Status of Bump Stocks

[nSquared]

But that's just it. There is nothing to stop Trump or another POTUS from 'banning' something by executive fiat. Simply direct the interim ATF director to re interpret a rule. Easy peasy Japanesey. The Elmers and statist bootlicks will go along, as usual.

Yeah, that’s what so many don’t get. There’s no due process. No grandfathering. No buyback.

Complete circumvention of due process via wrongful redefining of what makes a machine gun a machine gun. What’s to stop them later from banning all semi-auto’s? A simple belt loop or rubber band turns your black semi-auto sporting rifle, into a blood thirsty, full-auto, mass murder device.

That’s just too much power to be in the hands of common folk.

 

[batoncolle]

I don't always agree with GAgunLAWbooklet on his philosophical opines, but on this one he is spot on. Look at what just happened with New Zealand and it's overbroad ban of semi-automatic weapons.

Listen to any politicians discuss guns for more than about 1 minute and you will be overwhelmed by their ignorance.

BATFE has it's faults, but it is full of technical experts, and if a ban is inevitable, I want them writing the regs, not the fools in Congress.

I'm pretty staunch in my 2nd Amendment approach, but I'm not going to the barricades to defend something that appears to mostly suited to 20's somethings making YouTube videos.


If Congress ever attempts to amend the NFA, we will be screwed.

Frankly, the argument about whether a bump stocks makes a gun automatic or not reminds me of the medieval arguments about how many angels could dance on the point of a needle, (or who is the greatest NFL quarterback, or is Ty Cobb the greatest baseball player of all time). It's interesting conversation over beer and wings, but at the end of the day, the argument doesn't resolve anything.

And yet under Obama the ATF rightfully said they could take no action on bump stocks, and it was up to Congress. “ATF does not have the authority to restrict their lawful possession, use, or transfer.”

But hey let's not let a pesky little thing like the Constitution get in our way. Let's just get rid of Congress and have unelected agencies write all our laws as some of you suggest. I mean after all it's your feelz that matter most here...

 

[palmettomoon]

And yet under Obama the ATF rightfully said they could take no action on bump stocks, and it was up to Congress. “ATF does not have the authority to restrict their lawful possession, use, or transfer.”

But hey let's not let a pesky little thing like the Constitution get in our way. Let's just get rid of Congress and have unelected agencies write all our laws as some of you suggest. I mean after all it's your feelz that matter most here...

who needs the Constitution when you have MAGA?

 

[batoncolle]

who needs the Constitution when you have MAGA?

Well there's that, plus the "barricade" is too high to climb.

Generally when someones says I am "______", BUT "______" - they ain't...

 

[Fatal_Bert]

If I'm understanding some people right, we have to enact a little gun control on ourselves to keep the Dems from enacting more on us? Are people really this stupid?

 

[2canSam]

 

[gh1950]

But hey let's not let a pesky little thing like the Constitution get in our way. Let's just get rid of Congress and have unelected agencies write all our laws as some of you suggest. I mean after all it's your feelz that matter most here...

BATF is the agency that defined 3 pieces of metal (I think that's the right number) that are not even attached to a gun, and incapable of firing anything, as a machine gun, the possession of which is a federal crime.

BATF is the agency that defines a hole at one certain spot on an AR-15 lower as a machine gun. You can drill holes all over the thing except in that one little spot, and be o.k.

BATF defined a shotgun with a fixed magazine as something (I forget the exact classification,"destructive devce"?) illegal, but a shotgun with a removable magazine is good to go. Bye Bye Street Sweeper, hello Saiga.

Everyone on this forum has managed to live under the heavy yoke of those regulations for years.

In none of those instances, including bump stocks, is any great Constitutional issue involved.

In fact, were I called up to assert the affirmitive in a formal debate, I would point that ARs, Aks, Fns, and so on are readily available in legal pistol versions, the bump stock is clearly not necessary for the proper operation of the weapon, and therefore there is no infringement of the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms, no more than the restrictions on barrel length.

 

[The Old Jaybird]

So in an effort to be consistent... how is this any different from California refusing to enforce Federal immigration laws?

While I like to see us stick it to the other side once in awhile with their own medicine, in reality we are doing exactly what we ***** at them for doing... we sink to their level...

Substantially different. Missouri is taking the position that it will not enforce any law that is in violation of the Second Amendment, and has instructed its law enforcement agencies to non-comply. Difference is a Constitutionally guaranteed right, versus a law passed by Congress.

 

[batoncolle]

BATF is the agency that defined 3 pieces of metal (I think that's the right number) that are not even attached to a gun, and incapable of firing anything, as a machine gun, the possession of which is a federal crime.

BATF is the agency that defines a hole at one certain spot on an AR-15 lower as a machine gun. You can drill holes all over the thing except in that one little spot, and be o.k.

BATF defined a shotgun with a fixed magazine as something (I forget the exact classification,"destructive devce"?) illegal, but a shotgun with a removable magazine is good to go. Bye Bye Street Sweeper, hello Saiga.

Everyone on this forum has managed to live under the heavy yoke of those regulations for years.

In none of those instances, including bump stocks, is any great Constitutional issue involved.

In fact, were I called up to assert the affirmitive in a formal debate, I would point that ARs, Aks, Fns, and so on are readily available in legal pistol versions, the bump stock is clearly not necessary for the proper operation of the weapon, and therefore there is no infringement of the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms, no more than the restrictions on barrel length.

And all are Unconstitutional as is the NFA.

But in the case of bump stocks, it goes beyond the examples you cited because no matter how much anyone tries to stretch it or justify it, they simply do not fit the legally defined definition of a MG. That is why they have been repeatedly approved and twice under Obama the ATF said they could do nothing about it. It was up to Congress to do it. It requires amending law or writing a new law.

And your last sentence clearly demonstrates that you have no idea what infringement on 2A is.

 

[MegaFan]

Texas company destroys 60,000 bump stocks

Wednesday, Fort Worth based RW Arms destroyed around 60,000 bump stocks under the supervision of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives agents. The retailer acquired the remaining inventory of Slide Fire Solutions after they closed their doors last year as the federal government pursued a ban on the devices. Footage showed truckload after truckload of cardboard boxes containing the stocks spill onto a conveyor belt, that then pulled them into an industrial crusher where they were pulverized into debris.

Looks like some escaped... guess the ATF was there to pick up any that didn't make it into the hopper!!