Bump for update: US appeals court blocks ban on rapid-fire ‘bump stocks’

[GAgunLAWbooklet]

But, I fear that this ruling, could cause the lefties to demand a revamp of the NFA. If they do, they might ban silencers short-barreled rifles and short shotguns the way the banned machine guns in 1986 and ended the legal registration process for any new ones.

Grandfather the existing ones, and watch their value skyrocket --so they don't get used much and end up being locked in heavy duty safes in the hands of wealthy gun collectors.

I don't want Congress, given the current political environment...

(and when I say current I'm talking over the last 30 years of the past and looking ahead 30 years into the future)

...screwing with federal legislation on NFA type firearms. They can make things a hell of a lot worse overall than things are now and I'm not talking about just bump fire stocks, or 80% complete ghost gun frames, or 95% complete silencer kits called "solvent traps."

 

[BobbyJack]

But, I fear that this ruling, could cause the lefties to demand a revamp of the NFA. If they do, they might ban silencers short-barreled rifles and short shotguns the way the banned machine guns in 1986 and ended the legal registration process for any new ones..
I don't want Congress, given the current political environment...
.. They can make things a hell of a lot worse overall than things are now and I'm not talking about just bump fire stocks, or 80% complete ghost gun frames, or 95% complete silencer kits called "solvent traps."

What?
.
Im not sure I can follow that logic?
so, something that would be good, is also (you fear) possibly bad?

so maybe we should keep the bad, in fear that its being reversed to good, could be motivation back to bad and maybe even become worse?

Ya know that’s some very deep thinking…i’m gonna need a minute,…
.
.

ok. So, .. I think I got it now,
Anything that is turned from bad to good.… is actually a bad thing,… because it could become even worse?
So we are better off to just keep the bad and be glad it’s not worse?
.
Is that it?
.

 

[Bear44]

What?
.
Im not sure I can follow that logic?
so, something that would be good, is also (you fear) possibly bad?

so maybe we should keep the bad, in fear that its being reversed to good, could be motivation back to bad and maybe even become worse?

Ya know that’s some very deep thinking…i’m gonna need a minute,…
.
.

ok. So, .. I think I got it now,
Anything that is turned from bad to good.… is actually a bad thing,… because it could become even worse?
So we are better off to just keep the bad and be glad it’s not worse?
.
Is that it?
.

Many years ago I trained the then Governor Miller's dogs. I got to know him as I did the follow up lessons with him and at one point we talked about possible certification for dog training in Georgia. I brought it up because there are a lot of "trainers" out there that are clueless and people end up getting rid of their dog thinking it cannot be trained because an incompetent trainer failed with it.

Wise man that Governor Miller was, he advised against it because there would be no way of making sure the people creating the certification standard would be competent themselves and it would actually be highly likely they would not be because there would be political considerations involved rather that just what's best for the dogs.

The point is that once you open up anything to do with government regulation it's impossible to tell which way it will fall and there is a strong likelihood it wont go the way you meant it to.

Before we start messing with the NFA we better make damn sure we have the right people in place to make sure the results goes our way. We most definitely do not have that now. So yeah, for right now maybe we leave well enough alone.

 

[StuP]

What?
.
Im not sure I can follow that logic?
so, something that would be good, is also (you fear) possibly bad?

so maybe we should keep the bad, in fear that its being reversed to good, could be motivation back to bad and maybe even become worse?

Ya know that’s some very deep thinking…i’m gonna need a minute,…
.
.

ok. So, .. I think I got it now,
Anything that is turned from bad to good.… is actually a bad thing,… because it could become even worse?
So we are better off to just keep the bad and be glad it’s not worse?
.
Is that it?
.

I think the point is that new legislation regarding the NFA could well turn out to be far more restrictive. No future transfers, outright bans on SBR, silencers, binary triggers, who knows ?

Like it or not, while many people support ownership of "conventional" pistols and rifles, the proportion who think anyone should be able to buy a sub gun over the counter is far smaller.

It's far easier for politicians to ban things so they can say they've done something rather than addressing the real problems related to the violence in our society.

 

[Mrs_Esterhouse]

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

Are they legal nationally or just in that circuit?

 

[spencer60]

Trump and the NRA recommended a regulatory approach rather than letting Congress run wild after the Las Vegas shooting.

If you want to see why, just take a look at Florida's ridiculous law about 'rate limiting' and imagine that on a national scale.

The bump-stock ban was simply a narrowly targeted way to short circuit knee-jerk legislation that would (not could, WOULD) have been far worse and affected all gun owners.

The good news is that it really was done illegally. Even though it's taken years, with the now mixed decisions in various circuits we may get a good SCOTUS ruling on overreach out of this.

I'd love to see them address the 'takings' issue here as well. But so far they haven't heard any of those cases.

 

[Gingerbeard Man]

What?
.
Im not sure I can follow that logic?
so, something that would be good, is also (you fear) possibly bad?

so maybe we should keep the bad, in fear that its being reversed to good, could be motivation back to bad and maybe even become worse?

Ya know that’s some very deep thinking…i’m gonna need a minute,…
.
.

ok. So, .. I think I got it now,
Anything that is turned from bad to good.… is actually a bad thing,… because it could become even worse?
So we are better off to just keep the bad and be glad it’s not worse?
.
Is that it?
.

I think what you’re taking away from his statement is correct…in a way. It’s not that he wants it to be that way - none of us here do. But it puts the subject in the media toilet bowl and gives it exposure to those that would otherwise not be paying attention. Which is good and bad because that means that far left leaning audience will make a lot of noise "for change" where we just want it left the **** alone.

The good thing is that same exposure also catches the attention of the 2A friendly attorneys and groups that seem to be making noise, the right way.

So is it good or bad? The answer is yes. But I'll default to good because it also brings new people into the pro 2A fold, including converts from the other side.

 

[spencer60]

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

Ate they legal nationally of just in that circuit?

I doubt they are still legal anywhere, even after this ruling. As far as I know one guy out West still legally has his while his case proceeds, but that's it.

Even if SCOTUS decides that the ban is unconstitutional the ATF has other ways to make bump stocks unattractive. I never understood why they didn't require SlideFire to incorporate some kind of mechanism that would require a reset after each shot.

After all, the stated purpose was to allow disabled vets to hunt. Putting a latch that required you to pull the stock back and then forward again to prevent bump-firing would have been a simple request and consistent with their stated purpose.

Even if this is overturned it will be more about regulatory overreach than allowing bump-stocks back on the market. You can be sure that the ATF won't make the same mistake again.

 

[outlaw1961]

The US Supreme Court stated back in Nov 2022 that they would not hear the case on bump fire stocks. They referred to the lower court that upheld the ban. Now my question is since another district federal court just ruled the ban is unconstitutiona, will this force the Suoreme Court to finally hear it or will they let the latest ruling stand?

 

[aFarewellToKings]

Trump and the NRA recommended a regulatory approach rather than letting Congress run wild after the Las Vegas shooting.

If you want to see why, just take a look at Florida's ridiculous law about 'rate limiting' and imagine that on a national scale.

The bump-stock ban was simply a narrowly targeted way to short circuit knee-jerk legislation that would (not could, WOULD) have been far worse and affected all gun owners.

The good news is that it really was done illegally. Even though it's taken years, with the now mixed decisions in various circuits we may get a good SCOTUS ruling on overreach out of this.

I'd love to see them address the 'takings' issue here as well. But so far they haven't heard any of those cases.

5-d Chess!