View Full Version : TURN IN YOUR BUMP STOCKS!
Doc Safari
11-29-18, 09:10
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2018/11/29/report-president-trump-signing-bump-stock-ban-citizens-have-90-days-to-turn-them-in/
President Donald Trump is expected to announce that he will be signing a ban on bump stocks that gives Americans 90 days to hand them over or otherwise dispose of them.
CNN reports that Trump is now preparing to sign the ban and it will outlaw the firearm accessories without a grandfathering option. CNN quotes a source that indicates “members of the public will be given 90 days to turn in or otherwise discard their bump stocks.”
ATF Acting Director Thomas Brandon told the U.S. Senate he anticipates a legal challenge against the ban and acknowledged that that challenge could slow the ban’s implementation.
My take: So much for a "pro 2A" president. Not that I'm defending bump stocks, but strike "bump stocks" from this and insert "semi-automatic weapons" and you get my meaning. After this I don't trust Trump not to sign a new AWB. And no grandfathering to boot. This is a very dark day.
I'd be willing to bet there is about 99% non-compliance. The price for a bump stock just skyrocketed.
Doc Safari
11-29-18, 09:45
For those of you who don't trust Breitbart, CNN is reporting it too:
https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/28/politics/final-bump-stock-ban/index.html
Under the new rule, bump stock owners would be required to destroy or surrender the devices to authorities. Members of the public will be given 90 days to turn in or otherwise discard their bump stocks, according to a source familiar with the final rule.
Curious what the language is.
Not surprised at all by this. Thanks again NRA!
Doc Safari
11-29-18, 11:10
No grandfathering. No registration or adding to the NFA. No compensation for current owners.
LET THAT SINK IN.
Bump stocks are a joke of an accessory, but that's beside the point, isn't it?
The point is Trump just said "Eff You" to a large gun-owning group that most likely voted for him.
He'll do it again with semi-autos, suppressors, hi-cap mags--you name it.
The precedent is what's important.
Keep your eyes open and your powder dry.
The writing was on the wall since '86 when Reagan banned new civilian machine guns. I can't believe people were foolish enough to "invest" in such a silly technicality as a bump stock. It was only ever going to take one very public murder to earn a rule change.
Same thing with binary triggers - enjoy them if you want, but don't expect to be paid back when the government closes that loophole.
Pistol braces are similarly dicey. It is another effort to bypass the spirit of the NFA and it is only going to take a few newsworthy instances to get it knocked out.
Doc Safari
11-29-18, 11:31
The writing was on the wall since '86 when Reagan banned new civilian machine guns. I can't believe people were foolish enough to "invest" in such a silly technicality as a bump stock. It was only ever going to take one very public murder to earn a rule change.
Same thing with binary triggers - enjoy them if you want, but don't expect to be paid back when the government closes that loophole.
If I were to bet money, I'd bet this emboldens the left to really go after suppressors and 3D printing now. (Of course they're going after all of it no matter what, but I'm talking about a strong "push".). Bump stocks were the low-hanging fruit. Now they're going to try to pick each low-hanging fruint in succession then try to push legislation to ban semi-autos and standard cap mags in January.
While not perfect (tell me what is) I love the NRA and overall I love the job Trump's been doing and what he has gotten accomplished so far. Imagine, no NRA and if Hillary was elected president. *LET THAT SINK IN*
If I were to bet money, I'd bet this emboldens the left to really go after suppressors and 3D printing now. (Of course they're going after all of it no matter what, but I'm talking about a strong "push".). Bump stocks were the low-hanging fruit. Now they're going to try to pick each low-hanging fruint in succession then try to push legislation to ban semi-autos and standard cap mags in January.
If fifty people died in relation to licensed suppressors, maybe. But this situation is more like the legality of "solvent traps", not legal NFA items.
Let this sink in: GOP politicians don't care about your guns, just your votes. Just as Reagan and Bush Sr. enacted gun bans, the current bunch will pass whatever is most expedient.
Doc Safari
11-29-18, 11:39
If fifty people died in relation to licensed suppressors, maybe. But this situation is more like the legality of "solvent traps", not legal NFA items.
Good point. But the left is going to paint suppressors out to be "silencers" that make crime easier or some horseshit.
Doc Safari
11-29-18, 11:43
So I lived with trepidation through 8 years of Obama waiting for gun control that never happened. Now the guy I voted for out-and-out bans a gun accessory with NO grandfathering, NO compensation, and not even a requirement to register it with the NFA if you want to keep it.
Not that I own a bump stock, but what's next?
Trump is a known supporter of eminent domain. Get ready to have an interstate running through your ass.
So I lived with trepidation through 8 years of Obama waiting for gun control that never happened. Now the guy I voted for out-and-out bans a gun accessory with NO grandfathering, NO compensation, and not even a requirement to register it with the NFA if you want to keep it.
Not that I own a bump stock, but what's next?
Trump is a known supporter of eminent domain. Get ready to have an interstate running through your ass.
The public must be disarmed to have the U.S. to fully fall into a one world type government. The politicians and unionized government employees are a crime gang.
Good point. But the left is going to paint suppressors out to be "silencers" that make crime easier or some horseshit.
They don't have to - that already happened in 1934. The NFA has been fairly effective in keeping the use of licensed items away from crime.
So I lived with trepidation through 8 years of Obama waiting for gun control that never happened. Now the guy I voted for out-and-out bans a gun accessory with NO grandfathering, NO compensation, and not even a requirement to register it with the NFA if you want to keep it.
Not that I own a bump stock, but what's next?
Trump is a known supporter of eminent domain. Get ready to have an interstate running through your ass.
Who told you Obama was going to pass massive gun control? Obama, or his opponents?
Doc Safari
11-29-18, 11:50
There's a massive thread on TOS and the consensus seems to be that binary triggers will more-or-less automatically fall under the new ruling. Not sure if anyone has actually seen the wording of the EO, but that's the thrust of some of the posts over there.
Doc Safari
11-29-18, 11:52
Who told you Obama was going to pass massive gun control? Obama, or his opponents?
True that. NRA and everbody else screamed bloody murder that he was going to ban everything.
There's a massive thread on TOS and the consensus seems to be that binary triggers will more-or-less automatically fall under the new ruling. Not sure if anyone has actually seen the wording of the EO, but that's the thrust of some of the posts over there.
Even if they don't, IIRC isn't H.R. 7115 still in play as a potential back-door "assault" weapon ban?
The one discussed here: https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?210923-Importation-ban-disguised-as-a-3D-printer-ban
True that. NRA and everbody else screamed bloody murder that he was going to ban everything.
One of the biggest losses the Dems sustained was after the '94 Crime Bill. They aren't so stupid that they want to repeat that.
The most likely legislation is going to be background checks on private sales, which has broad public support. If gun people were smart they would write that legislation so it is free and can be done with a phone app. But they won't, and result will be an administrative PITA because the GOP sees its job as ignoring reality.
Even if they don't, IIRC isn't H.R. 7115 still in play as a potential back-door "assault" weapon ban?
The one discussed here: https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?210923-Importation-ban-disguised-as-a-3D-printer-ban
I don't see how that bill would prevent the sale of all those $400 complete AR15s.
Turn them in to whom? Who gets to receive personal property purchased when said personal property was legal?
I don't see how that bill would prevent the sale of all those $400 complete AR15s.
Per Sec. 5 Definitions, a) (2): the term “assault weapon parts kit” means any part or combination of parts designed and intended to enable a consumer who possesses all such necessary parts to assemble a semiautomatic assault weapon;
Uppers are a part/combination of parts needed to assemble a rifle, aren't they?
Per Sec. 5 Definitions, a) (2): the term “assault weapon parts kit” means any part or combination of parts designed and intended to enable a consumer who possesses all such necessary parts to assemble a semiautomatic assault weapon;
Uppers are a part/combination of parts needed to assemble a rifle, aren't they?
They are. How would that be a ban on complete AR15s?
Turn them in to whom? Who gets to receive personal property purchased when said personal property was legal?
Generally LE will receive any sort of firearm item people want to get rid of, but it doesn't sound like you need to show that you got rid of the stock or how you did it.
They are. How would that be a ban on complete AR15s?
Thank you for pointing that out. Got ahead of myself. My bad :-(
Perhaps tens of thousands of gun owners need to call the ATF or local LE with and ask if they will make house calls to retrieve your bump stock, since you're short on gas money this month for extra trips. If they do show up, have a hard time finding it, and explain you had it handy recently, but can't find it. As an afterthought you might have loaned it to someone, but you'll remember who it was if given enough time.
Thousands of phone calls for house calls to retrieve the legally purchased personal property could overwhelm the system, and shut it down....for a while.
Renegade04
11-29-18, 12:38
Personally, and I will catch flack for this, I have always been against bumpstocks and binary triggers. I would love to see them both gone. The same goes for the support braces/supports unless they are used for the purpose for which they were designed.
Perhaps tens of thousands of gun owners need to call the ATF or local LE with and ask if they will make house calls to retrieve your bump stock, since you're short on gas money this month for extra trips. If they do show up, have a hard time finding it, and explain you had it handy recently, but can't find it. As an afterthought you might have loaned it to someone, but you'll remember who it was if given enough time.
Thousands of phone calls for house calls to retrieve the legally purchased personal property could overwhelm the system, and shut it down....for a while.
A couple things wrong with that idea in my view. First of all, it isn't as if there enough ATF agents that they are going to send one out to pickup individual bump stocks in small towns across the USA. Then, there is the thought that if they did send an agent, I wouldn't want to put myself on an individual ATF agent's radar as an asshat, they are likely to make a career decision to keep an eye on you.
Additionally, at the local LE level the majority of officers are pro-2A. They aren't the ones responsible for any such bill. If you screw with them, you will likely convert some of them to the other side.
I'm sure President Trump only has our best interests at heart, and I'm looking forward to seeing how his most ardent supporters spin this.
Personally, and I will catch flack for this, I have always been against bumpstocks and binary triggers. I would love to see them both gone. The same goes for the support braces/supports unless they are used for the purpose for which they were designed.
While I have nothing against anyone who does use either, they aren't my cup of tea. I can see the braces going the bump stock route in the not too distant future. Given the number of videos with people shouldering their brace since the ATF opinion it was OK, I could see someone pointing out they're "no different than an SBR" and end up being banned (instead of the preferred de-regulation of the SBR's).
Perhaps tens of thousands of gun owners need to call the ATF or local LE with and ask if they will make house calls to retrieve your bump stock, since you're short on gas money this month for extra trips. If they do show up, have a hard time finding it, and explain you had it handy recently, but can't find it. As an afterthought you might have loaned it to someone, but you'll remember who it was if given enough time.
Thousands of phone calls for house calls to retrieve the legally purchased personal property could overwhelm the system, and shut it down....for a while.
I don't know what that will accomplish but make it harder for people who actually need to contact the ATF to get through. Especially when all you have to do is throw it out - the police aren't going to come to take your trash out.
Personally, and I will catch flack for this, I have always been against bumpstocks and binary triggers. I would love to see them both gone. The same goes for the support braces/supports unless they are used for the purpose for which they were designed.
I tend to agree with you. Either the NFA is the law or it isn't. While the workarounds are interesting from a problem-solving POV, they are also not in good faith with the spirit of the law.
Are gun people law abiding supporters of the Constitutional basis for our laws, or protestors engaged in civil disobedience? On many of these issues it seems like the latter.
Personally, and I will catch flack for this, I have always been against bumpstocks and binary triggers. I would love to see them both gone. The same goes for the support braces/supports unless they are used for the purpose for which they were designed.
Your feelings arent the issue. The wording and “interpretation” of the law is. I dont see how a bump stock can be considered a machinegun. The definition is clear. Bump stocks do not fit it.
Bump stocks and binary triggers shouldnt exist, because the sporting clause should be gone and there would be no market for them, since machineguns are better.
Not surprised at all by this. Thanks again NRA!
I'd bet the NRA will be one of the groups challenging it.
Your feelings arent the issue. The wording and “interpretation” of the law is. I dont see how a bump stock can be considered a machinegun. The definition is clear. Bump stocks do not fit it.
Bump stocks and binary triggers shouldnt exist, because the sporting clause should be gone and there would be no market for them, since machineguns are better.
The essential problem is that efforts to leverage interpretation into a workaround that just leads to more gun control legislation doesn't benefit gun owners. It just makes everyone more used to passing bipartisan gun control. Mag-magnets, braces, bump stock are clever mechanisms that accomplish nothing long term except making gun owners the target of oversight.
I'd bet the NRA will be one of the groups challenging it.
Nope.
https://home.nra.org/joint-statement
I don't know what that will accomplish but make it harder for people who actually need to contact the ATF to get through. Especially when all you have to do is throw it out - the police aren't going to come to take your trash out.
One person's trash is another person's treasure. Does it have to be ATF coming pick up your personal property? Is it local LE? I don't own a device like that but if I did, I wouldn't want my legally purchased private property being confiscated by the authorities without making a statement out of it.
Two American communists by the names of Cloward and Piven had a point if you want to destroy America, you overwhelm the system so that it can't recover. If the government wants to take your legally purchased private property, maybe thousands of Americans should overwhelm the system and make a statement. When they show up, hand them a carved piece of wood with rubber bands attached to it. Have it painted black or gray with some markings like the Sooper Dooper Rapid Fire Death Device and surrender that.
Nope.
https://home.nra.org/joint-statement
How old is that
Doc Safari
11-29-18, 13:20
I wonder how many bump stocks are out there already? 100,000? A million? That's a lot of doors to knock on.
Still, they won't go after them. They will wait until someone gets caught with one at the range, then they will prosecute that person to the full extent of the law.
One person's trash is another person's treasure. Does it have to be ATF coming pick up your personal property? Is it local LE? I don't own a device like that but if I did, I wouldn't want my legally purchased private property being confiscated by the authorities without making a statement out of it.
Two American communists by the names of Cloward and Piven had a point if you want to destroy America, you overwhelm the system so that it can't recover. If the government wants to take your legally purchased private property, maybe thousands of Americans should overwhelm the system and make a statement. When they show up, hand them a carved piece of wood with rubber bands attached to it. Have it painted black or gray with some markings like the Sooper Dooper Rapid Fire Death Device and surrender that.
I don't think you read or understood the press release:
"Members of the public will be given 90 days to turn in or otherwise discard their bump stocks, according to a source familiar with the final rule."
No LE or government representative has to make any effort to help you discard something, so they won't be "showing up". They don't have to play your game, nor will anyone be impressed with having the phone lines clogged.
How old is that
It is on the NRA website at this very moment.
I don't think you read or understood the press release:
"Members of the public will be given 90 days to turn in or otherwise discard their bump stocks, according to a source familiar with the final rule."
No LE or government representative has to make any effort to help you discard something, so they won't be "showing up". They don't have to play your game, nor will anyone be impressed with having the phone lines clogged.
I read it. The key is the action and effort on the owner's part is to do something. You are being compelled by an executive order to do something; drive to the local PD office, drive to the closest ATF office, or destroy something. No, you tell the government it is up to them to do something. Am I going to be compensated for my time by driving 3-4 hours to turn in legally purchased private property at the Albuquerque ATF office? Local PD or Sheriffs here in rural New Mexico have no capacity or inclination to receive the legally purchased private property. And if you dispose of it, what are the means of that? Put it in a dumpster or shall it be incinerated?
No to all of it. You make the government jump thru hoops to take your property. You make the government incur expense and effort to take your legally purchased private property.
1- No grandfathering. No registration or adding to the NFA. No compensation for current owners.
2- LET THAT SINK IN.
3- Bump stocks are a joke of an accessory, but that's beside the point, isn't it?
4- The point is Trump just said "Eff You" to a large gun-owning group that most likely voted for him.
5- He'll do it again with semi-autos, suppressors, hi-cap mags--you name it.
6- The precedent is what's important.
7- Keep your eyes open and your powder dry.
1. This is why it will be struck down. There is no way the GOV legal team doesn't know this.
2. It is well worth letting it sink in that the attempt is being made.
3. Agreed 100%. People want to ignore when Larue said bumpstocks weren't worth fighting for, or place to make a stand, but it doesn't change that a legal firearm item being made illegal on a whim is totally and utterly against the law. Yes I understand that later he denied it, and had his arfcom shills deny and make more anti Geiselle threads, but it doesn't change what happened.
4. I'll disagree on this one, most gun owners won't think about it in the same manner and won't care, but I understand your point.
5. Doubtful from my POV.
6. Yes, the precedent is the largest issue I find with this, along with the obvious blatant disregard of the actual 2A and what it clearly spells out.
7. Indeed. The Republicans have been so willing to compromise on issues that the 2A is a heavily watered down version of itself with barely a hint of the original meaning.
People need to remember that when the Second Amendment and Constitution were written, the most powerful weapons made by man were owned by individuals. Don't tell me that a personally owned cannon firing grape shot isn't a weapon of mass destruction. Illegal fireworks are classed as WMDs in the perverted laws of today, and when the 2A was penned, canisters of powder were nothing more than common place.
Cannons with grape shot cuts large swaths through the battle field. Cannons were the single most deadly weapon on the battlefield. Cannons were owned by the individuals who could afford them, and not until later were they part of Army purchase.
Modern day Second Amendment debates are held using the laws and restrictions put upon us by the GOV to combat the lawless actions of a few individuals. Modern day debates fall apart when the CLEARLY SPELLED OUT INTENT of the Second Amendment in its actual form and meaning are used.
It doesn't get much clearer than SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
Coal Dragger
11-29-18, 13:38
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2018/11/29/report-president-trump-signing-bump-stock-ban-citizens-have-90-days-to-turn-them-in/
My take: So much for a "pro 2A" president. Not that I'm defending bump stocks, but strike "bump stocks" from this and insert "semi-automatic weapons" and you get my meaning. After this I don't trust Trump not to sign a new AWB. And no grandfathering to boot. This is a very dark day.
I'd be willing to bet there is about 99% non-compliance. The price for a bump stock just skyrocketed.
Lord Cheeto is not a Constitutional expert, so it’s no surprise he thinks he can make an edict to ban something. He wants to point out that he kept his word when he said he’d do something about bump stocks.
The NFA exists as a law, and the BATF has written letters previously stating that bump stocks don’t constitute a machine gun under the law. A letter does not constitute a law, and recent events show that the “assist pulling the trigger” work around logic of the bump stock is blatantly false. So it is no surprise to me that BATF has changed their mind about their opinion letter, had they done their due diligence they’d have never approved bump stocks in the first place.
So here’s my prediction: Trump tells BATF to issue a new rule banning bump stocks, as he promised. They will cite the NFA in this as a rule change, and they are well within the law to do this. Someone will challenge this rule change and the mandatory turn in of private property. It will hit the SCOTUS eventually. SCOTUS will hand down a 9-0 ruling affirming the ban as a rule interpretation well within the scope of the NFA (because it is). Assuming that the ban by rule change is constitutional under current law, I don’t expect the court to tell the Govt’ that it has to pay owners of these devices if they’re to be confiscated or turned in. I also don’t expect that BATF has the resources to collect them all.
The best bump stock enthusiasts can hope for is that SCOTUS makes BATF open the door to registering them as a non transferable machine gun. Which will do most bump stock owners no good because most of them probably can’t pass a background check (ha ha ha), or afford the tax stamp. Then there’s the issue of trying to register a part that has no serial number.
Ultimately a ban is going to happen, but the probability of getting them turned in or confiscated is very low. The existing stocks just end up in the illegal supply chain and pop up from time to time being used by criminals.
The essential problem is that efforts to leverage interpretation into a workaround that just leads to more gun control legislation doesn't benefit gun owners. It just makes everyone more used to passing bipartisan gun control. Mag-magnets, braces, bump stock are clever mechanisms that accomplish nothing long term except making gun owners the target of oversight.
The idea that if we did certain things, gun control would stop is false.
If everyone shot semi’s the same ROF as a bolt gun, they would ban bolt guns as “sniper rifles”.
They want you unarmed and will continually work towards that.
Problem is “we” play defense. I think the NRA is generally good, but they play pure defense.
We need to unify and push for repeal of the sporter clause.
At the end of the day, its all unconstitutional- and we should fight it.
Doc Safari
11-29-18, 13:41
1. This is why it will be struck down. There is no way the GOV legal team doesn't know this.
Your post made the hairs on the back of my neck stand up. Do you think there's a possibility this is a typical "do it just for show knowing it will be struck down" ploy? In other words, Trump is crazy like a fox appearing to appease the gun grabbers while knowing it won't happen and he can say, "Gee whiz. I tried. Guess I can't do other gun controls by executive order either?"
My first thought was that, if Trump is true to form, there is a high chance this gets altered or dropped.
If it does go through there will be lawsuits. A silver lining may be that this may offer an opportunity for a greater case to be brought to the Supreme Court. It seems as though there are SCOTUS members in the majority that want to hear a gun case and bring a decision limiting the amount of restrictions states can impose. Also establish that “semiautomatic” fire arms are commonplace and not exotic weapons. That the term “assault weapon” has no legal meaning and is a political term to discribe cosmetic features. That 30 round magazines are commonplace and that mag limit restrictions are arbitrary and based on emotion rather than data, logic, and reason
I read it. The key is the action and effort on the owner's part is to do something. You are being compelled by an executive order to do something; drive to the local PD office, drive to the closest ATF office, or destroy something. No, you tell the government it is up to them to do something. Am I going to be compensated for my time by driving 3-4 hours to turn in legally purchased private property at the Albuquerque ATF office? Local PD or Sheriffs here in rural New Mexico have no capacity or inclination to receive the legally purchased private property. And if you dispose of it, what are the means of that? Put it in a dumpster or shall it be incinerated?
No to all of it. You make the government jump thru hoops to take your property. You make the government incur expense and effort to take your legally purchased private property.
The government isn't going to jump through hoops to help you do something that you do everyday with the rest of your garbage. Telling an ATF agent that they need to pick up your stock is just going to result in someone talking to you like you're mentally retarded.
It is on the NRA website at this very moment.
I realize that, when was it issued?
The government isn't going to jump through hoops to help you do something that you do everyday with the rest of your garbage. Telling an ATF agent that they need to pick up your stock is just going to result in someone talking to you like you're mentally retarded.
So, if you own such a device, obviously paying your own hard-earned money for it, you are totally inclined to surrender (key word) your legally purchased private property or be forced to destroy it? The calls to ATF wouldn't result in them just running all over the place, but send a message that the American Public (who they work for) are not pleased with this sort of draconian abuse.
1. This is why it will be struck down. There is no way the GOV legal team doesn't know this.
Does the government have an obligation to compensate every time it bans something? CFCs, food coloring, etc? The public health argument makes it hard to insure that you can claim the government is taking away something they didn't give you in the first place. Fake full auto has always been something that gets banned, so anyone buying a bump stock shouldn't be surprised that the newest do-dad wasn't forever.
1. This is why it will be struck down. There is no way the GOV legal team doesn't know this.
With Obama, you always knew what was in play and his desire behind it. With Trump, you never know. As was once said, he plays the long ball on everything.
Like you said; they have to know that this will be killed on the legal front so thinking deeper, what is the long ball mission this is to accomplish?
2. It is well worth letting it sink in that the attempt is being made.
Referring to #1... you’re right, if there is a long ball angle to this, this was the wrong way to play it in support of the below...
It doesn't get much clearer than SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
...if this is the true intent. We got a problem.
Aside from court nominations we’ve seen no advancement on the 2A front. So to see a step back of that is the legit plan... hmm.
I’m not sure I see the SCOTUS going against this.
The problem we face is that a culture of independence, charity, and limited order has transitioned to a culture of immaturity, dependence, and control.
It’s hard to argue against gun bans in general when an enormous (and only getting larger) amount of the population isn’t capable of safely owning deadly weapons.
The idea that if we did certain things, gun control would stop is false.
Did I say it would stop gun control?
Gun legislation is ongoing - sometimes it is for our benefit, sometimes not. Gun owners didn't seem all that upset when they passed concealed carry, even though this is another form of gun control. You can pick your battles and choose to stand for something concrete, or you can just protest everything and keep losing because of it.
I realize that, when was it issued?
They wrote that last year, but this morning they chose to leave it on their website. So I would say it is the message they are putting out today.
They wrote that last year, but this morning they chose to leave it on their website. So I would say it is the message they are putting out today.
Unlikely, I'll bet they challenge it
So, if you own such a device, obviously paying your own hard-earned money for it, you are totally inclined to surrender (key word) your legally purchased private property or be forced to destroy it? The calls to ATF wouldn't result in them just running all over the place, but send a message that the American Public (who they work for) are not pleased with this sort of draconian abuse.
You paid your hard earned money in an attempt to simulate a machinegun. And you knew that such devices have had a history of being banned. If you were so concerned with money, why did you invest in such a risky purchase? Was it necessary, or a luxury hobby item?
Unlikely, I'll bet they challenge it
And if they do, that will be the newest two faced, inconsistent, stupid sounding thing the NRA does. EVERYONE knows the NRA has publically supported a bump stock ban since just after Las Vegas.
You paid your hard earned money in an attempt to simulate a machinegun. And you knew that such devices have had a history of being banned. If you were so concerned with money, why did you invest in such a risky purchase? Was it necessary, or a luxury hobby item?
No to all three. I don't own such a device, never saw the use for one, but if I want to bump fire, I know how to do it with just a particular hold of the weapon if I so choose. Will holding the weapon a certain way be illegal as well some day?
I just got done eating lunch with my 95 year old father in law, former commissioned Army Officer and D-Day survivor. I showed him online what is being banned, and that these were totally legal to own when purchased. I asked him if he would turn it in. He replied "Hell no".
I have found that some of the general population at-large are just naturally compliant types of people. The model citizen for totalitarian regimes. The government burps, the model citizen snaps to attention. I am just the opposite. If I owned such a device, purchased legally, I would not destroy it or turn it in.
None of this is about the bump fire device; it's a trial balloon for other evil, unconstitutional acts down the road. Too bad we have a segment of the population so compliant and will snap to attention when the government makes its move.
Doc Safari
11-29-18, 14:43
None of this is about the bump fire device; it's a trial balloon for other evil, unconstitutional acts down the road. Too bad we have a segment of the population so compliant and will snap to attention when the government makes its move.
Nailed it. That is the only reason we are even discussing this other than to lament the lack of due process. I personally care less about bump stocks than I do California bullet buttons--but the precedent this sets disturbs me greatly.
https://www.breitbart.com/video/2017/10/05/pelosi-certainly-hope-bump-stock-ban-beginning-slippery-slope-gun-control/
Thursday at her weekly press briefing when asked if legislation to ban bump-stocks could lead to more gun control measures, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said, “I certainly hope so.”
Pelosi said, “So what they are going to say if you give them bump-stocks it’s going to be a slippery slope I certainly hope so.”
The is a link at The Gun Feed stating there are approximately 520,000 bump stocks in circulation. (I'd post the link but it's got a subscription wall so why bother).
That's over half a million potential new federal felons who got that job title just because someone said so. Shit just ain't right.
No to all three. I don't own such a device, never saw the use for one, but if I want to bump fire, I know how to do it with just a particular hold of the weapon if I so choose. Will holding the weapon a certain way be illegal as well some day?
I just got done eating lunch with my 95 year old father in law, former commissioned Army Officer and D-Day survivor. I showed him online what is being banned, and that these were totally legal to own when purchased. I asked him if he would turn it in. He replied "Hell no".
I have found that some of the general population at-large are just naturally compliant types of people. The model citizen for totalitarian regimes. The government burps, the model citizen snaps to attention. I am just the opposite. If I owned such a device, purchased legally, I would not destroy it or turn it in.
None of this is about the bump fire device; it's a trial balloon for other evil, unconstitutional acts down the road. Too bad we have a segment of the population so compliant and will snap to attention when the government makes its move.
Hey, it is your choice to be a criminal or not. You can carry without a CCL, chop your barrel without an SBR, make silencers and cheat on your taxes if you want. That doesn't mean the rest of us are compliant - we're just law abiding citizens.
It is certainly a popular attitude that every piece of gun legislation is some sort of "trial". And they might be, in the minds of a minority. But to most people this ban is going to look like what it is - shutting down an NFA loophole after a mass murderer killed 50+ people without having to pull the trigger each time for every shot.
We make gun control people sound "reasonable" when we sound and act unreasonable, like talking about becoming criminals to preserve something we know perfectly well is a way of skirting the machinegun laws.
I can't imagine something more stupid than going to prison for a bump stock. It isn't about principle at that point but just deciding you are above any and all laws. If bumpstocks were actually an important part of maintaining an armed citizenry, the NRA would be defending they possession. But they're just a dangerous toy for bullet spraying, which is neither a sport nor a military tactic of any value.
Sometimes gun people just sound like they want to fail in some blaze-of-glory martyrdom, like some Arab teenager who thinks the world is going to be better after he blows himself up. It is juvenile.
Bump stocks are stupid junk that shouldn't have been invented or purchased by any serious gun rights person in the first place. Like all borderline legal behavior, it weakens the real cause by making us look like we care mainly about toys and death, not rights and liberty. Its just like freedom of speech - it is there for a good reason. Ranting about being a Nazi is not one of those reasons, and just makes the right less appealing.
Doc Safari
11-29-18, 15:08
Hey, it is your choice to be a criminal or not. You can carry without a CCL, chop your barrel without an SBR, make silencers and cheat on your taxes if you want. That doesn't mean the rest of us are compliant - we're just law abiding citizens.
It is certainly a popular attitude that every piece of gun legislation is some sort of "trial". And they might be, in the minds of a minority. But to most people this ban is going to look like what it is - shutting down an NFA loophole after a mass murderer killed 50+ people without having to pull the trigger each time for every shot.
We make gun control people sound "reasonable" when we sound and act unreasonable, like talking about becoming criminals to preserve something we know perfectly well is a way of skirting the machinegun laws.
I can't imagine something more stupid than going to prison for a bump stock. It isn't about principle at that point but just deciding you are above any and all laws. If bumpstocks were actually an important part of maintaining an armed citizenry, the NRA would be defending they possession. But they're just a dangerous toy for bullet spraying, which is neither a sport nor a military tactic of any value.
Sometimes gun people just sound like they want to fail in some blaze-of-glory martyrdom, like some Arab teenager who thinks the world is going to be better after he blows himself up. It is juvenile.
Bump stocks are stupid junk that shouldn't have been invented or purchased by any serious gun rights person in the first place. Like all borderline legal behavior, it weakens the real cause by making us look like we care mainly about toys and death, not rights and liberty. Its just like freedom of speech - it is there for a good reason. Ranting about being a Nazi is not one of those reasons, and just makes the right less appealing.
Right on all points, but "when they came for bump stocks I said nothing...."
"When they came for binary triggers, I said nothing...."
"When they came for pistol braces, I said nothing..."
So, if you own such a device, obviously paying your own hard-earned money for it, you are totally inclined to surrender (key word) your legally purchased private property or be forced to destroy it? The calls to ATF wouldn't result in them just running all over the place, but send a message that the American Public (who they work for) are not pleased with this sort of draconian abuse.
As it stands now, is it truly the ATF who is crafting the draconian abuse?
President Donald Trump vowed to outlaw the devices soon after the tragedy, and some lawmakers on Capitol Hill urged him to back a permanent legislative fix.
Officials at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives during the Obama administration concluded that it's merely a gun accessory or firearm part, not subject to federal regulation.
At Trump's direction, however, the Justice Department submitted a proposed final rule earlier this year that upended the Obama-era interpretation. (https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/28/politics/final-bump-stock-ban/index.html)
That message needs to go to the puppet master, not the puppet.
Lord Cheeto
Come on Marine, we are better than that.
Not a major fan of President Trump, but we should address the office with dignity and respect.
Sorry, to be shrill.
Right on all points, but "when they came for bump stocks I said nothing...."
"When they came for binary triggers, I said nothing...."
"When they came for pistol braces, I said nothing..."
"When they came for my pipe bombs, I said nothing..."
"When they came for my bath salts, I said nothing..."
Not every liberty is righteous. Just because something is gun related doesn't mean it is protected by 2A.
Weapons are and have always been regulated under our Constitution. Always. Is this the important line in the sand, or a toy with no value in the preservation of your rights? Are the optics of defending this toy going to make converts to our cause, or make more people want nothing to do with the "gun nutz"?
Right now, more Americans believe in firearms rights than not, including a huge number of people that don't own guns or want them. They, like most gun owners, don't want bump stocks and are not going to keep backing us if we keep taking unimportant stands on cloudy principles.
Let this sink in. This belongs elsewhere.
Doc Safari
11-29-18, 15:25
"When they came for my pipe bombs, I said nothing..."
"When they came for my bath salts, I said nothing..."
Not every liberty is righteous. Just because something is gun related doesn't mean it is protected by 2A.
Weapons are and have always been regulated under our Constitution. Always. Is this the important line in the sand, or a toy with no value in the preservation of your rights? Are the optics of defending this toy going to make converts to our cause, or make more people want nothing to do with the "gun nutz"?
Right now, more Americans believe in firearms rights than not, including a huge number of people that don't own guns or want them. They, like most gun owners, don't want bump stocks and are not going to keep backing us if we keep taking unimportant stands on cloudy principles.
Respectfully, I think that's the wrong way to look at it. A bump stock is a silly concept but it's still an inanimate object. It just so happens someone misused them.
Pipe bombs and bath salts are definitely not redeeming in any sort of way.
I personally wouldn't own a bump stock, but the precedent being set is that a lawfully purchased item can be banned and forced to be turned in or destroyed without due process or just compensation. Think Obamacare mandate where all of a sudden you were required to have health insurance. Want to ban bump stocks? Okay, force the owners to get them serial numbered, registered, and restricted to sales with a tax stamp. That would be more of due process than saying "turn them in."
That is my point. Bump stocks are just the low-hanging fruit. Next time it will be something else and a lot of people will be saying, "Well, you really don't need (fill in the blank)."
The essential problem is that efforts to leverage interpretation into a workaround that just leads to more gun control legislation doesn't benefit gun owners. It just makes everyone more used to passing bipartisan gun control. Mag-magnets, braces, bump stock are clever mechanisms that accomplish nothing long term except making gun owners the target of oversight.
So those that oppose the 2nd Amendment are free to "interpret" our rights away, but we as law abiding citizens are unable to use legal workarounds to exercise our rights? Yeah, that sounds like a winning strategy. :rolleyes:
Did I say it would stop gun control?
Gun legislation is ongoing - sometimes it is for our benefit, sometimes not. Gun owners didn't seem all that upset when they passed concealed carry, even though this is another form of gun control. You can pick your battles and choose to stand for something concrete, or you can just protest everything and keep losing because of it.
What gun legislation has been passed that had a clear benefit for 2nd Amendment supporting citizens? We've only gone down hill with regards to 2nd Amendment since this country was founded.
You paid your hard earned money in an attempt to simulate a machinegun. And you knew that such devices have had a history of being banned. If you were so concerned with money, why did you invest in such a risky purchase? Was it necessary, or a luxury hobby item?
AR15's in their most basic configurations were already banned at one point and we only have them now because of the AWB sunset. So by your logic, buying a semi-auto rifle that most here own is a risky purchase because such items have a history of being banned. What happens when the Government decides the Geissele trigger you have in your AR15 now qualifies as a rate increasing device and you have intended to modify your rifle to simulate full-auto? Are you for those measures as well?
It's a slippery slope that we as gun owners have been willingly jumping head first into. The idea that we must live to fight another day has lost us nearly everything. As far as I'm concerned the best time to stand up for your rights is yesterday.
Hey, it is your choice to be a criminal or not. You can carry without a CCL, chop your barrel without an SBR, make silencers and cheat on your taxes if you want. That doesn't mean the rest of us are compliant - we're just law abiding citizens.
It is certainly a popular attitude that every piece of gun legislation is some sort of "trial". And they might be, in the minds of a minority. But to most people this ban is going to look like what it is - shutting down an NFA loophole after a mass murderer killed 50+ people without having to pull the trigger each time for every shot.
We make gun control people sound "reasonable" when we sound and act unreasonable, like talking about becoming criminals to preserve something we know perfectly well is a way of skirting the machinegun laws.
I can't imagine something more stupid than going to prison for a bump stock. It isn't about principle at that point but just deciding you are above any and all laws. If bumpstocks were actually an important part of maintaining an armed citizenry, the NRA would be defending they possession. But they're just a dangerous toy for bullet spraying, which is neither a sport nor a military tactic of any value.
Sometimes gun people just sound like they want to fail in some blaze-of-glory martyrdom, like some Arab teenager who thinks the world is going to be better after he blows himself up. It is juvenile.
Bump stocks are stupid junk that shouldn't have been invented or purchased by any serious gun rights person in the first place. Like all borderline legal behavior, it weakens the real cause by making us look like we care mainly about toys and death, not rights and liberty. Its just like freedom of speech - it is there for a good reason. Ranting about being a Nazi is not one of those reasons, and just makes the right less appealing.
The key is these "stupid junk" were purchased legally, not skirting any laws. The government making your personal property suddenly illegal is not the way it's done in the United States. But in reality, none of this is about a a piece of plastic that provides a faux select fire experience. It's about gun control and seasoning the population to accept more forms of control down the road.
I have several NFA Firearms, and one in the submission/processing status right now. All of these were purchased after laws were passed and a means to operate within the law by the background check and $200 stamp. This bump stock business is totally different. Your stance is based on your lack of need or want for such devices, but that doesn't give you the right to deprive someone else the right to own a legally purchased item. America is based on the individual, not some collective small minority depriving others of their rights. The bump stock is a convenient target for gun control activists. Maybe the next to ban is the bayonet, used in countless murders in the US. It may end up like Great Britain: "Save a Life, Surrender your Knife", with convenient bins around town to deposit your Sheffield Bowie or kitchen steak knife.
Nobody has to go out in a blaze of glory; just don't comply.
I’m not sure I see the SCOTUS going against this.
The problem we face is that a culture of independence, charity, and limited order has transitioned to a culture of immaturity, dependence, and control.
It’s hard to argue against gun bans in general when an enormous (and only getting larger) amount of the population isn’t capable of safely owning deadly weapons.
SCOTUS wouldn't be looking at this as a gun control or second amendment issue, it would be look at under unlawful seizure without compensation and / or due process.
If you can seize weapons this way, you can seize anything else you want this way, including persons, houses, additional property and so forth, and the 4th amendment is pretty dead against that without having a very clear warrant.
The president my well have 5D us again by allowing this to move forward while at the same time knowing that it will fall apart under legal review.
But, at that point he can tell democrats, look I did something.
The definition of a machine gun has essentially been codified by Congress in the passing of the National Firearms Act. We also have an almost universal definition of what constitutes a "machine gun" or fully automatic. So if this thing happens, I can see it being overturned on legal grounds.
Doc Safari
11-29-18, 15:41
SCOTUS wouldn't be looking at this as a gun control or second amendment issue, it would be look at under unlawful seizure without compensation and / or due process.
If you can seize weapons this way, you can seize anything else you want this way, including persons, houses, additional property and so forth, and the 4th amendment is pretty dead against that without having a very clear warrant.
Good post! I've been looking at this as having zero chance of even reaching SCOTUS, but they could very well see it your way. Too bad it's over an accessory that's got such a horrible reputation now.
I really wish they had just decided to restrict them or ban further manufacture.
"When they came for my pipe bombs, I said nothing..."
"When they came for my bath salts, I said nothing..."
Not every liberty is righteous. Just because something is gun related doesn't mean it is protected by 2A.
Weapons are and have always been regulated under our Constitution. Always. Is this the important line in the sand, or a toy with no value in the preservation of your rights? Are the optics of defending this toy going to make converts to our cause, or make more people want nothing to do with the "gun nutz"?
Right now, more Americans believe in firearms rights than not, including a huge number of people that don't own guns or want them. They, like most gun owners, don't want bump stocks and are not going to keep backing us if we keep taking unimportant stands on cloudy principles.
Infringing anyones right to bear any arms, not just firearms, is unconstitutional.
Yes this includes nuclear, chemical, and explosives.
Yes there is a method to deal with it.
What regulations existed federally in the first 100years of the country?
thopkins22
11-29-18, 16:01
Does the government have an obligation to compensate every time it bans something? CFCs, food coloring, etc? The public health argument makes it hard to insure that you can claim the government is taking away something they didn't give you in the first place. Fake full auto has always been something that gets banned, so anyone buying a bump stock shouldn't be surprised that the newest do-dad wasn't forever.
Actually it does have an obligation to either compensate you, or grandfather existing privately owned product. CFC’s were a great example of this. There are still a shitload of CFC’s sitting in air conditioning units all over the United States...as legal as can be.
The 5th amendment of the constitution refers to taking of private property explicitly, and time and time again, the courts have held that the government does not have the right to take things from you that were not being used in the commission of a crime without compensating you.
You can’t simply make something illegal to possess and say “now it’s illegal to own I can take it.” Because I could write a law saying “it is illegal to own land between the 400 and 700 blocks of Dewberry Lane,” take the property without paying a dime, and build my new highway interchange or whatever. The wheels fall off and it isn’t done that way.
SCOTUS seems to be taking a pretty hard stance against civil asset forfeiture so if this goes through and is heard on 4th/5th Amendment grounds [not 2A Grounds] it has a good chance of being struck down. It all depends on how the argument is framed.
The president my well have 5D us again by allowing this to move forward while at the same time knowing that it will fall apart under legal review.
But, at that point he can tell democrats, look I did something.
The definition of a machine gun has essentially been codified by Congress in the passing of the National Firearms Act. We also have an almost universal definition of what constitutes a "machine gun" or fully automatic. So if this thing happens, I can see it being overturned on legal grounds.
I would also point out that when this gets stopped via a court injunction, this is EXACTLY what the democrats have been doing to Trump at every turn. Now the democratic play book is about to get used against them.
SCOTUS seems to be taking a pretty hard stance against civil asset forfeiture so if this goes through and is heard on 4th Amendment grounds [not 2A Grounds] it has a good chance of being struck down. It all depends on how the argument is framed.
Exactly, especially with the recent case where the guy was selling heroin and the SCOTUS stated losing his car wasn't proper (grossly dumbing down everything here sorry).
There is also every possibility that DJT comes back and say "Oops, sorry guys, the ATF looked at it and on second/third/fourth thought, it has to be done by congress"
Come on Marine, we are better than that.
Not a major fan of President Trump, but we should address the office with dignity and respect.
Sorry, to be shrill.Truth
Doc Safari
11-29-18, 16:27
There is also every possibility that DJT comes back and say "Oops, sorry guys, the ATF looked at it and on second/third/fourth thought, it has to be done by congress"
And if that happens I'll say a loud and hearty "Touche" knowing the Orange Fox outwitted the opposition ONE MORE TIME.
Coal Dragger
11-29-18, 16:42
Come on Marine, we are better than that.
Not a major fan of President Trump, but we should address the office with dignity and respect.
Sorry, to be shrill.
Hey man, I call it like I see it.
Been calling him Cheeto or a variation there of since the campaign.
I voted for him, and I respect the office, but I reserve the right to poke a bit of fun at the man. He has the complexion of a Cheeto among other self inflicted faults. That said he’s way better than the alternative, whom we’d all be hurling much worse invectives at had she won.
I will add that a member here posting in this thread, is unable to continue the discussion in this location because he has less than the needed 200 required posts. I am referring to Gödel.
Now back to the discussion at hand. Notice I have constantly referred to the bump stock as legally purchased private property, which in my mind is the core of the issue. I have always had a problem with eminent domain laws. It was always some kind of heavy handed negotiation on price (take it or leave it) and your house gets bulldozed for some lessor amount after the original deal went away. Now we have all of this bump stock business,with an executive order, and no involvement of Congress does not meet the threshold of legal government confiscation. The government cannot compel you to surrender personal property or destroy your own personal property. The question is whether anyone will bring legal action to defy this?
I think back to that Las Vegas murderer and his use of the bump stock device. It I was in his place, I could have killed far more people with a scoped AR Rifle and bi-pod than he did considering how much he had in ammo feeding devices. The bump stock probably ended up being responsible for wounding more, but killing fewer people.
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2018/11/29/report-president-trump-signing-bump-stock-ban-citizens-have-90-days-to-turn-them-in/
My take: So much for a "pro 2A" president.
We should have voted for Hillary. When will we learn.
Doc Safari
11-29-18, 17:01
We should have voted for Hillary. When will we learn.
LOL. I get you, Bro. But here we are at the lesser of two evils again. The only hope is that Trump is doing a rope-a-dope and he knows it will be struck down.
I will add that political discussions belong in here and not AR General.
I will add that a member here posting in this thread, is unable to continue the discussion in this location because he has less than the needed 200 required posts. I am referring to Gödel.
Now back to the discussion at hand. Notice I have constantly referred to the bump stock as legally purchased private property, which in my mind is the core of the issue. I have always had a problem with eminent domain laws. It was always some kind of heavy handed negotiation on price (take it or leave it) and your house gets bulldozed for some lessor amount after the original deal went away. Now we have all of this bump stock business,with an executive order, and no involvement of Congress does not meet the threshold of legal government confiscation. The government cannot compel you to surrender personal property or destroy your own personal property. The question is whether anyone will bring legal action to defy this?
I think back to that Las Vegas murderer and his use of the bump stock device. It I was in his place, I could have killed far more people with a scoped AR Rifle and bi-pod than he did considering how much he had in ammo feeding devices. The bump stock probably ended up being responsible for wounding more, but killing fewer people.
LMT Shooter
11-29-18, 18:36
Just because something is gun related doesn't mean it is protected by 2A.
Weapons are and have always been regulated under our Constitution. Always.
Too bad he can't continue, because I'd love to hear what this means.
Your feelings arent the issue. The wording and “interpretation” of the law is. I dont see how a bump stock can be considered a machinegun. The definition is clear. Bump stocks do not fit it.
Bump stocks and binary triggers shouldnt exist, because the sporting clause should be gone and there would be no market for them, since machineguns are better.
Amen. This is the truth. Also, the government forcing someone to surrender or destroy a lawfully purchased item, which has
ex post facto been made illegal - that is not lawful under the 15th amendment.
Too bad he can't continue, because I'd love to hear what this means.The way I understood it is he meant accessories. Like your rails, lights, optics...etc..
Lord Cheeto is not a Constitutional expert, so it’s no surprise he thinks he can make an edict to ban something. He wants to point out that he kept his word when he said he’d do something about bump stocks.
The NFA exists as a law, and the BATF has written letters previously stating that bump stocks don’t constitute a machine gun under the law. A letter does not constitute a law, and recent events show that the “assist pulling the trigger” work around logic of the bump stock is blatantly false. So it is no surprise to me that BATF has changed their mind about their opinion letter, had they done their due diligence they’d have never approved bump stocks in the first place.
So here’s my prediction: Trump tells BATF to issue a new rule banning bump stocks, as he promised. They will cite the NFA in this as a rule change, and they are well within the law to do this. Someone will challenge this rule change and the mandatory turn in of private property. It will hit the SCOTUS eventually. SCOTUS will hand down a 9-0 ruling affirming the ban as a rule interpretation well within the scope of the NFA (because it is). Assuming that the ban by rule change is constitutional under current law, I don’t expect the court to tell the Govt’ that it has to pay owners of these devices if they’re to be confiscated or turned in. I also don’t expect that BATF has the resources to collect them all.
The best bump stock enthusiasts can hope for is that SCOTUS makes BATF open the door to registering them as a non transferable machine gun. Which will do most bump stock owners no good because most of them probably can’t pass a background check (ha ha ha), or afford the tax stamp. Then there’s the issue of trying to register a part that has no serial number.
Ultimately a ban is going to happen, but the probability of getting them turned in or confiscated is very low. The existing stocks just end up in the illegal supply chain and pop up from time to time being used by criminals.
Bump stocks absolutely do not fit the definition of a MG. There is one round fired per pull of the trigger, which is by definition not a MG.
Coal Dragger
11-29-18, 19:36
You know that, and I know that, but 9 SCOTUS justices that probably know very little about firearms, nor care, are unlikely to make that distinction. They’ll see a part that makes a semiautomatic rifle or shotgun perform like a full auto. I stand by my prediction of a 9-0 ruling upholding the rule change/ban. The confiscation without compensation part, could go either way. They might just say they’re worth $2.50 and that’s what you get.
There are still other work arounds, for example hypothetically I could rig up a shooting vest with a pocket for the butt of the rifle or shotgun that has a spring loaded plate. I’ll call it a recoil absorbing vest, not part of the gun at all, but could totally work like a bump stock, just don’t grip the gun very hard with your shooting hand... and call that burst of fire user error.
SomeOtherGuy
11-29-18, 19:40
Never owned a bump-stock, never wanted one, etc. But for all the reasons posted above, this imperial proclamation is illegal, immoral, and worthy of the respect given dog waste.
Outlander Systems
11-29-18, 19:45
OH58D and Stickman are on fire in this thread.
Hear, hear!
This ban is not going to be overturned in court.
FromMyColdDeadHand
11-29-18, 20:36
Lord Cheeto is not a Constitutional expert, so it’s no surprise he thinks he can make an edict to ban something. He wants to point out that he kept his word when he said he’d do something about bump stocks.
The NFA exists as a law, and the BATF has written letters previously stating that bump stocks don’t constitute a machine gun under the law. A letter does not constitute a law, and recent events show that the “assist pulling the trigger” work around logic of the bump stock is blatantly false. So it is no surprise to me that BATF has changed their mind about their opinion letter, had they done their due diligence they’d have never approved bump stocks in the first place.
So here’s my prediction: Trump tells BATF to issue a new rule banning bump stocks, as he promised. They will cite the NFA in this as a rule change, and they are well within the law to do this. Someone will challenge this rule change and the mandatory turn in of private property. It will hit the SCOTUS eventually. SCOTUS will hand down a 9-0 ruling affirming the ban as a rule interpretation well within the scope of the NFA (because it is). Assuming that the ban by rule change is constitutional under current law, I don’t expect the court to tell the Govt’ that it has to pay owners of these devices if they’re to be confiscated or turned in. I also don’t expect that BATF has the resources to collect them all.
The best bump stock enthusiasts can hope for is that SCOTUS makes BATF open the door to registering them as a non transferable machine gun. Which will do most bump stock owners no good because most of them probably can’t pass a background check (ha ha ha), or afford the tax stamp. Then there’s the issue of trying to register a part that has no serial number.
Ultimately a ban is going to happen, but the probability of getting them turned in or confiscated is very low. The existing stocks just end up in the illegal supply chain and pop up from time to time being used by criminals.
It will not be confiscation. They leaders with brains on the left know that will never happen. They use the dead hooker method. Dead hookers are illegal, but we don't go house-to-house looking for them. You just get caught when you take them out and people notice them, or when they come to fix a gas leak or something at your house. If they make ARs or detachable mags illegal, you are forced to either store them in your basement and hope no one ever looks, that no one ever rats you out. At that point an AR is about as fun to have as a dead hooker.
I would also point out that when this gets stopped via a court injunction, this is EXACTLY what the democrats have been doing to Trump at every turn. Now the democratic play book is about to get used against them.
Except, we'll get denied because of 'standing' and all the other BS that the leftist judges use to squash conservative cases.
He, the longer we spend on the bump stocks, the less time we are talking about outright AR bans and mag restrictions. Plus, any deal on bumpstocks has to have national reciprocity in it, or at least a minimum that ARs are kosher.
Here is a long play. You have the ATF come our and 'ban' bumpstocks. You get the left all engaged and sold on that the ATF has the right to make these rulings- and then you have the ATF determine that ARs and 30rnd mags are in common use. Frankly, that is the determination that we need to get good ruling out of SCOTUS. We need Heller, McDonald and ATF designations the way we want to. This conservative SCOTUS could last as short as two years if Trump gets out in two and Thomas kicks the bucket.
Hey, it is your choice to be a criminal or not. You can carry without a CCL, chop your barrel without an SBR, make silencers and cheat on your taxes if you want. That doesn't mean the rest of us are compliant - we're just law abiding citizens.
It is certainly a popular attitude that every piece of gun legislation is some sort of "trial". And they might be, in the minds of a minority. But to most people this ban is going to look like what it is - shutting down an NFA loophole after a mass murderer killed 50+ people without having to pull the trigger each time for every shot.
We make gun control people sound "reasonable" when we sound and act unreasonable, like talking about becoming criminals to preserve something we know perfectly well is a way of skirting the machinegun laws.
I can't imagine something more stupid than going to prison for a bump stock. It isn't about principle at that point but just deciding you are above any and all laws. If bumpstocks were actually an important part of maintaining an armed citizenry, the NRA would be defending they possession. But they're just a dangerous toy for bullet spraying, which is neither a sport nor a military tactic of any value.
Sometimes gun people just sound like they want to fail in some blaze-of-glory martyrdom, like some Arab teenager who thinks the world is going to be better after he blows himself up. It is juvenile.
Bump stocks are stupid junk that shouldn't have been invented or purchased by any serious gun rights person in the first place. Like all borderline legal behavior, it weakens the real cause by making us look like we care mainly about toys and death, not rights and liberty. Its just like freedom of speech - it is there for a good reason. Ranting about being a Nazi is not one of those reasons, and just makes the right less appealing.
Turncoat
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I think Facebook is the dumbest thing ever made and not at all what the Framers intended when drafting the First Amendment. They had no way of foreseeing such technology. It is a dangerous and unnecessary thing and no sober, right-thinking American would ever deign to use it.
MountainRaven
11-29-18, 21:18
I've mentioned this before, but...
The GOP knows, when the GOP passes gun legislation (gun control), what are you going to do? Vote for Democrats? So long as the GOP can count on the NRA to scare gun owners into voting for the GOP, the GOP can burn gun owners as often as they please.
I've mentioned this before, but...
The GOP knows, when the GOP passes gun legislation (gun control), what are you going to do? Vote for Democrats? So long as the GOP can count on the NRA to scare gun owners into voting for the GOP, the GOP can burn gun owners as often as they please.
Pimps and Whores. Pimps and whores the lot of them.
I will add that political discussions belong in here and not AR General.
The gentleman, Gödel, sent me a private message to point out in this thread that he was unable to continue the discussion because of his less than 200 post count, and I told him I would bring that up here as a courtesy. I may not be in agreement with him, but he was able to hold his own in the debate without lowering the quality of the discussion. I understand the rule regarding political discussions outside of this area.
OH58D and Stickman are on fire in this thread.
Hear, hear!
I just get a little irritated when something purchased legally is instantly declared illegal with a Presidential edict, with no actual law to back it up. There is just something un-American about it and it just shows you how thin our Constitutional Rights are. I was kind of a rebel before my Army years and I have returned to that kind of behavior after my years of service in Big Green.
I think that Americans have been able to hold onto our rights as long as we have because of a level of defiance and rule breaking that makes us different than other societies in the World. By nature, the traditional American has always had an independent streak, defiant of government and laws we don't care for. Americans don't buy radar detectors to reduce their speed while driving, they buy these devices to break the law and provide a certain level of protection against the legal consequences. Americans defied the law during prohibition and will continue to defy the government during any bans of guns or accessories. I would expect this of a true American.
Maybe we should remember these quotes:
"Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God"
—Benjamin Franklin
"It is the first responsibility of every citizen to question authority."
—Benjamin Franklin
I just get a little irritated when something purchased legally is instantly declared illegal with a Presidential edict, with no actual law to back it up. There is just something un-American about it and it just shows you how thin our Constitutional Rights are. I was kind of a rebel before my Army years and I have returned to that kind of behavior after my years of service in Big Green.
I think that Americans have been able to hold onto our rights as long as we have because of a level of defiance and rule breaking that makes us different than other societies in the World. By nature, the traditional American has always had an independent streak, defiant of government and laws we don't care for. Americans don't buy radar detectors to reduce their speed while driving, they buy these devices to break the law and provide a certain level of protection against the legal consequences. Americans defied the law during prohibition and will continue to defy the government during any bans of guns or accessories. I would expect this of a true American.
Maybe we should remember these quotes:
"Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God"
—Benjamin Franklin
"It is the first responsibility of every citizen to question authority."
—Benjamin Franklin
Absolutely!
The rule of law is laughable and unacceptable when a mans life and livelyhood can be taken/destroyed when no wrong has been done.
I warn those who draft such laws- be careful with whom you turn into criminals with the stroke of a pen; the only thing keeping this dog and pony show together is what we as law abiding citizens have to lose, take that away and you will create a force to be reckoned with.
Anyone defending such nonsense as banning pieces of plastic has either gone full retard or is fooling themselves.
It’s not about an object nor has it ever been.
We lose when we turn on one another. We lose when we play pure defense. We lose when we accept and comply with anything that is unjust.
The notion that accepting greater infringements on our Rights will somehow save our Rights is just plain dumb.
I’m at a loss- I do shit because I am free to do so. I don’t need a reason. I don’t need a document allowing it. I don’t need anyone accepting it.
As long as I am not hurting others or denying/stepping on others rights- Fvck off!
Whenever one is asked to “turn” anything “in” or face consequences when no wrong has been done- you’re being asked to turn in your soul, your Liberty and the very essence of your being.
LMT Shooter
11-29-18, 23:43
The way I understood it is he meant accessories. Like your rails, lights, optics...etc..
What do you think the second line I quoted means? What part of the Constitution has always regulated weapons?
The right of the people to keep and bear weapons is not regulated in any way whatsoever by the Constitution, and I'd love to know how anybody could think that they are. The idea is absurd beyond my comprehension, as the exact opposite is true.
My take: So much for a "pro 2A" president.
I missed this thread but it is clear that Trump has avoided the 2A at all cost. What he has done is appoint judges as we all know that is the battlefield upon which the 2A will live or die.
So you can so much for a pro 2A POTUS but we all know it's the SCOTUS that holds the 2A.
He actually has been building a court defense. Honestly I don't think he cares 2 cents about guns. It's just not his thing. So would you rather have a POTUS that came out of the gate saying "you get a gun, and you get a gun, and you get a gun" or one that quietly stacked the courts with honest judges?
I'm not even convinced Trump has a reasonable concept of the 2A beyond the fact he knows he needs it to get elected. That's probably pretty much true of all POTUS. POTUS interaction with 2A will be negative to neutral. Never Pro 2A.. .those days are over.
Hey, it is your choice to be a criminal or not. You can carry without a CCL, chop your barrel without an SBR, make silencers and cheat on your taxes if you want. That doesn't mean the rest of us are compliant - we're just law abiding citizens.
It is certainly a popular attitude that every piece of gun legislation is some sort of "trial". And they might be, in the minds of a minority. But to most people this ban is going to look like what it is - shutting down an NFA loophole after a mass murderer killed 50+ people without having to pull the trigger each time for every shot.
We make gun control people sound "reasonable" when we sound and act unreasonable, like talking about becoming criminals to preserve something we know perfectly well is a way of skirting the machinegun laws.
I can't imagine something more stupid than going to prison for a bump stock. It isn't about principle at that point but just deciding you are above any and all laws. If bumpstocks were actually an important part of maintaining an armed citizenry, the NRA would be defending they possession. But they're just a dangerous toy for bullet spraying, which is neither a sport nor a military tactic of any value.
Sometimes gun people just sound like they want to fail in some blaze-of-glory martyrdom, like some Arab teenager who thinks the world is going to be better after he blows himself up. It is juvenile.
Bump stocks are stupid junk that shouldn't have been invented or purchased by any serious gun rights person in the first place. Like all borderline legal behavior, it weakens the real cause by making us look like we care mainly about toys and death, not rights and liberty. Its just like freedom of speech - it is there for a good reason. Ranting about being a Nazi is not one of those reasons, and just makes the right less appealing.
"When they came for my pipe bombs, I said nothing..."
"When they came for my bath salts, I said nothing..."
Not every liberty is righteous. Just because something is gun related doesn't mean it is protected by 2A.
Weapons are and have always been regulated under our Constitution. Always. Is this the important line in the sand, or a toy with no value in the preservation of your rights? Are the optics of defending this toy going to make converts to our cause, or make more people want nothing to do with the "gun nutz"?
Right now, more Americans believe in firearms rights than not, including a huge number of people that don't own guns or want them. They, like most gun owners, don't want bump stocks and are not going to keep backing us if we keep taking unimportant stands on cloudy principles.
Quoted for posterity. :rolleyes:
As for the discussion at hand....
No grandfathering. No registration or adding to the NFA. No compensation for current owners.
LET THAT SINK IN.
Bump stocks are a joke of an accessory, but that's beside the point, isn't it?
The point is Trump just said "Eff You" to a large gun-owning group that most likely voted for him.
He'll do it again with semi-autos, suppressors, hi-cap mags--you name it.
The precedent is what's important.
Keep your eyes open and your powder dry.
1. This is why it will be struck down. There is no way the GOV legal team doesn't know this.
2. It is well worth letting it sink in that the attempt is being made.
3. Agreed 100%. People want to ignore when Larue said bumpstocks weren't worth fighting for, or place to make a stand, but it doesn't change that a legal firearm item being made illegal on a whim is totally and utterly against the law. Yes I understand that later he denied it, and had his arfcom shills deny and make more anti Geiselle threads, but it doesn't change what happened.
4. I'll disagree on this one, most gun owners won't think about it in the same manner and won't care, but I understand your point.
5. Doubtful from my POV.
6. Yes, the precedent is the largest issue I find with this, along with the obvious blatant disregard of the actual 2A and what it clearly spells out.
7. Indeed. The Republicans have been so willing to compromise on issues that the 2A is a heavily watered down version of itself with barely a hint of the original meaning.
People need to remember that when the Second Amendment and Constitution were written, the most powerful weapons made by man were owned by individuals.....
....Modern day Second Amendment debates are held using the laws and restrictions put upon us by the GOV to combat the lawless actions of a few individuals. Modern day debates fall apart when the CLEARLY SPELLED OUT INTENT of the Second Amendment in its actual form and meaning are used.
It doesn't get much clearer than SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
I agree with most all of that. Thanks for saving me the typing. ;)
There's already mass non-compliance with anti-bumpstock laws in individual states that have passed them...not sure why Trump had to go kick that hornets nest again, and double down for nationwide...
For that reason (logistics of enforcing), and the seizure without compensation thing, I too think it will get shot down eventually, if they actually go through with it. And I will enjoy every minute of watching the whichever side fight to ban a mediocre component and then piss and moan when the "law of the land" they're so fond of slaps them down. In all fairness, IF it gets canned, this could potentially be good "precedent" for the 2A...
If it doesn't get shot down, I will enjoy watching the gov attempt to enforce this asinine law for the next 50 or so years, and likely all the other equally asinine ones to follow down the slippery slope once "precedent" is set with this one.
If it does NOT get canned....I predict issues in 2020...
Good point. But the left is going to paint suppressors out to be "silencers" that make crime easier or some horseshit
Something similar were literally the first words out of Hillary's twitter when Vegas happened...
But I mean, let's be honest with ourselves... C&C supressors will never happen. There will likely never be a grand repeal of the NFA, or likely not even the "sporter" clause. Not that the attempt shouldn't be made... it's just that, if we're going to wrangle over "hills worth dying on", I think we can seize better ground with less blood...
MountainRaven
11-30-18, 00:22
What do you think the second line I quoted means? What part of the Constitution has always regulated weapons?
The right of the people to keep and bear weapons is not regulated in any way whatsoever by the Constitution, and I'd love to know how anybody could think that they are. The idea is absurd beyond my comprehension, as the exact opposite is true.
The only argument that the Constitution has ever placed any sort of regulation on the RKBA would be based on the, "well-regulated militia," meaning that people should keep and bear arms suitable to military use. But there's nothing there banning or regulating the use of arms unsuitable for military use.
The only argument that the Constitution has ever placed any sort of regulation on the RKBA would be based on the, "well-regulated militia," meaning that people should keep and bear arms suitable to military use. But there's nothing there banning or regulating the use of arms unsuitable for military use.
"Well regulated militia" merely describes a well trained/organized militia, and the introductory phrase, "A well regulated militia, " in front of the rest of the sentence, is not limiting, grammatically. So there is nothing in the 2A that places any limits on any arms, as any arm can be used by a militia.
Understood. Unfortunately we don't do case by case exceptions that I am aware of just because someone makes a good argument. Weapons related posts that are political in nature, have always been posted here.
The gentleman, Gödel, sent me a private message to point out in this thread that he was unable to continue the discussion because of his less than 200 post count, and I told him I would bring that up here as a courtesy. I may not be in agreement with him, but he was able to hold his own in the debate without lowering the quality of the discussion. I understand the rule regarding political discussions outside of this area.
I've mentioned this before, but...
The GOP knows, when the GOP passes gun legislation (gun control), what are you going to do? Vote for Democrats? So long as the GOP can count on the NRA to scare gun owners into voting for the GOP, the GOP can burn gun owners as often as they please.
No. Gun owners vote out the bad GOP and put in the good when this happens. (Not necessarily all at once, but over time). Or they stay home and don't vote and let the GOP lose. Go back and see what happened in 1994 elections. The AWB put the GOP into power that they kept basically through Clinton (excepting the 50/50 Senate split in the last Congress of Clinton -- they still had the House). If they forget about this, they will be reminded.
Didn't Trump threaten an EO to end birthright citizenship a couple weeks ago. Where did that go?
I'm falling on the side that Trump has some long game going with this bumpstock EO threat.. I sure hope so.
Didn't Trump threaten an EO to end birthright citizenship a couple weeks ago. Where did that go?
I'm falling on the side that Trump has some long game going with this bumpstock EO threat.. I sure hope so.
No kidding. This is always what the open salvo looks like. I'm going to ban everything, I'm building a wall, everyone from Muslim countries is banned...then people froth at the mouth over the diversion created and Trump sounds like he actually DID something because so many people are angry.
LOL. I get you, Bro. But here we are at the lesser of two evils again. The only hope is that Trump is doing a rope-a-dope and he knows it will be struck down.
It will get challenged and then Trump will look to the Dems to be the bad guy and try and make it happen by legislative process. If they fall short well then Trump gets hailed for bi partisan effort and if it actually gets the support we trade it for national reciprocity. If the Dems balk then we inform the world that we had a bill ready for signature but the Dems decided to block it due to a single amendment added to the bill for citizen safety. If everyone actually agrees then we just got national reciprocity in exchange for stupid bump stock devices.
Do things right and you simply can't lose, IF you know the game. Trump seems to have taken the initiative on this issue so that he is the deciding force and the "deal maker." If the Dems brought this issue forward we'd actually be on defense again.
I just want to say that the 2nd amendment and all that it stands for is just a season, and that season will soon come to pass. I have said this for years: your gun rights are here today, gone tomorrow. Just look at our current government and the philosophy behind some of these people that are our representatives. The United States had a Socialist run for president last election, not 50 years ago, just 2 years ago. The United States, right now have at least 12 jr congressmen who hold tight to socialist values- though they tend to use the term "progressive"- let that sink in. Not just socialist on some issues but try to follow in the steps of Lenin and Karl Marx and who get standing ovations after a speech at Harvard. Holy shit, this isn't an episode of the Twilight Zone or Black Mirror, this is reality that is happening now.
In todays time, our Flag is offensive to 4 out of 10 people, the NFL sits down during the National Anthem and wearing a patriotic article of clothing or a "Make America Great Again" piece of apparel in most schools is treated as a crime. We, you and I are looked at by a large minority, as the problem in this country. Yet we are not the outspoken ones who take to the streets every time we get upset.
I mean come on......do you really think your constitution is article that is honored, cherished and upheld by our government? Hell, its just a "piece of paper" that can be interpreted anyway our government wants. It clearly states "Shall not be infringed" yet, more and more senators, congressmen, judges, mayors and governors continue to push for total ban. When something clearly says "shall not be infringed" yet continually gets challenged, we lost!
Don't get me wrong, I love Donald Trump, in fact, I refer to him as Master. He is more concerned with the bigger picture and right now, we have 7000+ Central Americans who just traveled 1500 miles and are camping at our border and have now started to throw rocks at our Law Enforcement and 40% of our own government supports these invaders, yet I doubt Trump would let bump stocks or binary triggers get in the way of his wall being built. Trump is great, but he is also a great salesman. He knows that talking about guns makes certain people in this country feel good. Its called the putting on the "Dog and Pony show". Do you think I tell hot girls with daddy issues I love them and they are interesting because it makes them feel good about themselves and gives them self confidence? No, I do it to get laid and Trump did it to get elected. Don't hate the guy but understand that is how politics work. You give and take what you can to turn your vision into a reality.
Look at California, New Jersey, New York and Massachusetts. Don't think that is the direction this country as a whole is going. These states are spitting in our face. In todays time, just talking about this topic would constitute us as a far right extremist somewhere between a Timothy McVeigh and a Ted Kaczynski. Don't believe me, go start a militia today and see if your not on a government watch list tomorrow.
Enjoy what you have now, because "Shall Not Be Infringed" has manifested itself into the NFA 1934, FFA 1938, GCA 1968, FOPA 1986, Brady Bill 1993, AWB 1994 and not once did a few words on an old outdated piece of paper protect our rights.
Outlander Systems
11-30-18, 06:37
I’d just like to point out that there are people, in this thread, who support the deprivation of lawfully acquired property by diktat.
Literal cuckolds, the lot of you.
What do you think the second line I quoted means? What part of the Constitution has always regulated weapons?
The right of the people to keep and bear weapons is not regulated in any way whatsoever by the Constitution, and I'd love to know how anybody could think that they are. The idea is absurd beyond my comprehension, as the exact opposite is true.I don't know. This is just how I understood he post. He'd have to get enough posts to come back and explain. Or PM.
First off, this is crap. As is the idea of opening up the NFA registry to bumpstocks, because the NFA itself is crap, classifying more things as NFA items is a step in the wrong direction.
I love bumpstocks and binary triggers and pistol braces and shockwave "firearms" precisely because they are obvious workarounds to stupid, stupid laws that I obey not out of respect for the rule of law - "the law" can get ****ed - but purely because I don't want to go to jail. Stupid laws like the NFA that shouldn't exist should be "worked around" whenever possible. So even though I think bumpstocks and pistol braces are stupid trash and have no desire to own them, I love that this trash is out there.
Even *with* compensation being paid to the bumpstock owners being forced to surrender their private property this would be unacceptable, and without compensation, it's just utterly outrageous.
The only objectively interesting aspect of of this ban, if in fact this comes down as a legit "Turn them all in, Mr. and Mrs. America" type thing, will be to observe how many people comply. So far state level bans haven't yielded much compliance but I'm curious to see how it plays out on the federal level.
People like Eric Swalwell think that Americans will willingly comply with his proposed AW ban and surrender their weapons. So a mandatory bumpstock turn-in could be a very educational test for the concept of a similar hypothetical "Turn 'em in" AWB
Outlander Systems
11-30-18, 07:46
I'm going to laugh so hard when this escalates to triggers, and then the same cuckolds clamoring for seizure of property start crying.
A river of delicious tears shall thenceforth flow in a splendorous fashion.
First off, this is crap. As is the idea of opening up the NFA registry to bumpstocks, because the NFA itself is crap, classifying more things as NFA items is a step in the wrong direction.
I love bumpstocks and binary triggers and pistol braces and shockwave "firearms" precisely because they are obvious workarounds to stupid, stupid laws that I obey not out of respect for the rule of law - "the law" can get ****ed - but purely because I don't want to go to jail. Stupid laws like the NFA that shouldn't exist should be "worked around" whenever possible. So even though I think bumpstocks and pistol braces are stupid trash and have no desire to own them, I love that this trash is out there.
Even *with* compensation being paid to the bumpstock owners being forced to surrender their private property this would be unacceptable, and without compensation, it's just utterly outrageous.
The only objectively interesting aspect of of this ban, if in fact this comes down as a legit "Turn them all in, Mr. and Mrs. America" type thing, will be to observe how many people comply. So far state level bans haven't yielded much compliance but I'm curious to see how it plays out on the federal level.
People like Eric Swalwell think that Americans will willingly comply with his proposed AW ban and surrender their weapons. So a mandatory bumpstock turn-in could be a very educational test for the concept of a similar hypothetical "Turn 'em in" AWB
In addition to my concern about the ability to deprive one of legally purchased private property, or to be ordered to destroy it, there is another aspect to consider, and we've been down that road before.
I am referring to how the weapon is held. For me a bump stock looks like hell, but this reminds me of when pistol grips were made illegal on certain weapons, and we were provided with an abortion called the Thumb Hole stock. If they can't do an outright ban of the weapon, maybe we're heading down a familiar road where we lose certain features again. Will the gun grabbers jump on the next mass shooting and point out how so many more people died because of that pistol grip - giving you extra deadly control.
America has always been about choices and variety in whatever we spend our money on. The bump stock is a novelty - a toy for those who never probably experienced select-fire. My opinion is such a toy reduces the capability of the weapon to accurately kill, but that's my opinion. Some think that it's not worth the fight for a piece of crap plastic device that allows the weapon to jerk forward and backward. It's an easy sacrificial lamb to take the heat off what is really important to us. Maybe so, but I would not be inclined to surrender or destroy any of my private property under threat of what I consider to be an unconstitutional act. By the way, has the President signed this yet?
Outlander Systems
11-30-18, 08:07
Few here seem to appreciate the nature of incrementalism, and where it all leads to.
In addition to my concern about the ability to deprive one of legally purchased private property, or to be ordered to destroy it, there is another aspect to consider, and we've been down that road before.
I am referring to how the weapon is held. For me a bump stock looks like hell, but this reminds me of when pistol grips were made illegal on certain weapons, and we were provided with an abortion called the Thumb Hole stock. If they can't do an outright ban of the weapon, maybe we're heading down a familiar road where we lose certain features again. Will the gun grabbers jump on the next mass shooting and point out how so many more people died because of that pistol grip - giving you extra deadly control.
America has always been about choices and variety in whatever we spend our money on. The bump stock is a novelty - a toy for those who never probably experienced select-fire. My opinion is such a toy reduces the capability of the weapon to accurately kill, but that's my opinion. Some think that it's not worth the fight for a piece of crap plastic device that allows the weapon to jerk forward and backward. It's an easy sacrificial lamb to take the heat off what is really important to us. Maybe so, but I would not be inclined to surrender or destroy any of my private property under threat of what I consider to be an unconstitutional act. By the way, has the President signed this yet?
Few here seem to appreciate the nature of incrementalism, and where it all leads to.
Take it a step further. Some tend to think that non complying with this new edict is a form of lawlessness. What law? Is a Presidential order now law? We have a long established system in place for making laws, and the Executive Branch making a statement does not reach the threshold of law.
Today my Conservatism is giving way to some hints of Libertarianism. I need to keep that under control.
Doc Safari
11-30-18, 09:15
I'm going to laugh so hard when this escalates to triggers, and then the same cuckolds clamoring for seizure of property start crying.
A river of delicious tears shall thenceforth flow in a splendorous fashion.
I LOL'ed at this so hard I bit my lip.
Bottom line: DO NOT GIVE ONE INCH. NOT ONE.
Bump stocks are a stupid bubba accessory designed for the average neckbeard to feel like he's got a machine gun.
We are not defending them. We are defending FREEDOM.
THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE.
I am officially PRO CHOICE when it comes to firearms.
'Nuff Said.
thopkins22
11-30-18, 09:17
If I pick up an AR with a regular stock, but I happen to be wearing pants with belt loops, it’s only logical that I’ve manufactured a bump stock.
So be sure to turn in your pants, because this isn’t a fight worth fighting as so many have said.
Take it a step further. Some tend to think that non complying with this new edict is a form of lawlessness.
Well, lawlessness would seem like a logical reaction to unjust laws.
Doc Safari
11-30-18, 09:23
If I pick up an AR with a regular stock, but I happen to be wearing pants with belt loops, it’s only logical that I’ve manufactured a bump stock.
So be sure to turn in your pants, because this isn’t a fight worth fighting as so many have said.
They don't want you turn in your pants, just drop them and bend over when ordered to do so.
Well, lawlessness would seem like a logical reaction to unjust laws.
But there is no law which says a bump stock is illegal; just the President making a statement.
BoringGuy45
11-30-18, 09:59
Rather than lamenting the end of our freedom, why is nothing being done or said?? That's the problem with us versus the left: When the left gets pissed, they start flooding the media with their gripe, they start suing, protesting, rioting, blocking traffic, etc. What do we do? Surrender at the first sign of trouble.
Rather than lamenting the end of our freedom, why is nothing being done or said?? That's the problem with us versus the left: When the left gets pissed, they start flooding the media with their gripe, they start suing, protesting, rioting, blocking traffic, etc. What do we do? Surrender at the first sign of trouble.
I frequently see the phrase "isn't the hill to die on" in threads like this one. I keep looking for, but not finding, any explanation of what is "the hill to die on". From my uneducated view, we keep ceding ground because its "not worth the fight" and we're going to find out we no longer hold any ground.
Just my 2-cents.
But there is no law which says a bump stock is illegal; just the President making a statement.
At the current time, yes. And who knows, maybe this whole thing fizzles out.
I'm more reacting to the people saying bumpstocks et al are bad because they are a workaround of the law, and that we all have some duty to obey the law simply because it's the law.
I don't respect the NFA as the "law of the land". It's bullshit and I only obey NFA laws because I prefer to not incur the consequences of violating them. NFA violations, or having illegal types of firearms or magazines in jurisdictions that prohibit them are victimless crimes, and victimless crimes shouldn't be crimes at all. No victim, no crime.
But there is no law which says a bump stock is illegal; just the President making a statement.
Great point and it makes one think........
Has anyone thought that this may just be another Trump move to Troll the Libtards with a new shinny object that will never work but it keeps them occupied at the kids table while he does real work?
I frequently see the phrase "isn't the hill to die on" in threads like this one. I keep looking for, but not finding, any explanation of what is "the hill to die on". From my uneducated view, we keep ceding ground because its "not worth the fight" and we're going to find out we no longer hold any ground.
Just my 2-cents.
Well how many folks who own these bump stocks are getting ready to run down to the closest law shop (Fed or local) and surrender them? How many of these people plan to take a sledge hammer to the them or ceremonially incinerate the things? I just don't see it, but perhaps my thinking is out of wack. You read on these forums people always talking about "going to the range" to enjoy their shooting freedom. For me, I have one giant range of over 39 sections of land, so I can shoot to my heart's content and I have to have no interaction with another human being. Maybe my thinking is clouded by my personal situation and isn't representative of that for other people. People who go to "the range" won't be able to bring along this new version of firearms contraband because some snitch will rat them out. Maybe people will just say "screw it" and destroy the bump stock?
What do you think the second line I quoted means? What part of the Constitution has always regulated weapons?
The right of the people to keep and bear weapons is not regulated in any way whatsoever by the Constitution, and I'd love to know how anybody could think that they are. The idea is absurd beyond my comprehension, as the exact opposite is true.
DC v. Heller, page 54
Like most rights, the right secured by the Second
Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through
the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely
explained that the right was not a right to keep and
carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever
and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume
346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott 333. For example,
the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the
question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed
weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or
state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann.,
at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2
Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n.
11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an
exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the
Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be
taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the
possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or
laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places
such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing
conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of
arms.26
We also recognize another important limitation on the
right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have
explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those
“in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think
that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition
of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual
weapons.”
and so forth.
Combat_Diver
11-30-18, 10:26
Wonder how they will enforce it? No real record of who owns what. They can't even enforce lying on 4473s or straw purchases. And turning in without conpensation is illegal and paves way for court challenges. And since only one crime has been committed with bump stocks, what other items now need to be banned? Cell phones, frying pans, hammers, cars, etc.
CD
Doc Safari
11-30-18, 10:32
Wonder how they will enforce it? No real record of who owns what. They can't even enforce lying on 4473s or straw purchases. And turning in without conpensation is illegal and paves way for court challenges.
CD
Theoretically if you bought one with a credit card there is a transaction buried deep in the metadata of all your credit card purchases. I don't see any agency going to the trouble and expense of compiling a list of buyers and then knocking on their doors. If that happens then we really do have the STASI and we live in East Germany. More likely what will happen is if you get caught with one you will be prosecuted--assuming the person who catches you with it even knows what it is.
Well how many folks who own these bump stocks are getting ready to run down to the closest law shop (Fed or local) and surrender them? How many of these people plan to take a sledge hammer to the them or ceremonially incinerate the things? I just don't see it, but perhaps my thinking is out of wack. You read on these forums people always talking about "going to the range" to enjoy their shooting freedom. For me, I have one giant range of over 39 sections of land, so I can shoot to my heart's content and I have to have no interaction with another human being. Maybe my thinking is clouded by my personal situation and isn't representative of that for other people. People who go to "the range" won't be able to bring along this new version of firearms contraband because some snitch will rat them out. Maybe people will just say "screw it" and destroy the bump stock?
I honestly have no idea in regards to answers to your questions. While not as much land as you have access to, I'm also fortunate in that I have a small isolated amount I shoot on. The point I was trying to make was when do we say "enough"? As I pointed out earlier bump stocks and similar items are not my cup of tea, but I agree with the principle that nothing should be able to made illegal overnight, as well as the other points you have made. I'm also jaded and don't have faith that the courts or lawmakers will suddenly wake up someday, realize they're ignoring not only the Constitution but their oath of office and ease gun regulations. At what point do we take a stand if what feels like every time an issue arises we say its "not the hill to die on"?
I honestly have no idea in regards to answers to your questions. While not as much land as you have access to, I'm also fortunate in that I have a small isolated amount I shoot on. The point I was trying to make was when do we say "enough"? As I pointed out earlier bump stocks and similar items are not my cup of tea, but I agree with the principle that nothing should be able to made illegal overnight, as well as the other points you have made. I'm also jaded and don't have faith that the courts or lawmakers will suddenly wake up someday, realize they're ignoring not only the Constitution but their oath of office and ease gun regulations. At what point do we take a stand if what feels like every time an issue arises we say its "not the hill to die on"?
I'm no legal expert, and my questions have always centered around the difference between a law and a rule. Congress makes laws, but the ATF has rules. Does an ATF rule reach the same level as a law? I don't think so. You can be prosecuted for the violation of a law, but is it the same for a rule? The President can make executive orders all day; he could order that we never call the sky blue again. It has to be called purple, but in reality how much weight does that have?
If a bump stock can be deemed contraband by a Presidential executive order, a "high capacity" magazine could also be deemed contraband as well. A President could issue an order that says you are limited to a certain number of guns per household and it wouldn't violate the 2nd Amendment because you still get to retain some of them. My point is that a Presidential executive order is nothing but hot air if there is no law to go along with it. You can't be unlawful when there is no corresponding law. For the longest time people have complied with ATF rules, but do all of these rules have a corresponding law to go along with them?
You can see that I have more questions than answers.
Wonder how they will enforce it? No real record of who owns what. They can't even enforce lying on 4473s or straw purchases. And turning in without conpensation is illegal and paves way for court challenges. And since only one crime has been committed with bump stocks, what other items now need to be banned? Cell phones, frying pans, hammers, cars, etc.
CD
After a specified date, bump stocks become contraband. Possession is prima facie a violation. They will enforce it as they find it. Same as drugs, kiddie porn, and any other contraband.
One could hide the bump stocks under some molon labe T-shirts in a footlocker hidden the basement, and get one past "the man."
However, if one gets arrested returning home from the secret bump stock firing range, then one's car will be inventoried as part of the arrest. There's a added charge. Drug dog alerts at a sobriety check point. LEO searches for drugs and finds the stock. Kids that know/talk too much and PO's spouses will tell teachers/friends/LEOs.
There was the recent case where a vet had a FA M-14. He had the unregistered machine gun until he didn't.
No grandfathering. No registration or adding to the NFA. No compensation for current owners.
LET THAT SINK IN.
Bump stocks are a joke of an accessory, but that's beside the point, isn't it?
The point is Trump just said "Eff You" to a large gun-owning group that most likely voted for him.
He'll do it again with semi-autos, suppressors, hi-cap mags--you name it.
The precedent is what's important.
Keep your eyes open and your powder dry.
Is there any precedent on a federal level for the "involuntary abandonment" of personal property without compensation? :confused:
Personally, and I will catch flack for this, I have always been against bumpstocks and binary triggers. I would love to see them both gone. The same goes for the support braces/supports unless they are used for the purpose for which they were designed.
Personally I think "binary triggers" are a safety hazard. I digress on braces. If you live in a state that allows SBR's, you should got that route IMO. But what if you live in one of the states that ban SBR's. A "pistol" AR is the only way to legally have a short AR.
I currently have neither as I have a short barreled MG, but my plan includes getting both a pistol with a brace and an SBR. The SBR will always get the nod intrastate, but if I'm travelling it will probably be the "pistol", simply because it's legal in more states than an SBR. Is it exploiting a loophole? Yes. But it's a legal loophole in laws that shouldn't exist in the first place.
I tend to agree with you. Either the NFA is the law or it isn't. While the workarounds are interesting from a problem-solving POV, they are also not in good faith with the spirit of the law.
Are gun people law abiding supporters of the Constitutional basis for our laws, or protestors engaged in civil disobedience? On many of these issues it seems like the latter.
Seeing as the NFA Act is a violation of the spirit of the Constitution of the United States by utilizing a loophole, it set the precedent to ignore the spirit of the law and exploit loopholes. ;)
The government isn't going to jump through hoops to help you do something that you do everyday with the rest of your garbage. Telling an ATF agent that they need to pick up your stock is just going to result in someone talking to you like you're mentally retarded.
But bump stocks aren't like expired leftover food and empty containers. They're fully operational goods purchased at price point which exceeds 99.8% of all the "garbage" you throw away. If it's such a menace to society that it's banned federally, should it even be thrown in the trash? When the federal government bans something over health concerns, it absolutely doesn't suggest you simply flush it down your drain or throw it in a landfill. No, they frequently hold public events to draw the owners of such items to a central disposal site.
So your argument is foolish and quite frankly, an outgrowth of your emotional objection to the items in question. If I have a perfectly functional and cosmetically defect free durable good that I paid three figures for, the way I "dispose" of it is to sell it. So either the .gov can BUY it from me, or I can sell it to whomever else may want to purchase it. That's how capitalism in a FREE country works. Why don't you understand that? :confused:
SCOTUS seems to be taking a pretty hard stance against civil asset forfeiture so if this goes through and is heard on 4th/5th Amendment grounds [not 2A Grounds] it has a good chance of being struck down. It all depends on how the argument is framed.
Their legal gambit is that they aren't seizing your assets, therefore no compensation is required. You're going to be allowed by fiat to roast your bump stocks over a campfire like marshmallows, so it's not "civil asset forfeiture" per se. IOW, you can dispose of it however you like, or you can VOLUNTARILY abandon it to them.
The problem with this legal gambit is that one way or another, it's an INVOLUNTARY abandonment or presto, you're a felon. It's a naked and blatant attempt to circumvent CAF laws and the 5th Amendment. An EO is not "Due Process". It is executive fiat and this is absolutely the federal government depriving persons of property. Ergo, it's ILLEGAL, pure and simple.
I’d just like to point out that there are people, in this thread, who support the deprivation of lawfully acquired property by diktat.
Literal cuckolds, the lot of you.
Yep. Judas, Benedict Arnold, Quisling, Vichy, Judenrät, Jane Fonda, we've had many examples in history of those who would turn their backs when needed most. It beggars belief to me that we're on a gun forum and having to defend the spirit AND letter of the Constitution against executive fiat. IF Trump signed this "Executive Order", it would be the closest he's actually come to being what they claim he wants to be, a Dictator or King. Because edicts decreed from on high that impact a half million Americans without redress, would very much be EXACTLY what the American Revolution was fought over.
If that isn't worth fighting over, is anything worth it? :(
I realize now that Gödel cannot continue the discussion here, but he can still view it and his points are still worth refuting.
FromMyColdDeadHand
11-30-18, 10:58
Wonder how they will enforce it? No real record of who owns what. They can't even enforce lying on 4473s or straw purchases. And turning in without conpensation is illegal and paves way for court challenges. And since only one crime has been committed with bump stocks, what other items now need to be banned? Cell phones, frying pans, hammers, cars, etc.
Like I said, the smart leftists don't really care about collecting the guns. They want to turn every gun owner into a felon by inaction. Keep your stuff and become a felon or turn it in. Don't turn it in and put your life and freedom at risk if you are found with a $200 piece of plastic. The leftist would love to get some people to 'die on the hill' and use that to boot strap more regulations.
You have to understand that the left looks at Heller and the language below and think that they can regulate and ban everything. If you think Heller and MCDonald change anything, they don't. We have wasted a decade not getting follow-up decisions. And we need the ATF to determine that ARs are in common use, and to define 'dangerous and unusual' to mean that the gun is unsafe to use as a firearm. All firearms are 'dangerous', that is why they are firearms. I would also point out that the finger-print/biometric guns are 'unusual' and anything innovative, by definition is 'unusual'.
We also recognize another important limitation on the
right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have
explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those
“in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think
that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition
of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual
weapons.”
Like I said, the smart leftists don't really care about collecting the guns. They want to turn every gun owner into a felon by inaction. Keep your stuff and become a felon or turn it in. Don't turn it in and put your life and freedom at risk if you are found with a $200 piece of plastic. The leftist would love to get some people to 'die on the hill' and use that to boot strap more regulations.
You have to understand that the left looks at Heller and the language below and think that they can regulate and ban everything. If you think Heller and MCDonald change anything, they don't. We have wasted a decade not getting follow-up decisions. And we need the ATF to determine that ARs are in common use, and to define 'dangerous and unusual' to mean that the gun is unsafe to use as a firearm. All firearms are 'dangerous', that is why they are firearms. I would also point out that the finger-print/biometric guns are 'unusual' and anything innovative, by definition is 'unusual'.
"When you think it’s time to bury your guns, it’s really time to dig them up.”
Is there any precedent on a federal level for the "involuntary abandonment" of personal property without compensation? :confused:
Emancipation Proclamation (by executive order like bump stock ban) and Thirteenth Amendment comes to mind if you want to go big picture.
Emancipation Proclamation (by executive order like bump stock ban) and Thirteenth Amendment comes to mind if you want to go big picture.
LOL, by that comparison we'd have to free our bump stocks from unjust bondage! :D
If a bump stock can be deemed contraband by a Presidential executive order, a "high capacity" magazine could also be deemed contraband as well. A President could issue an order that says you are limited to a certain number of guns per household and it wouldn't violate the 2nd Amendment because you still get to retain some of them. My point is that a Presidential executive order is nothing but hot air if there is no law to go along with it. You can't be unlawful when there is no corresponding law. For the longest time people have complied with ATF rules, but do all of these rules have a corresponding law to go along with them?
You can see that I have more questions than answers.
But there is corresponding law. Its the NFA and Hughes Amendment.
If bumpstocks, DIAS, and pistol braces existed at the time these laws were drafted; the laws would have been written differently.
Put a video of a man firing a bumpstock in front of a jury. You will have a unanimous or near unanimous decision this man is firing a machinegun.
Let me tell you something, I have read enough court cases surrounding NFA and machineguns, when the defendant's case hinges on technical definitions of words and abstract mechanical concepts that only an engineer can understand, they lose the court case almost every single time.
LOL, by that comparison we'd have to free our bump stocks from unjust bondage! :D
Some of us have been known to "liberate" gear at times :o
It seems that we are pretty much agreed that bump-stocks are lame and none of us would really be inconvenienced if they didnt exist.
That makes them the perfect thing to fight for. If we win, we win. If we lose the fight over bump stocks, then we tied up the opposion's time and money and pushed the rest of their agenda to the right. They have plenty of money, but not time. Soros and Ginsburg both have one foot in the grave. Soros dies, our opponents lose a rich liberal sponsor. Ginsburg dies (or retires) and the President puts another contituion supporting judge in the Supreme court.
If we just let then be banned without a whimper, we win nothing and lose one more piece of freedom.
If you fight a fight that you don't need to win, you cannot lose.
Andy
But there is corresponding law. Its the NFA and Hughes Amendment.
If bumpstocks, DIAS, and pistol braces existed at the time these laws were drafted; the laws would have been written differently.
Put a video of a man firing a bumpstock in front of a jury. You will have a unanimous or near unanimous decision this man is firing a machinegun.
Let me tell you something, I have read enough court cases surrounding NFA and machineguns, when the defendant's case hinges on technical definitions of words and abstract mechanical concepts that only an engineer can understand, they lose the court case almost every single time.
Excellent analysis and edification for this cowboy. So now we get into the nitty gritty of the situation. Does a bump stock violate the letter of NFA or only the spirit and intent of NFA? The videos you describe could show a jury the charged person using the bump stock and it would appear that a machine gun is being replicated. Then you show this video to a jury where a belt loop on your pants and thumb can provide the same rapid fire result:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-nUA52BS3c
But there is corresponding law. Its the NFA and Hughes Amendment.
If bumpstocks, DIAS, and pistol braces existed at the time these laws were drafted; the laws would have been written differently.
Put a video of a man firing a bumpstock in front of a jury. You will have a unanimous or near unanimous decision this man is firing a machinegun.
Let me tell you something, I have read enough court cases surrounding NFA and machineguns, when the defendant's case hinges on technical definitions of words and abstract mechanical concepts that only an engineer can understand, they lose the court case almost every single time.
Doug Friesen would disagree with you, and that's just off the top of my head. BATFE either loses or withdraws from a LOT of cases, because the facts don't support their assertions. Some USA's won't even look at BATFE cases because they're so bad. There was an outright feud between DoJ and BATFE in Reno, NV a few years back.
Simply saying the laws would've been written differently with precognition is not a valid legal theory. Not even remotely.
It seems that we are pretty much agreed that bump-stocks are lame and none of us would really be inconvenienced if they didn't exist.
That makes them the perfect thing to fight for. If we win, we win. If we lose the fight over bump stocks, then we tied up the opposition's time and money and pushed the rest of their agenda to the right. They have plenty of money, but not time. Soros and Ginsburg both have one foot in the grave. Soros dies, our opponents lose a rich liberal sponsor. Ginsburg dies (or retires) and the President puts another constitution supporting judge in the Supreme court.
If we just let then be banned without a whimper, we win nothing and lose one more piece of freedom.
If you fight a fight that you don't need to win, you cannot lose.
Andy
https://tse1.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.OJX5Dd7V_pnmRe4LBS7lLwAAAA&pid=15.1&P=0&w=259&h=194
Doug Friesen would disagree with you, and that's just off the top of my head. BATFE either loses or withdraws from a LOT of cases, because the facts don't support their assertions. Some USA's won't even look at BATFE cases because they're so bad. There was an outright feud between DoJ and BATFE in Reno, NV a few years back.
Simply saying the laws would've been written differently with precognition is not a valid legal theory. Not even remotely.
https://tse1.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.OJX5Dd7V_pnmRe4LBS7lLwAAAA&pid=15.1&P=0&w=259&h=194
There was a man local to my area that was just convicted of having an homemade silencer.
The case was extremely weak. The government never proved the device they confiscated from him was actually a silencer.
Excellent analysis and edification for this cowboy. So now we get into the nitty gritty of the situation. Does a bump stock violate the letter of NFA or only the spirit and intent of NFA? The videos you describe could show a jury the charged person using the bump stock and it would appear that a machine gun is being replicated. Then you show this video to a jury where a belt loop on your pants and thumb can provide the same rapid fire result:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-nUA52BS3c
Yes, I do eventually think enough court cases come together where all semi autos will be declared MGs just like what they wanted to begin with in the 1930s when these laws were drafted.
There was a man local to my area that was just convicted of having an homemade silencer.
The case was extremely weak. The government never proved the device they confiscated from him was actually a silencer.
Link to the case or an article covering it?
PatrioticDisorder
11-30-18, 12:05
I'm going to laugh so hard when this escalates to triggers, and then the same cuckolds clamoring for seizure of property start crying.
A river of delicious tears shall thenceforth flow in a splendorous fashion.
Well that is the real problem here, the very slippery slope. This is literally changing law with an executive order, it sets an extemely dangerous precedent. We were all galvanized in 2013 because we all saw it coming, Trump has been our 98% ally and while I generally support Trump, this is without a doubt a kick in the balls. This needs to be challenged in court and ironically the originalist jurists Trump picked for SCOTUS are likely to slap this down.
Part of the problem we are running into is exhaustion from 8 years of vigilance with Obama and an even more important point is SCOTUS has not taken up any significant RKBA cases over the past several years, allowing the left to run roughshod over the Constituon. I suppose it is possible we simply didn’t have the numbers to defend RKBA, but as soon as RBG passes or retires and an originalist gets confirmed, I want to see any and every RKBA case go to the courts, settle this once and for all. More than likely the overwhelming majority of cases would be ruled on favorably, leaving a constituonal amendment as the left’s only recourse to ending RKBA, which given enough time and illegal immigration isn’t out of the realms of possibility, it would preserve RKBA for the foreseeable future at a minimum.
Yes, I do eventually think enough court cases come together where all semi autos will be declared MGs just like what they wanted to begin with in the 1930s when these laws were drafted.
I tend to agree. The bump stock is only a removable feature of a semi-auto. The semi-auto is really the long term intended target.
The .gov hasn't done anything about 8 states plus DC disregarding federal law on cannabis. What will they do against a greater number of states that decide to ignore federal gun legislation?
Doc Safari
11-30-18, 13:12
The .gov hasn't done anything about 8 states plus DC disregarding federal law on cannabis. What will they do against a greater number of states that decide to ignore federal gun legislation?
Don't discount the fact that the Feddle Gummunt is full of liberals that sympathize with cannabis legalization. The law is only as effective as the extent to which it's enforced. Contrast that with the anti-gun stance of most government types and you are comparing apples to oranges. We could very well see some token push to enforce the bump stock ban (although I personally think the dead hooker theory is the right one).
Link to the case or an article covering it?
https://fremonttribune.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/local-man-pleads-guilty-in-federal-court/article_991715fc-2a24-511f-8976-89c5b4e2ad72.html
Well that is the real problem here, the very slippery slope. This is literally changing law with an executive order, it sets an extemely dangerous precedent. We were all galvanized in 2013 because we all saw it coming, Trump has been our 98% ally and while I generally support Trump, this is without a doubt a kick in the balls. This needs to be challenged in court and ironically the originalist jurists Trump picked for SCOTUS are likely to slap this down.
Part of the problem we are running into is exhaustion from 8 years of vigilance with Obama and an even more important point is SCOTUS has not taken up any significant RKBA cases over the past several years, allowing the left to run roughshod over the Constituon. I suppose it is possible we simply didn’t have the numbers to defend RKBA, but as soon as RBG passes or retires and an originalist gets confirmed, I want to see any and every RKBA case go to the courts, settle this once and for all. More than likely the overwhelming majority of cases would be ruled on favorably, leaving a constituonal amendment as the left’s only recourse to ending RKBA, which given enough time and illegal immigration isn’t out of the realms of possibility, it would preserve RKBA for the foreseeable future at a minimum.
The supreme court will never hear a court case on the bumpstock.
The .gov hasn't done anything about 8 states plus DC disregarding federal law on cannabis. What will they do against a greater number of states that decide to ignore federal gun legislation?
Legal cannabis makes MOUNTAINS of tax revenue and enjoys widespread popular support
Guns are scary and kill children
You do the math...
(hint: Very few states will disregard federal gun bans)
https://fremonttribune.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/local-man-pleads-guilty-in-federal-court/article_991715fc-2a24-511f-8976-89c5b4e2ad72.html
Thanks for the link! It's difficult to know the full story on that one, as what they ultimately plead to isn't always inclusive of the real reasons they plead out. The cases fought in court and either won, lost or dismissed are more indicative of the quality of the cases.
PatrioticDisorder
11-30-18, 15:07
The supreme court will never hear a court case on the bumpstock.
If I were a betting man I’d say you are correct. I’m sure not even Clarence Thomas gives a shit about bump stocks, but I think a case involving bumpstocks has a chance to make it to SCOTUS because of the implications it has for further executive orders a POTUS can make in regards to firearms.
If I were a betting man I’d say you are correct. I’m sure not even Clarence Thomas gives a shit about bump stocks, but I think a case involving bumpstocks has a chance to make it to SCOTUS because of the implications it has for further executive orders a POTUS can make in regards to firearms.
If it ever got there, the argument should be about the abuse of power, NOT the subject of the abuse.
PatrioticDisorder
11-30-18, 15:39
If it ever got there, the argument should be about the abuse of power, NOT the subject of the abuse.
Pretty much, less about bumpstocks, more about single handily rewriting law, 2nd amendment aside.
Doc Safari
11-30-18, 15:43
Pretty much, less about bumpstocks, more about single handily rewriting law, 2nd amendment aside.
Yes, and looking at it long term, if this accessory is banned successfully be executive fiat, you can bet your sweet bippy that every gun grabber with a microphone is going to start calling for any and every other pet thing they don't like to be banned accordingly.
Sheeeeuuut. We might even lose "the shoulder thing that goes up."
(I'm being a smartass on that last comment, but as stupid as they are we won't see the end of their nonsense).
jerrysimons
11-30-18, 15:47
Outlander is onpoint, so is elephant.
It blows my mind how some of you bend over backwards trying to make this sound like anything other than a kick in the balls from Trump and the GOP who are eagerly eroding the legal definition of semiautomatic for a shred of political cred amoung people who want nothing short of a full semiauto ban and even second amendment repeal. Wake up. You can support Trump as the best available option while still maintaining a measure objectivity that doesn’t project your hopes and dreams onto his agenda (or what is even discernible form his agenda).
Semiautomatic part bans are coming (potentially already here), Standard capacity Magazine bans are coming, SemiAuto rifle bans are coming (2020 seems very possible for both!). Which hill is the hill to die on? We can’t even agree to call this ban what it is. Godel seems to be fine with the semiauto parts ban where the only legal purchase is a complete rifle. WTF!? We need get our message straight: NO! Silence the fudds and educate the short sighted! No one here who is cozy with the bump stock ban/fast semiauto ban has adequately acknowledge the threat of incremental 2A losses to our liberty. Y’all are too busy trying to figure out how Trump and the NRA may not actually be screwing us here. The Bump Stock ban idea should never have left the board room meeting. The left hasn’t even stopped to look. They are too busy rallying around “turn your guns in or we will nuke you” in the wake of Vegas, et el. And we are over here in cognitive dissonance making excuses for our president while the fist meaningfull national level gun control to happen in a decade is coming not from Obama but in president Trump’s first term. There are people who will not vote for him because of this, I am too pragmatic to say I am one of them but this will hurt Trump in 2020 more than his “well I did something” is going to help him. The NRA is currently laying people off at NRATV due to a 50+ million dollar slump in donation and membership revenue while M4 carbine is over fantasizing about 5d chess...
Yes, and looking at it long term, if this accessory is banned successfully be executive fiat, you can bet your sweet bippy that every gun grabber with a microphone is going to start calling for any and every other pet thing they don't like to be banned accordingly.
Sheeeeuuut. We might even lose "the shoulder thing that goes up."
(I'm being a smartass on that last comment, but as stupid as they are we won't see the end of their nonsense).
As long as there are humans involved, there will be shenanigans and nonsense. This crap predates recorded history and will continue long after we're dust. :(
Doc Safari
11-30-18, 15:56
Here's a liberal source that basically "gets it."
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/so-states-ban-bump-stocks-now-how-do-they-enforce_us_5afef574e4b018ba2f83c189
Even though proposed bump-stock bans have stalled in more than a dozen states, gun control advocates who want to rid the country of the accessory are celebrating their existing statehouse victories. They agree with gun owners and police, however, that enforcing the bans will be a challenge.
It’s hard to know for sure, but Americans could own as many as 520,000 bump stocks, according to estimates from the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). Many of the devices are untraceable, in part because they don’t have serial numbers
“Unless the police are getting search warrants to go house by house, there will probably be people who aren’t giving up their bump stocks,” Stein said. “Enforcement will come into play when the police are investigating other crimes, like domestic violence or whatever, and they come across a bump stock. They can tack on another charge.”
One of the main reasons why owners are not turning in their bump stocks to authorities is that there’s no financial incentive attached to many of these state bans, said Mark Pennak, the president of Maryland Shall Issue, a gun rights group that opposed Maryland’s recently passed bump-stock ban.
“You’re basically telling people to destroy their property,” Pennak said. “If you take someone’s private property, you have to pay for it.”
Another concern for some gun rights activists is that the state bans do not give enough notice to residents that possessing a bump stock is, in most cases, a felony.
“Nobody knows how to implement this stuff,” Gerwig said. “There’s nothing in the bill that says what will happen.”
Gerwig said he fears that gun owners who don’t closely follow state policy changes and therefore aren’t aware of the ban might be charged with a felony if they are caught using or even possessing the devices.
During President Barack Obama’s tenure, the ATF determined that it did not have the authority under the National Firearms Act to regulate bump stocks.
My take: Even though a lot of gun owners are not willing to die on this hill, Trump evidently is. If this isn't a rope-a-dope situation where he's trying to bait the gun grabbers into another embarassing debacle, then he may have just opened a can of worms that will do more to harm his presidency than Mueller ever thought about.
FromMyColdDeadHand
11-30-18, 17:22
It isn't what hill to die on...
It isn't what hill to die on...
Agreed. BUT......it is the principle of the matter that counts.
I don't own one, never have, never would even if they were still going to be legal. However, I don't particularly like being told what I can and cannot have, especially if that thing was something made illegal by the wave of a pen. Good-to-go one day, a felon the next. This could be setting a dangerous precedent, even though the libtards have intended this for semi-autos for a long long time.
This will be an interesting case study for our future as gun owners, specifically how it will be enforced. I predict, just as a semi-auto ban would be, that it will be "passively" enforced (i.e. no door-to-door). But a fire, pissed off ex-wife or girlfriend, snotty-ass teenager who you grounded and didn't let use the car, nosey neighbor, "friend" who gets themselves in a legal bind and is willing to sell your ass for a lighter charge or sentence, etc. would be your undoing. Logistically a nationwide door-to-door isn't doable. Not to say a few examples couldn't be made, but coast to coast door-kicking ain't gonna happen.
A future AWB would be similar. Even though bumpstocks don't have a serial number, AW's do but there is currently no federal law requiring you to show who you "sold" it to. YMMV as far as state laws though. As of 11-30-18 you still have an element of "deniability" (but watch out for "universal background checks", which would tag you as accountable for any 4473 purchases from that date forward). Sure, the thugs with badges might have a gut feeling you're lying out your ass, but if you're smart enough to not have anything to find when they come with their warrant (and they will) then there isn't much they can do. Of course they'll be back to make sure "just in case", but by that point you're no dumb-ass.
"Modern Weapons Caching" by Ragnar Benson is an interesting read, and America is a BIG country......:rolleyes:
It isn't what hill to die on...
And when we run out of sacrificial hills?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
And when we run out of sacrificial hills?
Yep, eventually even the Fudds will have their precious bolt action deer rifles categorized as "sniper weapons" (who needs one of those!) and their shotguns labelled as "multiple projectile firing death machines with the single pull of a trigger". Then what?
They you vote democrat and let the government take care of you like the rest of the country does.
It's easier to steal shit, be on welfare, and smoke blunts then to work anyways.
I posted this in various places yesterday:
Really stupid banning bump stocks and it's a very slippery slope. Interesting how Republicans have banned almost as many firearms, etc., as Democrats have. Seems Republicans have no problems dropping their balls against those that support them in order to to appease Democrats but cannot do anything close to the same in standing up to Democrats when it comes to protecting our 2nd. Amendment rights. Really sucks and I hope one day they suffer the consequences just as I hope Democrats do.
I have two Cents …. I think taking something without compensation is stealing! They won't steal from me this time as I do not own one. But we have not seen if it includes triggers, or greater than how many round? magazines … which were used by the same madman. Turn them in to who? Is this a unfunded mandate to a State or County or City, or Town, or Village? Do they issue a receipt?
I just don't like it on so many levels. Someone said Arms were regulated by the Constitution. Where? The Bill of rights and all Amendments to the Constitution to current day they all make up the "Conststution" today, a living document.
As far as Oaths go I took one in 1964, no expiration date on it.
They you vote democrat and let the government take care of you like the rest of the country does.
It's easier to steal shit, be on welfare, and smoke blunts then to work anyways.
I was listening to Mark Levin tonight and he was pointing out that the voting in California has basically been corrupted and the concept of fair and legal elections there don't exist any longer. Highlighting Orange County, the Republican had a 14 point lead up to election day, but by time the voting was done a week later, the Republican had lost.
Levin is like the doctor of Conservatism, diagnosing the disease which is totalitarianism, but all Mark ever tells us to do is vote. Well if voting doesn't work, you'll never get these TV or Radio personalities to discuss any real remedies. They can't because you can get kicked off the air for "inciting violence or insurrection".
If the system is stacked against us, voting doesn't work, what are we left with? It is an eventuality that the Left will go after our guns and our 2nd Amendment Rights. It's just a matter of time. I have been planning for that eventuality since 2004. My situation is good, but still adding some additional calibers of ammo.
Yep, eventually even the Fudds will have their precious bolt action deer rifles categorized as "sniper weapons" (who needs one of those!) and their shotguns labelled as "multiple projectile firing death machines with the single pull of a trigger". Then what?
Then it is too late.....
If the system is stacked against us, voting doesn't work, what are we left with? It is an eventuality that the Left will go after our guns and our 2nd Amendment Rights. It's just a matter of time. I have been planning for that eventuality since 2004. My situation is good, but still adding some additional calibers of ammo.
I believe the same as you state here that the system is stacked against us. They will win by defeating us by incrementalism with demographics and fraud. I too have been prepared for this but since long before 2004 however each year after 1986 I've seen our numbers dwindle and this is not good. Because of this we are going to have to think outside of the box and beyond how Hollywood and our history books up to the early 1980(s) has taught us to think.
We need to learn to cache' and to network, including pooling funds and ammo, etc.,. We need to seek and find those in our areas we can deal with and have contact rosters, etc., for communications as "fake news" will reign supreme. The larger your circle of information is here in the internet the easier it can be compromised and controlled.
Sooner or later proper organization use will be a necessity and no longer an option if we want to survive long enough to capitalize on whatever slight chance may exist to win back, either with bullet or ballot, all that we've lost to the sorriest and most despicable human beings our country has ever known. None of us know when this time may actually come but I do see with this and the red flag laws the beginning of the storm that is coming and it is eventually going to hit us all very, very hard.
Make sure the gun owners that are what I call "closet liberals" are exposed, marked, and isolated if they cannot be educated. I know I will never trust any of them as most if not all of them are simply worms (no backbones).
Indeed it is the incrementalism that will wear us down but only if we allow it.
Yep, eventually even the Fudds will have their precious bolt action deer rifles categorized as "sniper weapons" (who needs one of those!) and their shotguns labelled as "multiple projectile firing death machines with the single pull of a trigger". Then what?
I'm thinking a hand blue rock thrower with a bunch of hockey pucks. Or maybe I can find the Wrist Rocket my Dad took away from me when I was 10ish.
MountainRaven
12-01-18, 00:23
No. Gun owners vote out the bad GOP and put in the good when this happens. (Not necessarily all at once, but over time). Or they stay home and don't vote and let the GOP lose. Go back and see what happened in 1994 elections. The AWB put the GOP into power that they kept basically through Clinton (excepting the 50/50 Senate split in the last Congress of Clinton -- they still had the House). If they forget about this, they will be reminded.
So did you vote for Bill Clinton? Or did you stay home and let him win?
...If the system is stacked against us, voting doesn't work, what are we left with? It is an eventuality that the Left will go after our guns and our 2nd Amendment Rights. It's just a matter of time....
Parallel Governance.
It's important to remember, on a gun-centric board that the target is not JUST guns, it is everything. All that is deemed "problematic" about this country must be destroyed.
Of course, real world stuff takes work, not just blabbing on the internet. *shrug*
It's important to remember, on a gun-centric board that the target is not JUST guns, it is everything. All that is deemed "problematic" about this country must be destroyed.
I fully agree. This works both ways though. The liberals and leftists must pursue their goals in this manner in order to succeed. The gun owners and other conservatives must to do the same in order to survive.
What I learned long ago is they will not hesitate to destroy us and our way of life to include ALL of our way of life. It worked in Cuba and Venezuela and to an extent in Rhodesia and South Africa. There is a racial motivation as well as a motivation to dominate and control all of society. In the end we will either stop or subvert to it as there will be no gray areas.
I'm thinking a hand blue rock thrower with a bunch of hockey pucks. Or maybe I can find the Wrist Rocket my Dad took away from me when I was 10ish.
If you have time, search Google/YouTube for videos of the ad-hoc weapons and equipment some of the Syrian "rebels" use. I never knew before that a common shopping cart could be deadly. Also have a new appreciation for the fact most heavy machinery companies use a standard ignition key for most of their models.
Doc Safari
02-26-19, 09:19
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/bethbaumann/2019/02/26/federal-court-judge-rules-in-challenge-to-bump-stock-ban-heres-what-you-need-to-n2542207?utm_source=thdaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl&newsletterad=02/26/2019&bcid=fac5dd3cc86cd6204cf86b0674928652&recip=21333999
Back in December, the Department of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) finalized a new regulation that changed definition of “machinegun” to include “bump-stock-type devices." Beginning March 26, owning or possessing a bump stock will be illegal.
On Monday night, a federal court judge denied three separate preliminary injunction requests. The decision was a consolidated ruling in two cases, Firearms Policy Coalition v. Whitaker and Guedes v. Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.
According to court documents, the plaintiffs had varying arguments for a preliminary injunction:
To prevent the rule from taking effect, the plaintiffs—Damien Guedes, the Firearms Policy Coalition, David Codrea, and their co-plaintiffs—filed three motions for a preliminary injunction in which they raised overlapping statutory and constitutional challenges. All of the plaintiffs contend that ATF violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) when it promulgated the rule. Guedes also argues that ATF violated certain procedural requirements in 18 U.S.C. § 926(b), which grants the agency rulemaking authority. Codrea further argues that the rule violates the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. And all of the plaintiffs contend that then–Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker lacked authority to promulgate the rule under either the Appointments Clause of the Constitution or 28 U.S.C. § 508 (the AG Act), a succession statute specific to the Office of the Attorney General. Because none of the plaintiffs’ arguments support preliminary injunctive relief, the Court will deny all three motions.
This is part of the judge's reason for denying the injunction (emphasis mine):
Most of the plaintiffs’ administrative law challenges are foreclosed by the Chevron doctrine, which permits an agency to reasonably define undefined statutory terms. See Chevron v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, 467 U.S. 837 (1984). Here, Congress defined “machinegun” in the NFA to include devices that permit a firearm to shoot “automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger,” 26 U.S.C. § 5845(b), but it did not further define the terms “single function of the trigger” or “automatically.” Because both terms are ambiguous, ATF was permitted to reasonably interpret them, and in light of their ordinary meaning, it was reasonable for ATF to interpret “single function of the trigger” to mean “single pull of the trigger and analogous motions” and “automatically” to mean “as the result of a selfacting or self-regulating mechanism that allows the firing of multiple rounds through a single pull of the trigger.” ATF also reasonably applied these definitions when it concluded that bump stocks permit a shooter to discharge multiple rounds automatically with a single function of the trigger. That this decision marked a reversal of ATF’s previous interpretation is not a basis for invalidating the rule because ATF’s current interpretation is lawful and ATF adequately explained the change in interpretation.
The Court also rejects the plaintiffs’ procedural challenges. ATF adequately responded to the objections raised by the plaintiffs during the comment period, and ATF was not required to disclose evidence on which it did not rely when it promulgated the rule. Nor did ATF violate § 926(b) by refusing to hold an oral hearing. Finally, any error ATF may have committed by failing to extend the comment period by five days because of technical glitches was harmless.
jerrysimons
02-26-19, 10:05
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/bethbaumann/2019/02/26/federal-court-judge-rules-in-challenge-to-bump-stock-ban-heres-what-you-need-to-n2542207?utm_source=thdaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl&newsletterad=02/26/2019&bcid=fac5dd3cc86cd6204cf86b0674928652&recip=21333999
The judge’s supposed “common use” definitions of “single function of the trigger” and “automatically” are as vague and arbitrary as the words themselves, and are contrary to the precedent of the actual common useage of the terms by the firearms industry and ATF prior to Trump’s ban dictate. Words have meaning defined by usage in context. What this amounts to is somebody in judicial authority who doesn’t give a rip about firearms anything disregarding the established usage in context of these terms and saying “yes it is legal for Trump’s ATF to arbitrarily redefine words that make felons out of citizens overnight as long as they can make their argument for doing so sound good to reasonable people who are unconcerned the details.” We are screwed dudes.
Take any sentence abstracted from its contextual usage and crack open the dictionary, it’s range of meaning is wide open.
horseman234
03-11-19, 10:16
https://www.cato.org/blog/bump-stock-ban-bumps-against-constitution
Doc Safari
03-28-19, 15:11
Just to put a back cover on this:
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-03-28/supreme-court-refuses-block-bump-stock-ban
The Supreme Court has declined to stop the Trump administration from enforcing its ban on "bump-stock" devices, which allow semi-automatic weapons to fire like machine guns.
Under the regulation, Americans who own bump stocks have 90 days to destroy their devices or to turn them in to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.
And now, as AP reports, Chief Justice John Roberts declined one request for the court to get involved on Tuesday and a second request was declined by the court on Thursday.
Just to put a back cover on this:
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-03-28/supreme-court-refuses-block-bump-stock-ban
SCOTUS fails in its duty. Again.
Roberts is a sham of epic levels
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
titsonritz
10-07-19, 13:08
Bump stock "buy back" going as planned.
The dims... :cray:
Me...:haha:
Between the issuance of the final rule banning the devices in December 2018 and April 4, 2019, shortly after the prohibition took effect in late March, 582 bump stocks were “abandoned” to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, according to Justice Department records, and 98 bump stocks were kept as evidence.
The Times obtained the records through a Freedom of Information Act request.
The administration cited estimates that 280,000 to 520,000 bump-stock-type devices were in circulation when it published the final rule in December.
EXCLUSIVE: Bump stock ban's flop a bad omen for Democrats' gun buyback plan (https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/oct/6/bump-stock-ban-failure-omen-gun-buyback-plan/)
LMT Shooter
10-07-19, 13:35
https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2019/09/21/atf-bump-stock-ruling/
https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2019/09/21/atf-bump-stock-ruling/
Thanks Trump. :angry:
I’m offended that 582 were turned over to begin with.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
MountainRaven
10-07-19, 14:38
I’m offended that 582 were turned over to begin with.
Maybe they were extras that people wanted to sell, but realized they suddenly wouldn't be able to (without risking that the buyer is an FBI informant or an ATF agent).
platoonDaddy
10-07-19, 14:39
I’m offended that 582 were turned over to begin with.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
AMEN
This failed as the magazine ban in Jersey.
EDIT: One or ten thousand, the number is immaterial to democrats. Couldn’t care less.
Their win is that, amid much ballyhoo and ringing of hands, a law was passed that
affects those murderous NRA bastards.
That’s the important thing for us to remember – it’s all about control
AMEN
This failed as the magazine ban in Jersey.
I sure as shit didn’t hand any in. I just moved and now I have useless 15rd mags lol.
Maybe they were extras that people wanted to sell, but realized they suddenly wouldn't be able to (without risking that the buyer is an FBI informant or an ATF agent).
Nobody was wasting their time setting up undercover buys of bump stocks.
Nobody
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
MountainRaven
10-08-19, 09:57
Nobody was wasting their time setting up undercover buys of bump stocks.
Nobody
Doesn't matter. Fear is the mind killer.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.