Bump Stocks Banned

Status
Not open for further replies.
Well, for those who refuse to destroy or turn them in, might as well just get the real go-fast parts.

Because the supply is woefully limited and the costs are exceedingly prohibitive. As an FFL 07/02, I think you know that.
 
It's beyond precedent. It's unconstitutional. It's ruling by fiat. "I don't like it, so I'll ban it henceforth."
Too many myopic remarks in this thread. This is a test for the administration. If it passes, it opens all kinds of doors. Many folks (not all) on this thread are underestimating the downstream effects of this move. Braces, mags, muzzle attachments, etc. All subject to the whim of whoever is in office. And those are just the things that apply re: 2A. He just rewrote the law- poof- like that. It's almost like he doesn't have a fundamental understanding of how government works.
The man doesn’t understand how an FBI Search warrant is issued and enforced.
 
The man doesn’t understand how an FBI Search warrant is issued and enforced.

No doubt. I'm not worried about him. What about who's in office next? When it's President Kamala Harris, or President Corey Booker, or President Charles Schumer... what might they wave their magic fiat wand at? A very good point was brought up earlier about the ultimate goal of banning semi-auto firearms. I don't discount these worst-case scenarios as alarmist. These are the people in power and it's their ultimate goal. I don't differentiate between the left and right in politics- they all sleep in the same sty.
 
A very good point was brought up earlier about the ultimate goal of banning semi-auto firearms.

That is still short sighted. It’s not about ban on a type of firearm. All of them are “bad”, at least in the hands of “common folk”.

It is about achieving total control.

Starve people or drive a protester over with a tank is OK at that point, what else are you going to do.

Some might call it a stepping stone on a long journey.
 
Agreed. He’s not the issue. Like you said and hinted it’s the pendulum swinging back the other extreme direction. My fear is there’s not going to be a Bush 41 type candidate or true Reaganite conservative (coherent adult) ever again. Someone everyone could get behind. But yes if the extreme left takes over we may be losing more than just bump stocks
 
I started to comment on this issue but it would be much of the same that has already been said, but I am going to say this:

When is “enough” going to be enough? When are WE, as a group, going to band together and stick up for our rights? I am not talking about anarchy or insurrection, I am talking about putting our money, our time, our efforts into thwarting the trampling of our rights and the Constitution? Everyday I get emails from several different Pro-gun groups and the sky is always falling, according to them but doggoneit, The sky has been falling and what do most of us do? Whine, complain, stomp our feet and move on.

Maybe it’s time to dust off your (pick your favorite Pro-gun group) card and call them up and donate some real money to fight! “They” have proven the pen is mightier than the sword in Washington by way of money and lobbyists. Maybe it’s time to fight fire with Fire.

On another note, having a boatload of Pro-gun groups vying for our money is proof that we are all not united and the bureaucrats and lawmakers damn well know it.

What was it one of our founding fathers said? “If we do not hang together we will surely hang separately”? Or something like that.

Sorry for the rant...Pat Riot, Out.
 
Because the supply is woefully limited and the costs are exceedingly prohibitive. As an FFL 07/02, I think you know that.

As an FFL 07/02, he would be legally allowed to take a piece of hardened sheet steel, make a few cuts, and create a post-sample Lightning Link. Nothing limited nor cost prohibitive about such things.

I'll point out again that the above is really what is so perilous about the ATF being able to redefine words (automatically, for example) to mean something that they don't. If they decide that an AR can be readily restored to fire as a machine gun simply by adding a piece of cut sheet steel, then the AR itself is now a machine gun subject to the ban.
 
Just some food for thought here. The DOJ press release is here. They estimate the total cost of this rule will be 312 million dollars. Over 100 million USD due to loss of property (no reimbursements). Just guessing, but I think the retail figure was around $300 for one of these, that close? That means there is (was) 333, 000-plus bump stocks out there. One incident led to this. But still, a half million people die from cigarettes. It's confounding.

They obtusely ignore their own definition of a machine gun, stating bump stocks allow fully automatic fire with a single function of the trigger. This is patently false.

Their interpretation certainly includes binary triggers.

It's just garbage all around and resonates of being the first domino toppling.
 
As an FFL 07/02, he would be legally allowed to take a piece of hardened sheet steel, make a few cuts, and create a post-sample Lightning Link. Nothing limited nor cost prohibitive about such things.

I'll point out again that the above is really what is so perilous about the ATF being able to redefine words (automatically, for example) to mean something that they don't. If they decide that an AR can be readily restored to fire as a machine gun simply by adding a piece of cut sheet steel, then the AR itself is now a machine gun subject to the ban.

Yes. He would be able to do that. But what he stated was, "Well, for those who refuse to destroy or turn them in, might as well just get the real go-fast parts."

So, let's poll the audience. Who here can afford $5,000 to $25,000 for "go-fast" parts (ie, DIAS or LL, or legally transferrable FA)?
It's so simple isn't it?
They're banning bump stocks. That's all. If you don't like it, just buy the real-deal.

Pfft.
 
I had an open and serious talk with someone doing internet posts about gun control. They were a member of a group that received their talking points from someone above them and then they went to forums and social media and engaged in argument. To make the long story short I asked, "How many children killed in a preschool by a lunatic welding a gun is acceptable?" The topic was guns and so yes, I include the gun as the weapon and did not bring up knives or clubs. They paused and I said, "Six?". "No". "How about 5?" "No"... "Is one okay?" "No" was the response. "So you really want to ban any type of gun". "Yes" was the reply.

This is not about the usefulness of a bump-fire stock. This is not about if I would ever own one. This is about the law and the government and how it all works. This shows that the President of the United States has the power to make this edict. Is anyone questioning this power? See, no one cares when the President does something when the person thinks "I would do the same thing if I could." How are regulations decreed? Somehow the decree dances around the process it takes to pass a law. It is the same dance that was used to get the bump-fire stock initially approved and now disapproved. It is the dance around the words used in laws and the words used in the Constitution. If we can change the meaning / definition of a thing, then we can change its legal status. That is what we should be concerned about. This is another opportunity to stand up to fiat. However, there are those that say, "Well, let's not go the proper route through the legislative process, someone might propose a bill that is far worse and then it would pass both houses of Congress, and the President would sign it. Then we would have to hope the Supreme Court did the right thing! Way to risky!", these people are saying, "We should be quiet and not draw attention", these people say. I find that position very interesting.

I personally think this will stand and that this is just another reminder that this is how our government can legally operate. That doesn't mean we shouldn't write our representatives and express our disapproval of such powers and actions.
 
Yes. He would be able to do that. But what he stated was, "Well, for those who refuse to destroy or turn them in, might as well just get the real go-fast parts."

So, let's poll the audience. Who here can afford $5,000 to $25,000 for "go-fast" parts (ie, DIAS or LL, or legally transferrable FA)?
It's so simple isn't it?
They're banning bump stocks. That's all. If you don't like it, just buy the real-deal.

Pfft.

I don't think you understand what he said:

Well, for those who refuse to destroy or turn them in, might as well just get the real go-fast parts.

He's talking about the type of people who will turn their nose up at the law and say, "Nah, I'm going to keep my bump stock!" If you are willing to commit a felony and keep your bump stock, why not go full bore and have a real machine gun? It's the same crime.

More importantly, that's not all. This is literally the Executive branch re-writing the law when Congress refused to do so.
 
I don't have a bump stock. Did not plan on ever owning one. And I HATE this outright ban. "Simulated full auto fire." Because that isn't vague language at all. Any after market trigger for any firearm ever made could fall under that. Any one who is okay with this ban needs to "turn the map around." Look at this ban like you were completely crazy like Schumer or Pelosi. Where can the ban go from here? You have a big ass foot in the door, something is next and we all know it.
 
I took it he was saying "If I am going to be illegal why not get something with a happy switch that is post 86. Can't get into any more trouble for doing that."


Yeah, I see how that comes across as being facetious. I'm pissed off at the moment and I'm struggling to keep my remarks High Road-ish.
 
Here's a point that we may be missing: people bought bump stocks after being assured by the ATF that they were legal. In law, that's called "detrimental reliance." Now that same ATF comes and tells them that not only are these items not legal, but that the buyers will have to forfeit any money they paid. That's clearly acting in bad faith. There needs to be some avenue by which the buyers can at least be made financially whole.
 
Here's a point that we may be missing: people bought bump stocks after being assured by the ATF that they were legal. In law, that's called "detrimental reliance." Now that same ATF comes and tells them that not only are these items not legal, but that the buyers will have to forfeit any money they paid. That's clearly acting in bad faith. There needs to be some avenue by which the buyers can at least be made financially whole.


Sure there is. Someone will need to get arrested, retain an attorney who's willing to fight it, be able to fund all of the litigation, and be patient enough to allow it to be fought all the way to the SCOTUS- because you can rest assured their conviction will be upheld by the lower courts.
 
I'm OK with this. Pretty much giving up nothing. Is there anything else hidden in the bill? These seemed like an NFA item from the get go. Pistol braces on AR's for people with 2 perfectly functional arms, are likely next to go. Or binary, auto response triggers. That's poking the bear as well.

That doesn't mean I think that NFA should exist. But it does, and these things barely skirt by on a technicality.

Hopefully suppressors get removed from NFA so we can shoot without noise pollution ruining our cities, and scaring the sheep. Those should have never been NFA, and it makes no sense why they're there. I can shoot 2-3 times in any city at full volume. Nobody will call the cops or anything.
First they came for the Jews, and I said nothing... Incrementalism is the way they win. "High- capacity magazine ban, bump-stock ban, etc. How does any of this stop criminals (who, by definition, don't follow the law) stop or prevent crime? what if we just "Outlawed" Murder? wouldn't that solve the problem? Because we all know that "A New Law Stops Crime" right?
 
That’s it in nutshell. You are for gun rights orryou are against them. The stuff in the middle is where one side puts the other against themselves.

I respectfully disagree. Life is the stuff in the middle, and it’s the middle that keeps the far ends in check. At least that’s how it’s suppose to work. According to your logic, nothing should be regulated. No checks and balances. Things get pretty out of control pretty quickly in that scenario.
 
You know, if we would all get off our collective butts and March on DC with whatever weapon you choose we wouldn’t be having this discussion. It would end with a quickness, even if a quarter of gun owners participated. It’s going to come down to that. When the gov starts seizing property without compensation from law abiding citizens then it has overstepped its bounds. And let’s be honest, this is just one of many steps gone too far. They keep pushing and eventually the powder keg is going to light. That’s not good for anyone.
 
I didn’t think Trump signed this yet. Can someone point me to the bill and show that it’s signed or is this simply a ruling?
That's the rub: there's really nothing to sign. This is just a reinterpretation of an existing regulation, sort of a "we used to think X but now we think Y" deal. It's rewriting the law without actually going through the legislative process.

If this gets implemented then Trump will have done more to harm RKBA than Obama did in his entire eight years in office.
 
You know, if we would all get off our collective butts and March on DC with whatever weapon you choose we wouldn’t be having this discussion. It would end with a quickness, even if a quarter of gun owners participated. It’s going to come down to that. When the gov starts seizing property without compensation from law abiding citizens then it has overstepped its bounds. And let’s be honest, this is just one of many steps gone too far. They keep pushing and eventually the powder keg is going to light. That’s not good for anyone.

The opposition has support from oligoarchs. Gun owners will get none from conservative oligoarchs because it is not in their best interest for working classes to be armed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top