Bump stock ban overturned….

[John Moses Browning]

Time to go back to the lake and see if you can find them.


https://www.foxnews.com/politics/federal-court-strikes-down-trump-era-bump-stock-ban

Edit: maybe I linked it right this time.

 

[MegaFan]

Updated link...

Federal court strikes down Trump-era bump stock ban

A court has ruled against the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives' ban on bump stocks, finding the agency acted without congressional authorization.

www.foxnews.com

 

[Hayata]

Is this April 1st?

 

[MegaFan]

 

[John Moses Browning]

Updated link...

Federal court strikes down Trump-era bump stock ban

A court has ruled against the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives' ban on bump stocks, finding the agency acted without congressional authorization.

www.foxnews.com

Thanks for the assist.

 

[fuelman1]

At today's ammo prices who could afford to pray and spray. Back when I owned one and 5.56 was $.30 a round you would dump $9 worth of ammo in 3 seconds. That's expensive entertainment. It does make me wonder if any of the companies will tool up to start making them again.

 

[blazedawg87]

Never thought they should be banned, I’d love to have one on a 10/22, but for ARs I think they are stupid.

 

[medium187mph]

Wonder if the ATF is backing off of the FRT’s because of this?

 

[hozjo]

Good news, not that I care about bump stocks, but temporarily looking past any 2nd amendment arguments, any sort of bump stock ban should have come from congress, not as an administrative decision from Trump's ATF. If you want to pass a law, and see if the law passes constitutional tests in court be my guest, that's how our country is designed to operate. But don't chisel away at our rights, even in trivial or inconsequential ways by allowing an unelected administrative body to change the definition of words and make up rules on the fly without the consent of congress or any direct feedback from the voting public. Ditto for 80% lowers.

 

[BHPSteel]

A lot of people saying they don't care about bump stocks "but". Don't be such tools. You're creating a wedge that the Bloombergs of the world will weaponize against us. It's no different from "I don't care about automatic weapons, but" or "I don't care about high-capacity mags, but".

How about "Any ban on a firearm, an inanimate object or accessory for a firearm is unacceptable, whether I have a use for that item or not". No ifs and buts.

My less-salty take is that this is a win, and probably helpful to 2A in general, but when I get a chance, I'll go over the case in detail. What I'd want to see is at least some criticism of Chevron deference in general, which is the root cause of all of this kind of regulation (not only in the 2A context, but for all of the alphabets) where congress isn't involved in actually 'legislating'.

If the anti-2As want **** banned, take it to congress and get legislation passed - or not. No end-runs around the legislative process.