Maybe, in fact SCOTUS has ignored a lot of “nibbling” at Roe.
The Las Vegas asswipe spent far more than $5,500 on his weapons, implying he wasn’t poor. I don’t think it would have prevented anything.
I think ‘gunpowder’ in that post refers to black powder. Modern propellant is not black powder.
Someone was being very nit picky.
If they cast their own bullets, they are cast out of a lead alloy, usually. Many reloader buy their bullets premade, as making a copper-jacketed bullet at home is very difficult. The casing or shell is usually from a round you have fired before.
Once you put the primer in, then the *propellant *aka the *powder is added. It is always smokeless powder, never black powder aka gun powder. Now, yes, the term “gunpowder” is sometimes used in a colloquial or informal manner. You might hear a reloader call it that sometimes.
The entire thing- primer, casing, bullet and powder make up a round. There are special tools to put the primer in and properly 'crimp" the casing around the bullet. The “bullet” is the thing that comes out of the barrel and hits the target, hopefully.
http://gunbelts.com/blog/anatomy-of-ammunition/
Now you know.
Oh, and they aren’t called “boom-boom sticks” either. 
- some odd speciality rounds use it for show.
This isn’t the way such things are supposed to work. An agency (especially one who previously published that such devices were legal) should not simply be able to ban something simply because the POTUS wants it without an act of Congress. After physical and scientific review BATFE published that bump stock equipped firearms were not machine guns, and now suddenly they are because Trump says they are? That’s horseshit and you know it. The way this took place should be more than just “a bit concerning” to you. The lack of due process comes from the fact that hundreds of thousands of citizens are denied their lawfully acquired property without just compensation. A clear violation of the 5th Amendment. No grandfather clause, no registration option, no loop holes whtsoever.
The consumer versions of them have been around for almost 30 years. Prior to them people were making their own using about $4 worth of wood. There were also bump shot triggers dating back to the 70’s and 80’s. It hasn’t been clear if they are included in the bump stock ban. Many of them work on the same principle.
There was an early version that got approved and then unapproved by ATF because it had a spring in it. The versions that are now banned are nothing more than a single piece of plastic. No springs, moving parts or other alterations to the rifle.
It’s the manner in which the ban took place that should terrify anyone who cherishes their freedom and the mechanisms of our republic. There are several more lawsuits pending including a class action demanding just compensation. Myself and several of my customers are involved with that one. We stopped selling them last year. In February we had to post a sign instructing folks that we were not accepting returns of bump stocks, and they were not allowed on property after the ban deadline in March.
Several states have banned them, still a violation of the 2nd Amendment IMHO, but at least they created those bans in the legal manner in which law is to be created. While those laws seem redundant I believe they did so because they think the federal ban will be overturned by the courts eventually. Even Dianne Feinstein stated she believes that will happen. I bet that some people did not turn in or destroy their bump stocks. There are literally hundreds of thousands of otherwise law abiding Americans who are guilty of a serious federal felony because they are keeping a piece of plastic that just happens to be molded in a certain shape hidden in their attic, closet, or garage. A piece of plastic!
Now, if a piece of plastic can be banned so easily, what is to stop a ban on most ammunition? Most rifle ammo will defeat soft body armor. What’s to stop them from using that as a reason to ban it? How about a ban on civilian possession of hollow points? Or do what many countries do and ban possession of ammo larger than .380? Or a ban on possessing more than 2 rounds of ammunition on your person. If the courts rejected or refused to hear your arguments, what exactly would you be able to do about it? If BATFE can ban a piece of plastic with no input from congress, what is to stop them from banning many kinds of bullets?
“Issuing a rule, sharing the rationale, and asking for comments” is by no means due process.
By that logic, imagine if Trump issued an EO closing every single abortion clinic in the nation, shared his rationale (whatever it may be,) and said “comments are welcome.” That is not due process in the least.
So, gunpowder then?
Thanks!
Do you similarly believe that the FDA or the EPA should not be able to ban substances in food or water supplies?
Remember the fun we have with the difference between assault weapon and assault rifle? There is a also a legit and legal difference between “gunpowder” and smokeless powder. If you load a blackpowder rifle with smokeless powder, you stand a good risk of killing or severely injuring yourself. If you load a modern rifle with gunpowder you will seriously fuck it up.
Words mean things but most folks don’t care.
FWIW, according to wiki, “smokeless powder” is a uniquely American phrase. You learn something new everyday.
I used to work at one the biggest gun stores in the state and for grins, we would sneak small amounts of smokeless powder into ash trays. Big fun. Doing it with black powder could have been catastrophic.
Right. Regulatory delegation is the legislative saying, “look, people, we are NOT trained experts in ballistics/epidemiology/aquatic chemistry/aircraft control dynamics - we are hereby tasking the executive offices with being the ones who hire or consult with the trained experts and do the micromanaging; we trust they’ll do so in a manner that matches the constitution and law.” When the latter does not happen, or the executive just tries to pull power out of his fundament, then we should go back in and legislate the details.
That we allowed it to get to the point that the executive prefers the out-of-fundament method as their first recourse is the other branches’ fault.
I know words mean things, that’s why I asked. According to this Washington Hunter Ed Course, it shows two types of cartridges, both of which have nice little lines pointing to a substance called “gunpowder” inside the cartridge.
Yes, that’s mostly true: Smokeless powder is the name given to a number of propellants used in firearms and artillery that produce negligible smoke when fired, unlike the gunpowder or black powder they replaced. The term is unique to the United States and is generally not used in other English-speaking countries,[1] which initially used proprietary names such as “Ballistite” and “Cordite” but gradually shifted to “propellant” as the generic term.
Meh, they’re wrong. What are you going to do? Here is a good video discussing the difference:
Major case of apples and oranges on your part.
If the FDA banned a food that it deemed safe simply on the whim of the President, and then consumption or possession of such food became a serious criminal offense, damn straight I’d oppose that.
What the BATFE did was make a device fit a definition that it doesn’t, simply because Trump pressured them to. Previously, after much research, the same agency steadfastly maintained such devices did not fit the definition of machine guns. It is the manner in which this regulation took place that should frighten the living hell out of us.
What happened is not the equivalent of the FDA learning that a previously approved food was found to have toxic side effects. After being approved bump stocks did not change in function, and the definition of automatic weapons did not change. The bureau made the devices fit a definition that they actually don’t fit only because the President insisted. This goes way beyond the scope of being a regulatory agency and more to the path of tyranny.
If congress had changed the definition of automatic weapons to one that somehow fit the function of what a bump stock does, then the bureau may have been within its rights to do what they did. But that didn’t happen, did it?
Back to the OP, if this type of ban on a lump of plastic can happen so easily, what is to stop such a thing from happening to ammunition?
Yes, sometimes, as i said, the term “gunpowder” is used as a colloquial expression for the layman.
And of course the Dem House would be happy to pass such a ban, so why not ask for it?
It’s clear that as long as it is not their ox being gored, people couldn’t care less.
I agree. The level of apathy over how our form of law making was bypassed is sickening. Even those in favor of banning bump stocks should be frightened at the manner in which the ban was put into place.