Bump Stocks not being turned in.

[pdsmith505]

Maybe Trump will order the BATF to make suppressors NFA items.


Oh .....wait.

Look at the jokes on this guy!

Or maybe we'll have a repeat of the Hughes Amendment and the registry for silencers will be closed with nary a complaint from the "pro 2A" president?

 

[AlexanderA]

Maybe Trump will order the BATF to make suppressors NFA items.

Oh .....wait.

On a more serious note, he could order the ATF NFA Branch to "take its time" approving Form 1/4 applications for suppressors, so that, in effect, they never saw the light of day. When word got around, it would completely kill the suppressor market. Never mind that it would go against the intent of the statute.

 

[AlexanderA]

Or maybe we'll have a repeat of the Hughes Amendment and the registry for silencers will be closed with nary a complaint from the "pro 2A" president?

The House would pass such an amendment in a heartbeat, and in the Senate, enough moderate Republicans would join the Democrats in approving it. Then the president "who doesn't like them at all" would sign it. The fact is, silencers have no constituency among the general public. I can even see the NRA getting behind this effort --after all, they had no problem throwing bump stocks under the bus.

 

[pdsmith505]

On a more serious note, he could order the ATF NFA Branch to "take its time" approving Form 1/4 applications for suppressors, so that, in effect, they never saw the light of day. When word got around, it would completely kill the suppressor market. Never mind that it would go against the intent of the statute.

It wouldn't take much for the "all lawful purposes" statement that is popular for Form 1's and 5320.20's to no longer be sufficient... reinterpretation of "silencer parts" such that modular cans are longer legal... reinterpretation of "silencer parts" such that QD mounts require their own stamps... etc. Lots of possibilities for an Administration that likes to redefine things.

But, I think that such a defacto ban would be entirely within the intent of the '34 NFA. It was never about raising taxes or registering cans, MGs, etc... the intent was to circumvent the 2A and ban classes of arms by taxing them beyond the common person's ability to buy.

Which brings me to...

The House would pass such an amendment in a heartbeat, and in the Senate, enough moderate Republicans would join the Democrats in approving it. Then the president "who doesn't like them at all" would sign it. The fact is, silencers have no constituency among the general public. I can even see the NRA getting behind this effort --after all, they had no problem throwing bump stocks under the bus.

I can see it now, even if (R)'s take the house after 2020 and Trump is re-elected... they finally get around to national reciprocity, and a poison pill (closing the silencer registry) is added. While they're at it, raise the transfer tax to $4k ($200 in 1934 is equivalent in purchasing power to about $3,814.15 in 2019).

 

[AlexanderA]

a poison pill (closing the silencer registry) is added. While they're at it, raise the transfer tax to $4k ($200 in 1934 is equivalent in purchasing power to about $3,814.15 in 2019).

Why bother? Closing of the suppressor registry would raise prices to the point where only the rich could afford them anyway (much like the situation with MG's today). The NFA tax is not primarily for the purpose of raising revenue.

But you are right -- they might do it just to kick us while we are down.

 

[1911 guy]

I can see it now, even if (R)'s take the house after 2020 and Trump is re-elected... they finally get around to national reciprocity, and a poison pill (closing the silencer registry) is added. While they're at it, raise the transfer tax to $4k ($200 in 1934 is equivalent in purchasing power to about $3,814.15 in 2019).

That's from pdsmith505 above. And it's another reason to oppose national reciprocity. If we allow the federal government to intrude (again) into an area that is rightly under the jurisdiction of the individual states, we'll get what we deserve. We are awash in information, but nobody knows how to crack a history book or think about the underlying principles of a thing.

 

[pdsmith505]

That's from pdsmith505 above. And it's another reason to oppose national reciprocity. If we allow the federal government to intrude (again) into an area that is rightly under the jurisdiction of the individual states, we'll get what we deserve. We are awash in information, but nobody knows how to crack a history book or think about the underlying principles of a thing.

I agree with you for the most part, just not the bolded part. The Federal Government has no authority to force states to accept each other's carry permits. But, it's also not up to the states to decide if you can carry in the first place. The 2nd and 14th amendments take that policy decision off the table. Now we just need case law to catch up... here's hoping for something good out of New York this fall.

 

[1911 guy]

I actually agree with you. But hear me out. I'm going to sound like an anti or an appeaser for a minute. But please hear me out.

1) The end goal is a plain reading and interpretation of the Constitution. All of it, not just the 2A.
2) This puts power in the hands of the electorate, making entrenched government agencies and politicians very unhappy.
3) So they hang the carrot out front. National Reciprocity. If we are dumb enough to take the bait, we have abdicated our right and responsibility as citizens of the individual states.
4) Fed.gov uses this newfound power to regulate and eventually exterminate anything they find inconvenient.

So the next meaningful step is opposing and educating those in our ranks who advocate for national reciprocity imposed by the feds. Win the battle at the individual state level first, before trying to take on federal malfeasance without backing by the states. We're actually making headway. Most states now have CCW. Reciprocity is happening at the state level, making fed recognition a moot point.

If state governments do not have a constitutional view, the fight is unwinnable at the federal level.

 

[danez71]

We're actually making headway. Most states now have CCW. Reciprocity is happening at the state level, making fed recognition a moot point.

Personally, I don't think its a moot point.

There is no other BOR that even comes close is disparity between States than the 2A.

The other BORs are much more consistent between the individual States because, for the most part, some minimum (or maximum) level has been established: free speech, for example, .gov can't burn our books and we can't yell fire in a crowded theater.

It was at the Fed level that drove the consistency between States.

 

[Master Blaster]

Gun ban advocates are like spoiled children once you give in a couple of times they continue to have a tantrum and expect you to give in every time.

 

[hdwhit]

ATLDave wrote:
Prohibitionary schemes are hard to make work.

Maybe.

If ATF had the funding - and the staffing - it would become a trivial matter to go seize the records of each bump-stock manufacturer and then go visit each of the customers to ensure they either "disabled" theirs or transferred it to someone who had.

But then, when you "regulate" an entire category of product out of existence, yet have neither the political will nor the manpower to ensure the destruction of a previously -legal device you create an entire class of scofflaws who were previously law-abiding citizens that tended to support the government but are now lawbreakers.

 

[pdsmith505]

Maybe.

If ATF had the funding - and the staffing - it would become a trivial matter to go seize the records of each bump-stock manufacturer and then go visit each of the customers to ensure they either "disabled" theirs or transferred it to someone who had.

"Oh, wow, my bump stock? Daaang officer, I sold that a year ago at a gun show to some guy. Or was it two years ago? Managed to get $150 cash for it though! He was about 5'10", brown eyes, brown hair, 200lbs. Dont remember his name, but I think it was Smith?"

I'm not even being facetious. That's about how I'd have to answer any question about gun stuff I've sold. I'd be a very poor link in tracking down firearms parts.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

"While they're at it, raise the transfer tax to $4k ($200 in 1934 is equivalent in purchasing power to about $3,814.15 in 2019)."

FDR's AG Homer Cummings admitted to Congress he could not outright prohibit machine guns without violating the Second Amendment. So the "reasonable regulation" of a registration tax 100% the MSRP of a Thompson M1921 ($200 about half the price of a Ford automobile) was defacto prohibition, a restrictive law not a regulatory law, As SCOTUS once observed in banning state taxes on the federal bank, the power to tax includes the power to destroy (some states wanted to tax the federal bank out of existance) and there is a line between taxes and fees intended to regulate and those that are defacto prohibition taxes.

If the feds wanted to raise the 1930 mandated $200 NFA tax to match inflation, would they not be required to raise the Social Security death benefit of $255 to match inflation (about $4,700)? What other fees/benefits were frozen at fixed amounts in federal law?

 

[D.B. Cooper]

Maybe.

If ATF had the funding - and the staffing - it would become a trivial matter to go seize the records of each bump-stock manufacturer and then go visit each of the customers to ensure they either "disabled" theirs or transferred it to someone who had.

But then, when you "regulate" an entire category of product out of existence, yet have neither the political will nor the manpower to ensure the destruction of a previously -legal device you create an entire class of scofflaws who were previously law-abiding citizens that tended to support the government but are now lawbreakers.

Correct on both accounts. Prohibition schemes are not unenforceable, but no one has the political will to do what needs to be done. Alcohol prohibition of the 1920s, the "Drug War," the current fiasco of immigration, heck, even cell phones in classrooms, all require someone willing to drop the hammer and the muscle to do it. America has neither, and Americans know it.

 

[GEM]

I might suggest that saying you would lie or be less than truthful to law enforcement is not the best thing to say on the Internet. If you get in trouble, it will be found. So lay off the virtue posturing about trips to the lake, burying, etc.

 

[D.B. Cooper]

As SCOTUS once observed in banning state taxes on the federal bank, the power to tax includes the power to destroy (some states wanted to tax the federal bank out of existance) and there is a line between taxes and fees intended to regulate and those that are defacto prohibition taxes.

McCulloch v. Maryland

If the feds wanted to raise the 1930 mandated $200 NFA tax to match inflation, would they not be required to raise the Social Security death benefit of $255 to match inflation (about $4,700)? What other fees/benefits were frozen at fixed amounts in federal law?

You just opened a huge can of worms.

 

[AlexanderA]

The $200 tax is just a nuisance amount. Even if it was raised to match inflation, the bureaucratic delay would still be a bigger hindrance in the market for NFA items.

For many years, the NFA, as administered, was a "safety valve" allowing for the legal ownership of such items. If there had been a flat prohibition instead of the NFA regulatory scheme, there would still be machine guns, etc., but they would be entirely underground. The 1986 Hughes Amendment was the first step in removing this safety valve. The gun-banners seem to have no idea of the consequences of their actions -- or maybe they do, but they just don't care.

 

[pdsmith505]

I might suggest that saying you would lie or be less than truthful to law enforcement is not the best thing to say on the Internet. If you get in trouble, it will be found. So lay off the virtue posturing about trips to the lake, burying, etc.

I was being entirely honest in how such a conversation would go in my case. I've never kept any record of any private party firearm transaction I've made.

I was making the point that it wouldn't exactly be "trivial" to track down the ownership of items that need not be registered. Most people simply dont see a point in keeping that info in the first place

 

[DerMerchant]

Gun ban advocates are like spoiled children once you give in a couple of times they continue to have a tantrum and expect you to give in every time.

It doesn't help when the people who are supposed to be on our side capitulate when the whining gets a bit too loud.

 

[GEM]

Being completely honest here that you would be a tad disengenuous to law enforcement is also not a good idea.

 

[Jim Watson]

They don't have to track down all of them to make examples of some and exert a chilling effect on those they don't catch.

What will you DO with unsurrendered contraband? Keep it hidden until "needed" I presume.

 

[pdsmith505]

Being completely honest here that you would be a tad disengenuous to law enforcement is also not a good idea.

How is being at all dishonest if it's true?

If red dot prism scopes became illegal tomorrow, and someone wanted to track down where the one I bought two years ago all that I could possibly tell them is that I sold it, cash, to some random guy at a gun show.

Like I said, I dont keep track of that info.

I wouldn't have kept track of the info if it had been a bump stock.

I dont even keep track of that for serialized parts.

My goodness. It's always a bad idea to read more into what someone says than they said. Moreover, it's downright rude to carry that to calling someone a liar.

 

[sota]

The purpose was to appease anti gun leftists. The effect is to make law abiding citizens chose between surrendering/destroying their property or becoming a criminal by default.

Depending on where you are, you're already considered an undocumented criminal anyways, so what's one more thing to add to the list of possible charges.

 

[sota]

Was there any more than the one LasVegas shooting that used bump-stocks?
Seems reasonable to ban the thing LEAST used in crime.

There is no proof a bump stock was used in LV. The authorities were never allowed to examine and report on the status of the weapons in the room. In general, the LV event from a legal stand point was/is nothing more than a room full of monkeys flinging their poo at the glass walls of their enclosure.

 

[alsaqr]

There is no proof a bump stock was used in LV. The authorities were never allowed to examine and report on the status of the weapons in the room

Malarky!!!

Read post 91 of this thread.. 1,048 cartridge cases were matched to the 12 bump stock equipped rifles that fired them.