• ODT Gun Show & Swap Meet - May 4, 2024! - Click here for info

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

So protect bump stocks by destroying bump stocks.

Trump’s screw up stopped nothing. Florida and Massachusetts had already banned them months prior and the only reason he didn’t get to sign legislation into law following suit was the legislation couldn’t get through the house and senate. If it could have, the executive order wouldn’t have been needed.
Garan****ingtee you Trump would have signed a "bump stock ban bill" Hell, he'd have been hugely proud to sign an AWB.
 
Garan****ingtee you Trump would have signed a "bump stock ban bill" Hell, he'd have been hugely proud to sign an AWB.
1673310483494.png
 
Garan****ingtee you Trump would have signed a "bump stock ban bill" Hell, he'd have been hugely proud to sign an AWB.


Absolutely he would have. We would have a group of members here telling us that he scrapped the entire 2nd amendment to protect our 2nd amendment rights.


He’d run over your dog to prevent ATF from shooting it when they raid you.


You’re welcome.
 
Garan****ingtee you Trump would have signed a "bump stock ban bill" Hell, he'd have been hugely proud to sign an AWB.


Yes sir he would have and I would bitch slap pelosi live on tv the first chance she got close enough to me. A vote for Glock 21 is a vote for freedom. I won’t just drain the swamp I’ll blow that **** up like a beaver dam:peace:
 
Just commenting here to state how insane it is that so many grown ass men have been brain washed into thinking rapid fire isn't a necessary feature for guns. Like the kool-aid really has you fudds braindead now. Guess we should write up a memo for military and LEO as to why semi auto is the true way. /s
 
Anyone who thinks a FL-type law wouldn't have flown through Congress has a lot more faith in the GOP than I do, and the Dems would have been ecstatic to pass any kind of gun control at all.

And I agree that Trump would probably have signed it. But even if he didn't his veto would have been overridden.

I doubt we'll ever know the back room politics but I truly believe this is a case where the NRA suggested this as a compromise so he wouldn't go down as having signed a gun control bill, or force a lot of 'pro gun' GOPers to do the same.

The actions here speak louder than words, just like it's obvious the Hughes Amendment was the price the NRA negotiated to get FOPA passed.

So, is ATF gonna refund all the folks that had to destroy theirs? Rhetorical question. Of course not. But, it would be nice if they have to feel some pain for making arbitrary laws that won't hold up in court.

There is a case based on the 'takings' clause of the Constitution. To me it seems an obvious example of illegal takings but so far none of the courts that have heard it agreed, and if I remember SCOTUS turned it down for review.

As you say, it would set a great precedent and help hold almost any government agency more accountable.

The dollar value for bump stocks was pretty low because there weren't all that many out there. But this new brace rule would be a much more expensive issue if there was a precedent to rely on.
 
Back
Top Bottom