Did the NRA Stand Down
on Bumpy Stocks.. And what do they mean by regulation?
0
-
The ban was not done through as law passed by the Congress; it was dome by the ATF regulating bump stocks, much like the 1989 Bush ban on imported assault rifles. Bush wanted AW's banned so he charged the BATF with making assault weapons fall outside the classification of legally importable"sporting arms", which they did. Trump wants a ban on bump stocks, so the BATF made them fit into existing laws on machineguns. The legal challenge will be whether or not the BATF has the authority to ban firearms accessories like bump stocks which, unlike Drop In Auto Sears, are not firearms parts. 0 -
My reading was that they modified the firearm with a part built past 1986. Question is whether the two big lobby companies will stand together or apart at the hearing. That could be a mess if they argue against one another or take a govt. side. Should be interesting. 0 -
We (and the NRA, GOA, etc) have to ask ourselves the old Marine question: Is this the hill we are willing to die for?
How hard do we fight for an accessory that few people own, has limited practicality, and is in no way vital to 2ndA interests?0 -
quote:Originally posted by Rocky Raab
We (and the NRA, GOA, etc) have to ask ourselves the old Marine question: Is this the hill we are willing to die for?
How hard do we fight for an accessory that few people own, has limited practicality, and is in no way vital to 2ndA interests?
I disagree. This ban / change / whatever is just another step. They continually keep chipping away little pieces until it'll be an easy nudge to take it all away. Give me an inch...
I don't own one, but I completely disagree that an accessory can change the action on a firearm. Still one pull, one bang. This does not convert a semi to a full...0 -
quote:Originally posted by Rocky Raab
We (and the NRA, GOA, etc) have to ask ourselves the old Marine question: Is this the hill we are willing to die for?
How hard do we fight for an accessory that few people own, has limited practicality, and is in no way vital to 2ndA interests?
Definitely think those things should be considered. My opinion, a "bump stock" should never have been allowed as a legal accessory and NO ONE would have thought twice about not having one.0 -
quote:Originally posted by droptop
quote:Originally posted by Rocky Raab
We (and the NRA, GOA, etc) have to ask ourselves the old Marine question: Is this the hill we are willing to die for?
How hard do we fight for an accessory that few people own, has limited practicality, and is in no way vital to 2ndA interests?
Definitely think those things should be considered. My opinion, a "bump stock" should never have been allowed as a legal accessory and NO ONE would have thought twice about not having one.
There's that Fudd stuff again!0 -
After this they can ban the rest of your accessories by decree. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by Beeramid
After this they can ban the rest of your accessories by decree.
Exactly! A very bad precedent.0 -
How minor a law do you want to spend millions of legal defense dollars on? How hard would you fight a law banning pink polka dot grips for Howdah pistols? Or fur Speedo holsters?
Get real. The loss of bump stocks will affect nobody.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Rocky Raab
How minor a law do you want to spend millions of legal defense dollars on? How hard would you fight a law banning pink polka dot grips for Howdah pistols? Or fur Speedo holsters?
Get real. The loss of bump stocks will affect nobody.
Right up until they ban something you do care about by decree.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Beeramid
quote:Originally posted by droptop
quote:Originally posted by Rocky Raab
We (and the NRA, GOA, etc) have to ask ourselves the old Marine question: Is this the hill we are willing to die for?
How hard do we fight for an accessory that few people own, has limited practicality, and is in no way vital to 2ndA interests?
Definitely think those things should be considered. My opinion, a "bump stock" should never have been allowed as a legal accessory and NO ONE would have thought twice about not having one.
There's that Fudd stuff again!
Indeed. Plenty to go around.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by Beeramid
quote:Originally posted by droptop
quote:Originally posted by Rocky Raab
We (and the NRA, GOA, etc) have to ask ourselves the old Marine question: Is this the hill we are willing to die for?
How hard do we fight for an accessory that few people own, has limited practicality, and is in no way vital to 2ndA interests?
Definitely think those things should be considered. My opinion, a "bump stock" should never have been allowed as a legal accessory and NO ONE would have thought twice about not having one.
There's that Fudd stuff again!
Indeed. Plenty to go around.
Big problem is the gun folks will have a split opinion even in the court room. When it isn't full steam ahead the boat will steer off course. Even the NRA GOA will not agree what to do.0 -
This ban is blood in the water for the gun grabbing sharks.
What?s next?0 -
The National Firearms Act, 26 U.S.C. 5845(b), defines a machine gun to include any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.
https://www.atf.gov/file/58146/download
Please note that the definition of a Machine Gun does not mention the single function of the trigger finger. It specifically states 'a single function of the trigger'.
Picking at straws?
Semantics?
No. This ruling as pushed by President Trump is a bureaucratic re-definition of the NFA.
There is no way a Bump Stock equipped firearm comes even close to meeting this definition.
Just as we currently have 1,000s of laws on the books that should, in an honest world require an Amendment that modifies the second, this restriction should require the changing of the NFA.
Tin-pot Dictatorships change laws like this, but a Constitutional Republic should not.
Really don't give a rat's ass whether someone thinks this won't hurt anybody or not.
Banning 10 round or greater magazines probably wouldn't affect anyone either.
Many would say banning semi-auto rifles wouldn't affect anyone.
Is that our standard now - that it will affect nobody?
Why bother with a Constitution?0 -
no body ?
how about the tens of thousands ( unknown how many have sold ) who bought one legal now have to just toss there money out the window or the factory and people who made them just lost a product to make
sure its just a bump stock then next will be the "better" triggers to allow faster and more accurate shooting , then just keep chipping away one part at a time magazines over 10 rounds declared illegal toss all you have . scopes they allow you to be more accurate . toss them
same old same old .. like the old . story fist they came for the Jewish I did not care and so on until....... then they came for me .
one nut job uses a bump stock and millions of legal gun owners suffer sure sounds fair to me .
with that line of thinking every time a gun is used ban all of the same one's like it or based on it so it can never hurt any one again
quote:Originally posted by Rocky Raab
How minor a law do you want to spend millions of legal defense dollars on? How hard would you fight a law banning pink polka dot grips for Howdah pistols? Or fur Speedo holsters?
Get real. The loss of bump stocks will affect nobody.0 -
quote:Originally posted by jimdeere
This ban is blood in the water for the gun grabbing sharks.
What?s next?
That is a $100 question. Most likely what ever they deem unsafe for public use.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
The National Firearms Act, 26 U.S.C. 5845(b), defines a machine gun to include any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.
https://www.atf.gov/file/58146/download
Please note that the definition of a Machine Gun does not mention the single function of the trigger finger. It specifically states 'a single function of the trigger'.
Picking at straw?
Semantics?
No. This ruling a pushed by President Trump is a bureaucratic re-definition of the NFA.
There is no way a Bump Stock equipped firearm comes even close to meeting this definition.
Just as we currently have 1,000s of laws on the books that should, in an honest world require an Amendment that modifies the second, this restriction should require the changing of the NFA.
Tin-pot Dictatorships change laws like this, but a Constitutional Republic should not.
Really don't give a rat's ass whether someone thinks this won't hurt anybody or not.
Banning 10 round or greater magazines probably wouldn't affect anyone either.
Many would say banning semi-auto rifles wouldn't affect anyone.
Is that our standard now - that it will affect nobody?
Why bother with a Constitution?
That add on accessory is post 86 that makes the gun fire like a machine gun.0 -
may establish a legal precedent to ban any little thing that bolts on that political correctness decrees EVIL 0 -
My question is did the NRA go hog wild to defend this ? Or is the Judge going to look around and ask Where is the NRA? 0 -
quote:Originally posted by select-fire
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
The National Firearms Act, 26 U.S.C. 5845(b), defines a machine gun to include any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.
https://www.atf.gov/file/58146/download
Please note that the definition of a Machine Gun does not mention the single function of the trigger finger. It specifically states 'a single function of the trigger'.
Picking at straw?
Semantics?
No. This ruling a pushed by President Trump is a bureaucratic re-definition of the NFA.
There is no way a Bump Stock equipped firearm comes even close to meeting this definition.
Just as we currently have 1,000s of laws on the books that should, in an honest world require an Amendment that modifies the second, this restriction should require the changing of the NFA.
Tin-pot Dictatorships change laws like this, but a Constitutional Republic should not.
Really don't give a rat's ass whether someone thinks this won't hurt anybody or not.
Banning 10 round or greater magazines probably wouldn't affect anyone either.
Many would say banning semi-auto rifles wouldn't affect anyone.
Is that our standard now - that it will affect nobody?
Why bother with a Constitution?
That add on accessory is post 86 that makes the gun fire like a machine gun.
Not according to the NFA definition of a machine gun.
What happens when 60% of the people in this country believe that a quick trigger finger makes a standard AR 'fire like a machine gun'?0 -
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
The National Firearms Act, 26 U.S.C. 5845(b), defines a machine gun to include any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.
https://www.atf.gov/file/58146/download
Please note that the definition of a Machine Gun does not mention the single function of the trigger finger. It specifically states 'a single function of the trigger'.
Picking at straw?
Semantics?
No. This ruling a pushed by President Trump is a bureaucratic re-definition of the NFA.
There is no way a Bump Stock equipped firearm comes even close to meeting this definition.
Just as we currently have 1,000s of laws on the books that should, in an honest world require an Amendment that modifies the second, this restriction should require the changing of the NFA.
Tin-pot Dictatorships change laws like this, but a Constitutional Republic should not.
Really don't give a rat's ass whether someone thinks this won't hurt anybody or not.
Banning 10 round or greater magazines probably wouldn't affect anyone either.
Many would say banning semi-auto rifles wouldn't affect anyone.
Is that our standard now - that it will affect nobody?
Why bother with a Constitution?
Why legalize an accessory that can be used to limit your constitutional gun rights. Who ever got ATF approval for this accessory is who helped weaken your gun rights.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by select-fire
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
The National Firearms Act, 26 U.S.C. 5845(b), defines a machine gun to include any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.
https://www.atf.gov/file/58146/download
Please note that the definition of a Machine Gun does not mention the single function of the trigger finger. It specifically states 'a single function of the trigger'.
Picking at straw?
Semantics?
No. This ruling a pushed by President Trump is a bureaucratic re-definition of the NFA.
There is no way a Bump Stock equipped firearm comes even close to meeting this definition.
Just as we currently have 1,000s of laws on the books that should, in an honest world require an Amendment that modifies the second, this restriction should require the changing of the NFA.
Tin-pot Dictatorships change laws like this, but a Constitutional Republic should not.
Really don't give a rat's ass whether someone thinks this won't hurt anybody or not.
Banning 10 round or greater magazines probably wouldn't affect anyone either.
Many would say banning semi-auto rifles wouldn't affect anyone.
Is that our standard now - that it will affect nobody?
Why bother with a Constitution?
That add on accessory is post 86 that makes the gun fire like a machine gun.
Not according to the NFA definition of a machine gun.
What happens when 60% of the people in this country believe that a quick trigger finger makes a standard AR 'fire like a machine gun'?0 -
The NRA doesn't seen excited to defend.. just an observation. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by droptop
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
The National Firearms Act, 26 U.S.C. 5845(b), defines a machine gun to include any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.
https://www.atf.gov/file/58146/download
Please note that the definition of a Machine Gun does not mention the single function of the trigger finger. It specifically states 'a single function of the trigger'.
Picking at straw?
Semantics?
No. This ruling a pushed by President Trump is a bureaucratic re-definition of the NFA.
There is no way a Bump Stock equipped firearm comes even close to meeting this definition.
Just as we currently have 1,000s of laws on the books that should, in an honest world require an Amendment that modifies the second, this restriction should require the changing of the NFA.
Tin-pot Dictatorships change laws like this, but a Constitutional Republic should not.
Really don't give a rat's ass whether someone thinks this won't hurt anybody or not.
Banning 10 round or greater magazines probably wouldn't affect anyone either.
Many would say banning semi-auto rifles wouldn't affect anyone.
Is that our standard now - that it will affect nobody?
Why bother with a Constitution?
Why legalize an accessory that can be used to limit your constitutional gun rights. Who ever got ATF approval for this accessory is who helped weaken your gun rights.
What does that even mean?0 -
How can they demand a person to destroy of turn over to someone anything that was legally owned without just compensation? 0 -
quote:Originally posted by select-fire
The NRA doesn't seen excited to defend.. just an observation.
Excited to defend their stance?
"The NRA believes that devices designed to allow semi-automatic rifles to function like fully-automatic rifles should be subject to additional regulations. "
https://home.nra.org/joint-statement
They have millions of members upset they would do this. Is it any wonder why they have gone crickets on this? Hell even their spokespersons like Colion Noir are upset by their stance.0 -
quote:Originally posted by jimdeere
This ban is blood in the water for the gun grabbing sharks.
What?s next?
Doesn't matter as long as the stuff the Fudds like is left alone, which likely won't be forever either, but they won't give a rat's until then. They sure don't now. Bump stocks are just pieces of plastic that only wingnuts like, anyway.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by select-fire
The NRA doesn't seen excited to defend.. just an observation.
Excited to defend their stance?
"The NRA believes that devices designed to allow semi-automatic rifles to function like fully-automatic rifles should be subject to additional regulations. "
https://home.nra.org/joint-statement
They have millions of members upset they would do this. Is it any wonder why they have gone crickets on this? Hell even their spokespersons like Colion Noir are upset by their stance.
Regulation. Can you see a half of million folks taking them to Class 3 dealers till they are approved by BATF to own them. That could take a lot and I mean a lot of time.331 Million folks in the USA and 5 million NRA and 1.5 Million GOA members. Sorta lopsided. and of those 6.5 million members NOT all will stand with either on the matter. No support.0 -
quote:Originally posted by 35 Whelen
quote:Originally posted by jimdeere
This ban is blood in the water for the gun grabbing sharks.
What?s next?
Doesn't matter as long as the stuff the Fudds like is left alone, which likely won't be forever either, but they won't give a rat's until then. They sure don't now. Bump stocks are just pieces of plastic that only wingnuts like, anyway.
Just another example of how Conservatives, AND gun owners can never see eye to eye, or stand shoulder to shoulder for/against anything.
Once again I have to give the Libs credit for being able to do what we can't,.....stand together and get crap done.
They will rule it all someday soon due to these facts.0 -
quote:Originally posted by select-fire
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by select-fire
The NRA doesn't seen excited to defend.. just an observation.
Excited to defend their stance?
"The NRA believes that devices designed to allow semi-automatic rifles to function like fully-automatic rifles should be subject to additional regulations. "
https://home.nra.org/joint-statement
They have millions of members upset they would do this. Is it any wonder why they have gone crickets on this? Hell even their spokespersons like Colion Noir are upset by their stance.
Regulation. Can you see a half of million folks taking them to Class 3 dealers till they are approved by BATF to own them. That could take a lot and I mean a lot of time.331 Million folks in the USA and 5 million NRA and 1.5 Million GOA members. Sorta lopsided. and of those 6.5 million members NOT all will stand with either on the matter. No support.
I can not fathom what you think your point is here.0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
62 comments