forward force acting against it and the rifle.

So, would this make the actual part that increases the rate of fire, the opposite hand/arm, bench..etc, and not actually the bump stock (to activate the trigger multiple times)? In any case, there is no legal definition currently legislated by congress, that could interpret a bump stock as a machine gun.

And, while I have no desire to own nor operate a bump stock equipped rifle, I will support all actions trying to stop the BATFE or the President from Legislating Law. Only Congress, can write a law, pass it, and send it to the President for Approval or Veto. I hope this gets taken as high in the legal system as necessary, because if unchallenged, what will stop the BATFE/President, from writing whatever legislation they deem necessary any time they choose?

Yes, I support our President, and agree with most things he has tried to do. NOT THIS ONE though. I feel that it flies in the face of the U.S. Constitution.

YMMV

Holland&Holland wrote:

xd ED wrote:

Erud wrote:
He’s not posting a pro-gun argument, he’s just pointing out what the current law says. After reading it, I’d have to guess that he is probably correct. There hasn’t been a test case to find out for sure, but it would probably lose, based on how the law is written and who would be in charge of deciding on it here in MN. That doesn’t mean that he is in favor of banning bump stocks. I don’t know if he has an official position with GOCRA or not (I think he does), but if he does, it’s probably pretty safe to say that he’s doing a lot more than most of us are for gun rights in MN.

Erud,
I believe your assumptions and speculations are spot on.
jshuberg is an asset to MN Gun Rights advocates.

Ok, fine if you want to crown him, crown him.

Super weird, bro.

Holland&Holland wrote:

xd ED wrote:

Erud wrote:
He’s not posting a pro-gun argument, he’s just pointing out what the current law says. After reading it, I’d have to guess that he is probably correct. There hasn’t been a test case to find out for sure, but it would probably lose, based on how the law is written and who would be in charge of deciding on it here in MN. That doesn’t mean that he is in favor of banning bump stocks. I don’t know if he has an official position with GOCRA or not (I think he does), but if he does, it’s probably pretty safe to say that he’s doing a lot more than most of us are for gun rights in MN.

Erud,
I believe your assumptions and speculations are spot on.
jshuberg is an asset to MN Gun Rights advocates.

Ok, fine if you want to crown him, crown him.

Calling things as one sees them is not advocacy.
By your current line of reasoning, Paul Revere was a Tory for announcing: "The British are coming."

linksep wrote:H&H: You're acting like a two-year-old.

JS has laid out several very well thought out, well informed, and intellectually honest posts describing exactly how the communists are going to try to classify bump-stocks as "trigger activators" in MN. The communists are incapable of logic unless they are trying to figure a way to twist and distort something to fit their incorrect heart-felt beliefs. In order to FEEL right rather than BE right the communists will expend nearly limitless energy into twisting and distorting the public's perception of reality to match their incorrect beliefs.

You tell JS to do something about it... You "do something about it": become the test-case. On inauguration day march into Kieth Ellison's office with your bump-stock in one hand and your big swinging cyber-PEN15 in the other hand and demand that he prosecute you for owning a "trigger-activator" in MN.

If, after you become the test-case, bump-stocks are illegal in MN then you have failed.

No, he laid out arguments on why he felt they were illegal.

Your references show who is acting what age.

xd ED wrote:
Calling things as one sees them is not advocacy.
By your current line of reasoning, Paul Revere was a Tory for announcing: "The British are coming."

Not at all similar.

BigDog58 wrote:First, let me state that prior to moving to MN, I owned a Select Fire Izhmash built AK-47 and a H&K 91 with select fire (yes, they had the proper documentation). I sold both, prior to moving to MN. Partially to cover my moving expenses and a divorce.

I have never owned, nor fired a rifle equipped with a "Bump Stock". But after watching many videos of them being utilized, and instructions on how they are actually activated, I see fault with the ruling that they can be classified as a "Machine Gun". In order to make the bump stock function, it requires a forward force on the firearm (usually the other hand, but other methods can be used). If you rest a firearm (let's specify a rifle for $hits and giggles) on a rest, sandbag, bench etc. with no forward pulling force on the rifle. you will get one (1) round fired by pulling the trigger. You must release tension on the trigger to allow it to reset. Without that forward pulling force, whether it be free hand/arm, bench, bag etc. the bump stock functions exactly as a semi-automatic rifle is supposed to. One round fired, with each "function" of the trigger. It will only function as a device that can possibly increase the cyclic rate of a semi-auto, if it has a forward force acting against it and the rifle.

So, would this make the actual part that increases the rate of fire, the opposite hand/arm, bench..etc, and not actually the bump stock (to activate the trigger multiple times)? In any case, there is no legal definition currently legislated by congress, that could interpret a bump stock as a machine gun.

And, while I have no desire to own nor operate a bump stock equipped rifle, I will support all actions trying to stop the BATFE or the President from Legislating Law. Only Congress, can write a law, pass it, and send it to the President for Approval or Veto. I hope this gets taken as high in the legal system as necessary, because if unchallenged, what will stop the BATFE/President, from writing whatever legislation they deem necessary any time they choose?

Yes, I support our President, and agree with most things he has tried to do. NOT THIS ONE though. I feel that it flies in the face of the U.S. Constitution.

YMMV

Bingo