Pistols to be reclassified as AOWs per military arms channel FB page

[GeauxLSU]

Right. This is a pistol. Get it? Just like any other pistol, and that's all there is to it.
Anybody who questions that this firearm that shoots .308 / 7.62 NATO ammo out of a 50-round drum magazine, and can shoot 1000 yards with decent accuracy due to the 6X (or whatever) scope atop it, is just a pistol,
must be an Elmer Fudd who ought to stick to hunting wascally wabbits.

Then call it a rifle. Having it subject to NFA registration as an AOW is just absurd.
This entire conversation just highlights the lunacy that is the NFA.

 

[palmettomoon]

Right. This is a pistol. Get it? Just like any other pistol, and that's all there is to it.
Anybody who questions that this firearm that shoots .308 / 7.62 NATO ammo out of a 50-round drum magazine, and can shoot 1000 yards with decent accuracy due to the 6X (or whatever) scope atop it, is just a pistol,
must be an Elmer Fudd who ought to stick to hunting wascally wabbits.

Legal definition. And YOU calling ME a Fudd is rich. LOL.

 

[300_whisper]

Right. This is a pistol. Get it? Just like any other pistol, and that's all there is to it.
Anybody who questions that this firearm that shoots .308 / 7.62 NATO ammo out of a 50-round drum magazine, and can shoot 1000 yards with decent accuracy due to the 6X (or whatever) scope atop it, is just a pistol,
must be an Elmer Fudd who ought to stick to hunting wascally wabbits.

Im only following what the lawyers and law tell me. If my overlords tell me it’s a pistol, then by golly it’s a pistol. Lawyers are the only ones smart enough to decipher American law anyway.

 

[GAgunLAWbooklet]

If you're going to have any restrictions on any sort of weapons, you have to draw lines.
Anytime you draw a line, you will have some types of weapons that are just a wee little bit on the "legal" side of the line, and others that are just barely across the line into the "illegal" or "NFA restricted" category.
That's the nature of the beast.
I don't think we should get rid of all the lines, and let high school kids by Micro-Uzis from vending machines in the school cafeteria, but we can do better than shoe-horning all known types of firearms into the "rifle - shotgun- pistol" classifications and declaring that anything else is to be restricted just like bazookas and heavy machineguns are.

 

[Fatal_Bert]

When I become president schools are going to be 100% funded by uzi vending machines.

 

[batoncolle]

So you think the ATF is doing it to spite trump's EO and hurt him in the election but you can't explain it now because you got butt hurt over a bumpstock conversation, and it's somehow my fault you can't explain it deeper than that? Ok sure.

Link the EO. I looked and can't find it but since your so educated on it, and want to talk about it so bad I'm sure you have it on hand.

First I'm truly hurt that you continue to pretend that you and I have not been having this conversation since yesterday...

And second if you would simply take the time to read the letter that started all this, you would see the reference to the DOJ order that is a direct result of the EO. Even the letter from MAC mentions them both. But since you can't be bothered to do that, why should I waste my time any further...

 

[Fatal_Bert]

First I'm truly hurt that you continue to pretend that you and I have not been having this conversation since yesterday...

And second if you would simply take the time to read the letter that started all this, you would see the reference to the DOJ order that is a direct result of the EO. Even the letter from MAC mentions them both. But since you can't be bothered to do that, why should I waste my time any further...

I didn't read any of MACs post. He annoys me. I admittedly jumped in this thread when the conversation turned to bumpstocks, it interests me more.

But since you cried that you wanted to talk about Trump's EO then **** it I'm all ears. Since you know so much about this EO then I would think you could link it, or copy and paste the text of it here.

But nah, you just want to do as usual and attempt some homo battle of wits with me. Either post the the damn EO or quit crying about it. Until you do im gonna continue trolling.

 

[300_whisper]

Bump stock stuff. The actual executive order is 157 pages.


Today, Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker announced that the Department of Justice has amended the regulations of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF), clarifying that bump stocks fall within the definition of “machinegun” under federal law, as such devices allow a shooter of a semiautomatic firearm to initiate a continuous firing cycle with a single pull of the trigger.

Acting Attorney General Whitaker made the following statement:

“President Donald Trump is a law and order president, who has signed into law millions of dollars in funding for law enforcement officers in our schools, and under his strong leadership, the Department of Justice has prosecuted more gun criminals than ever before as we target violent criminals. We are faithfully following President Trump’s leadership by making clear that bump stocks, which turn semiautomatics into machine guns, are illegal, and we will continue to take illegal guns off of our streets.”

On February 20, 2018, President Trump issued a memorandum instructing the Attorney General “to dedicate all available resources to… propose for notice and comment a rule banning all devices that turn legal weapons into machineguns.” In response to that direction the Department reviewed more than 186,000 public comments and made the decision to make clear that the term “machinegun” as used in the National Firearms Act (NFA), as amended, and Gun Control Act (GCA), as amended, includes all bump-stock-type devices that harness recoil energy to facilitate the continuous operation of a semiautomatic firearm after a single pull of the trigger.

This final rule amends the regulatory definition of “machinegun” in Title 27, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), sections 447.11, 478.11, and 479.11. The final rule amends the regulatory text by adding the following language: “The term ‘machine gun’ includes bump-stock devices, i.e., devices that allow a semiautomatic firearm to shoot more than one shot with a single pull of the trigger by harnessing the recoil energy of the semi-automatic firearm to which it is affixed so that the trigger resets and continues firing without additional physical manipulation of the trigger by the shooter.” Furthermore, the final rule defines “automatically” and “single function of the trigger” as those terms are used in the statutory definition of machinegun. Specifically,

• “automatically” as it modifies “shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot,” means functioning as a result of a self-acting or self-regulating mechanism that allows the firing of multiple rounds through the single function of the trigger;
• “single function of the trigger” means single pull of the trigger and analogous motions.

Because the final rule clarifies that bump-stock-type devices are machineguns, the devices fall within the purview of the NFA and are subject to the restrictions of 18 U.S.C. 922(o). As a result, persons in possession of bump-stock-type devices must divest themselves of the devices before the effective date of the final rule. A current possessor may destroy the device or abandon it at the nearest ATF office, but no compensation will be provided for the device. Any method of destruction must render the device incapable of being readily restored to its intended function.

The final rule may be found here.

Information and instructions for destruction of the devices will be posted on ATF's website later today.

Please note: This is the text of the final rule as signed by the Acting Attorney General, but the official version of the final rule will be as it is published in the Federal Register.

 

[batoncolle]

I didn't read any of MACs post. He annoys me. I admittedly jumped in this thread when the conversation turned to bumpstocks, it interests me more.

But since you cried that you wanted to talk about Trump's EO then **** it I'm all ears. Since you know so much about this EO then I would think you could link it, or copy and paste the text of it here.

But nah, you just want to do as usual and attempt some homo battle of wits with me. Either post the the damn EO or quit crying about it. Until you do im gonna continue trolling.

No homo, but trigger much??? Take the time to read the letter, and then we'll talk. Here I'll even be nice and link that for you, even though it was linked on the first page. https://comms.wiley.law/8/3583/octo....asp?sid=a452ea75-2271-421a-8974-669a79e41dc6

Oh and the bump stock ban thread is thataway https://www.theoutdoorstrader.com/threads/status-of-bump-stocks.1922322/, but it's easy to see why it interests you more than this topic...

 

[Fatal_Bert]

No homo, but trigger much??? Take the time to read the letter, and then we'll talk. Here I'll even be nice and link that for you, even though it was linked on the first page. https://comms.wiley.law/8/3583/octo....asp?sid=a452ea75-2271-421a-8974-669a79e41dc6

Oh and the bump stock ban thread is thataway https://www.theoutdoorstrader.com/threads/status-of-bump-stocks.1922322/, but it's easy to see why it interests you more than this topic...

I don't care about the letter. I want to know what part of the executive order prohibits the ATF from doing what they are doing. You made that claim, I never argued it wasn't true, but you fail to back it up.

The letter mentions the EO, but doesn't have any of it's text in it.