Potential ATF bump stock ban opens a can of worms

[Doc Safari]

http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...to-other-bans/

Former ATF Gun Tech Chief Rick Vasquez warns that the ATF’s current push to ban bump stocks will open the door to other bans

A legislative push to ban bump stocks lost steam within a month of the October 1, 2017, Las Vegas attack. The public simply did not rally behind the gun control campaign. This left the ruling class no option but to take the regulatory route and seek bump stock gun control via ATF edict.

On December 22, 2017, Breitbart News reported that the ATF was formulating a redefinition of “machineguns” so that the term would cover “machineguns” and non-machineguns as well. Gun controllers have to do this because a bump stock does not convert a semiautomatic firearm into a “machinegun.”

The ATF’s former gun tech chief is warning that efforts to redefine “machineguns,” for the the purposes of banning bump stocks, will only lead to more bans. He told the Military News Channel, “So ATF’s been directed to write a regulation with the strength of a law.” He said the advance notice copy of the new rule makes clear that the ATF’s new regulation will ban “any device that automatically resets a firearm and enhances the rate of fire.” He added, “That is extremely broad.”

Vasquez observed, “They are trying to target binary triggers, [bump stock] devices, and other devices, but that is such broad language, can I take that to a Gatling gun? …So now you start stretching this [new] definition, and who is going to decide what the [standard] rate of fire is?” In other words, Vasquez is saying a this new ban simply opens the door to “stretching” the language to cover other devices, as the ruling class sees fit.

DUPCc_xX0AADN9h.jpg

Vasquez also stressed that there will be no “grandfather clause” with a new ATF bump stock ban. This means individuals who refuse to turn over a bump stocks will immediately become a “prohibited person.”

http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...j-bump-stocks/

The Department of Justice (DOJ) is proposing a change whereby the definition of “machinegun” would be broadened to include bump stocks.
This change would subsequently bring bump stocks under the purview of the same National Firearms Act (1934) and Gun Control Act of 1968 regulations that currently govern machinegun sales and possession.

The DOJ has released a draft of the announcement of the proposed definition expansion. It is similar to numerous Democrat gun control proposals that followed the Las Vegas attack inasmuch the new definition would ban numerous firearm accessories in addition to bump stocks. The title of letter conveying the DOJ’s announcement says it all: Application of the Definition of Machinegun to “Bump Fire” Stocks and Other Similar Devices.

If the DOJ succeeds in redefining “machinegun,” it portends a scenario in which individuals who own bump stocks will be required to undergo background checks and a registration process to legally retrain the devices. And if the guidelines for “machinegun” ownership hold true, owners of bump stocks would also have to be fingerprinted, photographed, and pay a $200 tax to the federal government.

My take: The ATF succeeded in redefining Streetsweeper shotguns as destructive devices even though they were in common use at the time. Bump stocks are history.

[Dist. Expert 26]

I think I need a "FTATF" patch for my riding jacket.

[Firefly]

FORMER ATF.

Call me when CURRENT ATF has something to say

I dont want Bumpstocks banned but then again, I wouldnt buy one.

The Street Sweeper was Clinton Crap. They actually suck super hardcore.

The USAS-12 however was cool and didnt deserve to be banned. Banning Streetsweepers never hurt my feelings

[Doc Safari]

FORMER ATF.

Call me when CURRENT ATF has something to say

I dont want Bumpstocks banned but then again, I wouldnt buy one.

The Street Sweeper was Clinton Crap. They actually suck super hardcore.

The USAS-12 however was cool and didnt deserve to be banned. Banning Streetsweepers never hurt my feelings

You think they've changed substantially? I don't.

They still represent an anti-Second Amendment agency that rules by fiat.

I know they haven't won every push, but knowing what we know about their past behavior I don't see any reason to think they won't ban bump stocks if they wish.

[Dist. Expert 26]

You think they've changed substantially? I don't.

They still represent an anti-Second Amendment agency that rules by fiat.

I know they haven't won every push, but knowing what we know about their past behavior I don't see any reason to think they won't ban bump stocks if they wish.

My biggest issue is the fact that ATF "regulations" fly in the face of our legislative process. Congress is supposed to create law and the executive branch, under which the ATF falls as a law enforcement agency, is only supposed to enforce said laws.

If Congress can't pass a ban, no such ban need exist.

[RVTMaverick]

Well said and Thank You!

My biggest issue is the fact that ATF "regulations" fly in the face of our legislative process. Congress is supposed to create law and the executive branch, under which the ATF falls as a law enforcement agency, is only supposed to enforce said laws.

If Congress can't pass a ban, no such ban need exist.

[kerplode]

My biggest issue is the fact that ATF "regulations" fly in the face of our legislative process. Congress is supposed to create law and the executive branch, under which the ATF falls as a law enforcement agency, is only supposed to enforce said laws.

If Congress can't pass a ban, no such ban need exist.

Chevron v. NDRC

[VARIABLE9]

http://boston.cbslocal.com/2018/02/0...achusetts-ban/

Only A Few Bump Stocks Turned In To Police Despite Massachusetts Ban
ESSEX (CBS) – Essex Police Chief Peter Silva held up a bump stock that someone turned in this week as the Massachusetts ban on the devices went into effect. “To my knowledge, this is the only one that’s been turned in to date,” he said.

State Police said they received three bump stocks and one trigger crank, as Massachusetts now becomes the first state in the country to make the devices illegal.

Controversy has swirled around them ever since a gunman used one to essentially turn a semi-automatic weapon into an automatic one, unleashing hundreds of rounds on a crowd of concertgoers in Los Vegas.

[Doc Safari]

http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...y-9-10-oppose/

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) received 36,000 comments on proposed backdoor bump stock gun control, and 85 percent of those who commented said they opposed it.

[Sry0fcr]

My biggest issue is the fact that ATF "regulations" fly in the face of our legislative process. Congress is supposed to create law and the executive branch, under which the ATF falls as a law enforcement agency, is only supposed to enforce said laws.

If Congress can't pass a ban, no such ban need exist.

Take note of who's running the show here fellas...