Bump Stock announcement
90 days to destroy or turn them in...
https://www.turnto23.com/news/national/trump-to-announce-federal-ban-on-bump-stocks-soon-report-says
https://www.turnto23.com/news/national/trump-to-announce-federal-ban-on-bump-stocks-soon-report-says
0
-
"The Trump administration plans to announce the long-anticipated federal rule officially banning bump stocks in the coming days, according to US officials familiar with the matter.
Bump stocks gained national attention last year after a gunman in Las Vegas rigged his weapons with the devices to fire on concertgoers, killing 58 people. President Donald Trump vowed to outlaw the devices soon after the tragedy, and some lawmakers on Capitol Hill urged him to back a permanent legislative fix.
But opposition from lawmakers and the National Rifle Association ultimately made a regulatory change the only realistic path forward to accomplishing the President's goal.
The devices make it easier to fire rounds from a semi-automatic weapon by harnessing the gun's recoil to "bump" the trigger faster -- an operation that caused officials at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives during the Obama administration to conclude that it's merely a gun accessory or firearm part, not subject to federal regulation.
At Trump's direction, however, the Justice Department submitted a proposed final rule earlier this year that upended the Obama-era interpretation, and concluded that bump-fire stocks, "slide-fire" devices, and devices with certain similar characteristics all fall within the prohibition on machine guns by allowing a "shooter of a semiautomatic firearm to initiate a continuous firing cycle with a single pull of the trigger," and therefore, they are illegal under federal law.
Under the new rule, bump stock owners would be required to destroy or surrender the devices to authorities. Members of the public will be given 90 days to turn in or otherwise discard their bump stocks, according to a source familiar with the final rule.
"Bump stocks turn semiautomatic guns into illegal machine guns. This final rule sends a clear message: Illegal guns have no place in a law-and-order society, and we will continue to vigorously enforce the law to keep these illegal weapons off the street," a senior Justice Department official told CNN Wednesday.
Republican lawmakers, who are typically opposed to federal agencies writing regulations to accomplish what Congress hasn't directly legislated, had insisted that the Justice Department and ATF write a new regulation. Whereas some Democrats, such as Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, have repeatedly cautioned that such a ban would likely result in lawsuits given ATF's earlier interpretation.
ATF Acting Director Thomas Brandon acknowledged in a Senate hearing this summer that he has been advised that banning bump fire stocks through executive regulation could lead to court challenges that would delay the implementation of a ban.
Trump said last month he told the NRA "bump stocks are gone," but how the group responds to the final rule remains to be seen. A spokesperson for the NRA said in October 2017 that the ATF "should review bump-fire stocks to ensure they comply with federal law," but made clear it opposed the broader gun-control legislation raised by some in Congress."
Yea,.....he's playing them like a fiddle for sure. I guess this means we're winning again??0 -
quote:Originally posted by 35 Whelen
Do I need to relinquish my thumbs and belt loops as well?[}:)]
Maybe.. Rumor has it they are going to quit making Fruit Loops..0 -
no politician or rich person that gets in politics will protect our rights like we the people 0 -
quote:Originally posted by us55840
quote:Originally posted by select-fire
90 days to destroy or turn them in...
https://www.turnto23.com/news/national/trump-to-announce-federal-ban-on-bump-stocks-soon-report-says
Without reading any of the comments posted, I found this elsewhere on the web about the subject:
"Aren?t ex post facto laws unconstitutional (under Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3)? Isn?t Big Brother expressly forbidden to seize property without compensation under the Fifth Amendment?"
Any see this ending up before the Supreme Court?
[?]
Are you suggesting that what is written in the Constitution matters anymore with regard to firearms?
That ship sailed long ago.
To your questions/statements:
If this is implemented, particularly because of previous decisions specifically accepting bump-stocks as legal, I would think that compensation would be necessary.
The fifth amendment, however, may not apply other than the due process of law aspect. One should not that the compensation portion refers to property that is taken for public use, and is not, at least grammatically tied to property taken after due process has been served.
The article 1, Section 9 reference has already been obliterated by the NFA and FOPA. Select and Full Auto weapons can be seized without compensation if a person has one that is not registered. No compensation provided or, apparently, required.
There should be a Constitutional challenge, but if all it does is end up compensating those who bought these things, it will be a fairly weak and meaningless challenge WRT individual liberty. Bottom line is that if a compensation program was introduced, it would go a long way towards pacify a large percentage of those who may otherwise object to this affront to the 2nd.
We see in this thread how there are those (or should I say at least one) who is perfectly accepting of this actions so long has his ox is not gored.0 -
In my view, the NRA is correct.
It should be obvious to even the most bone-headed wingnut that a bump stock is nothing more than a machine gun wannabe device, bought by those who want to shoot full auto but aren't willing to obey the law that allows owning one.
Therefore, bump stocks ought to be viewed as what they pretend to be: a full auto device. Rather than banning, however, they ought to simply be put under the definition of a Class 3 device. You can own one if you go through the hoops. That's precisely what the NRA says.
That is neither an anti 2nd Amendment stance, nor a pro gun control one. It just a statement of the obvious.
Flame suit on. I don't give a rat's what a bone-headed wingnut says.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Rocky Raab
In my view, the NRA is correct.
It should be obvious to even the most bone-headed wingnut that a bump stock is nothing more than a machine gun wannabe device, bought by those who want to shoot full auto but aren't willing to obey the law that allows owning one.
Therefore, bump stocks ought to be viewed as what they pretend to be: a full auto device. Rather than banning, however, they ought to simply be put under the definition of a Class 3 device. You can own one if you go through the hoops. That's precisely what the NRA says.
That is neither an anti 2nd Amendment stance, nor a pro gun control one. It just a statement of the obvious.
Flame suit on. I don't give a rat's what a bone-headed wingnut says.
excellent point
I agree0 -
quote:Originally posted by Rocky Raab
In my view, the NRA is correct.
It should be obvious to even the most bone-headed wingnut that a bump stock is nothing more than a machine gun wannabe device, bought by those who want to shoot full auto but aren't willing to obey the law that allows owning one.
Therefore, bump stocks ought to be viewed as what they pretend to be: a full auto device. Rather than banning, however, they ought to simply be put under the definition of a Class 3 device. You can own one if you go through the hoops. That's precisely what the NRA says.
That is neither an anti 2nd Amendment stance, nor a pro gun control one. It just a statement of the obvious.
Flame suit on. I don't give a rat's what a bone-headed wingnut says.
If one agrees to the ban on machine guns, I guess you have a point, but to suggest the ban on new machine guns is not an anti-2nd Amendment stance and is not a pro gun control stance is rather odd.
As we continue down these anti-2nd Amendment and pro Gun Control paths, we find that the 1986 Firearm Owners Protection Act states:
(o)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), it shall be unlawful for any person to transfer or possess a machinegun.
(2) This subsection does not apply with respect to? (A) a transfer to or by, or possession by or under the authority of, the United States or any department or agency thereof or a State, or a department, agency, or political subdivision thereof; or
(B) any lawful transfer or lawful possession of a machinegun that was lawfully possessed before the date this subsection takes effect.
Bump stocks, if we view them as what they pretend to be, are illegal absent modification of the FOPA of 1986.
This is what happens, Rocky, when we make this crap up as we go, and ignore the basic law of the land as it is written.
If we really want to give Government this power, lets do it correctly, and amend the Constitution to give specific and limited power to government to infringe upon what was the 2nd Amendment. If, however, we want to allow governments to pick apart our rights and liberties, we will end up with nothing.
I don't personally give a damn about bump stocks. What I do give a damn about is this country is rapidly moving from a system where limits upon government exist, to a system where the whim of the majority can be imposed upon whomever that majority wishes to control.0 -
Yes but that old 1986 MG act will come in to play..no new ones.. 0 -
BATFE has already ruled they don't make a gun full auto. So, any ban on them would require a new definition of full auto. This is going to get fun! 0 -
I would think interesting rather than fun, Mr. P.
https://www.atf.gov/file/58146/download
From the link, the NFA defines machine gun 'to include any combination of parts designed and intended for use in converting a weapon to shoot automatically more than on shot without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger'.
While Rocky Raab is 100% correct that the bump-stock is specifically designed to get around this definition, the point is that the design actually has gotten around this definition and while it simulates the effect, it requires a function of the trigger for each and every shot fired and is thus not a machine gun under the existing definition.
As you point out, the Obama DOJ got it right and the Trump DOH, um, DOJ has gotten it wrong.
IMO, this is not an Executive Branch decision. The NFA was passed by Congress and signed by FDR. Any changes, additions, or (I can wish) subtractions from the NFA should go through Congress, not the DOJ.0 -
Page 2 0 -
When Uh the BATFE makes a decision..that is it ! Done it with the street sweepers.. I suspect nothing will be done by a bunch of folks or the NRA when the ruling comes out. Anyone after the time will most likely just get a 10k dollar fine for the 150 dollar item. 0 -
It's going to be interesting fun. 0 -
I would almost bet... they will make an example on the national news... when the period ends for surrender. Or someone will get caught going rat tat tat at a gun range by a local cop. Just wait.. every once in a while they will make news. 0 -
Why would I worry about any possible bans, bump stock or otherwise, when there appear to be enough people here that would gladly hand over such things without much, if any, prompting, and with a smile on their faces at that?
I've said it before, but it bears repeating. Gun owners truly are their own worst enemy. No need to watch Looney Tunes reruns, when there are plenty of Fudds in the real world.[V][}:)]0 -
quote:Originally posted by 35 Whelen
Why would I worry about any possible bans, bump stock or otherwise, when there appear to be enough people here that would gladly hand over such things without much, if any, prompting, and with a smile on their faces at that?
I've said it before, but it bears repeating. Gun owners truly are their own worst enemy. No need to watch Looney Tunes reruns, when there are plenty of Fudds in the real world.[V][}:)]
Amen, Kit.0 -
quote:Originally posted by 35 Whelen
Why would I worry about any possible bans, bump stock or otherwise, when there appear to be enough people here that would gladly hand over such things without much, if any, prompting, and with a smile on their faces at that?
I've said it before, but it bears repeating. Gun owners truly are their own worst enemy. No need to watch Looney Tunes reruns, when there are plenty of Fudds in the real world.[V][}:)]
+1000
Plenty of them here for sure.0 -
quote:Originally posted by 35 Whelen
Why would I worry about any possible bans, bump stock or otherwise, when there appear to be enough people here that would gladly hand over such things without much, if any, prompting, and with a smile on their faces at that?
I've said it before, but it bears repeating. Gun owners truly are their own worst enemy. No need to watch Looney Tunes reruns, when there are plenty of Fudds in the real world.[V][}:)]
You got that right..Plenty of wanna be full auto..0 -
quote:Originally posted by select-fire
quote:Originally posted by 35 Whelen
Why would I worry about any possible bans, bump stock or otherwise, when there appear to be enough people here that would gladly hand over such things without much, if any, prompting, and with a smile on their faces at that?
I've said it before, but it bears repeating. Gun owners truly are their own worst enemy. No need to watch Looney Tunes reruns, when there are plenty of Fudds in the real world.[V][}:)]
You got that right..Plenty of wanna be full auto..
Not what I meant at all, but I gather that you aren't a fan of bump stocks because you own the real deal? Me? Well, I'd much prefer the option of owning both, and have a hard time figuring out how and why one nutjob gets the opportunity to decide what the rest of us get to own, even after they are dead and gone, and are expected to share in the responsibility. All I can offer is "no thanks".
Something else that bears repeating is the fact that I don't care what you own, as far as firearms are concerned.
The other (wrong) side of the gun argument doesn't have to worry about the proverbial death by a thousand cuts (bump stocks), or cutting our throats by banning everything outright. We'll cut our own throats with our own knives, then question the darkness after.
No thanks.[:)]0 -
It was awfully nice of the WH to wait until after the Nov. election cycle to announce this. 0 -
Timing 0 -
plastic dont rust ,,there is a guy on the other side 3d printing them[:0] 0 -
quote:Originally posted by fordsix
plastic dont rust ,,there is a guy on the other side 3d printing them[:0]
You can also bury it in the ground until you "need" it. In case of the zombie apocalypse, I mean. [:D]0 -
quote:Originally posted by fordsix
plastic dont rust ,,there is a guy on the other side 3d printing them[:0]
As there should be.0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
54 comments