Did the NRA Stand Down
on Bumpy Stocks.. And what do they mean by regulation?
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.
Why take one in for approval when you can just borrow one from a friend?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.
This ruling requires a change to the definition used in the underlying legislation. The original ruling was consistent with the law as written. You seem content to have unelected bureaucracies modify legislation when a President deems it advantageous.
If these are to be illegal, I would suggest it be done in the correct manner and force the cowards in Congress to re-visit the NFA and modify the definition of machine gun.
Anything else is an affront to the rule of law.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
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.
I will go slow for you... If the lawsuit makes folks register the device... That device won't get to stay in the hands of the user UNTIL it is approved by BATF.Class 3 dealers would have to hold them till approval. They do complete and I mean complete background checks to see if the user is of sound mind to own it. Pay 200 first to see if that dog will hunt for the user. However here is where it will get sticky. Some states do not allow Machine guns. Those folks would have to surrender the goods since the courts ruled they were to be registered. Double whammy on folks in those states. I do not see any thing happening in the regard above because the item is post 86.. which means NO firearm can be owned by a private citizen aside Dealers . adding that item makes the case.0 -
Hook, line, and sinker. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by select-fire
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
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.
I will go slow for you... If the lawsuit makes folks register the device... That device won't get to stay in the hands of the user UNTIL it is approved by BATF.Class 3 dealers would have to hold them till approval. They do complete and I mean complete background checks to see if the user is of sound mind to own it. Pay 200 first to see if that dog will hunt for the user. However here is where it will get sticky. Some states do not allow Machine guns. Those folks would have to surrender the goods since the courts ruled they were to be registered. Double whammy on folks in those states. I do not see any thing happening in the regard above because the item is post 86.. which means NO firearm can be owned by a private citizen aside Dealers . adding that item makes the case.
There seems to be a lot of cart and horsing going on in your post. The only lawsuit that has been filed (of which I am aware) was filed by Firearms Policy Coalition, Firearms Policy Foundation, and the Madison Society Foundation on behalf of Damien Guedes and thus far they appear to be well aligned in their goal of having the new classification overturned. If they are successful, the policy by proxy will cease to exist. If they are not I do not see any particular compromise position the court could take where registration of bump stock devices will be allowed to happen. They are not currently arguing the point of confiscation and the NRA has not stepped in yet to muddy the waters.
https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/fpc-bump-stock.pdf
Furthermore, I don't see the government compromising on the confiscation point, because it would open them up to fights against post '86 full auto arms, since bump stocks all appear to be post '86.0 -
Screw the NRA, they clearly think one person should just be allowed to change the law as they see fit.
Legislation through burreracy is wrong, period.
I don't own one, don't want one, and don't care to have one.
But I will stand with those pursuing legal action to stop this. If there rights can be trampled, than somebody will think they can trample mine as well.
Civil disobedience is the way forward on this for now while the lawyers file.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
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?
What you've highlighted is the position of the self-hating gun owners who believe that if we just did things a bit differently the anti-gunners will leave us alone. It's our fault, after all, that this is happening. The roots of current gun control can be traced back to the US introduction of the Browning Hi-Power and Smith 59 - you know, the "Wonder 9s" and their 13, 14 and 15 round capacity. So they say.
Now were we content with our bolt action rifles, 8 shot single stack semi-auto pistols and double barreled - excuse me, "side by side" - shotguns, they'd leave us alone. So they say.
One wonders what other accessory should be blamed for "weakening" our rights - concealable handguns, semi-auto rifles, the lack of a universal background check, carrying concealed in public?
For those who suppose we can do anything to make the other side abandon its goals based on fairness or by showing submission, I'll butcher a less well known rhetorical phrase -
Lasst sie nach Kalifornia kommen. Let them come to California.0 -
Just remember the year 1986 BS Bump Stocks were made afterwards. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by WearyTraveler
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...
I agree, incrementalism is their plan. Next it will be pistol braces and performance triggers in semi-auto sporting rifles. Then it will be the rifles themselves.0 -
quote:Originally posted by select-fire
Just remember the year 1986 BS Bump Stocks were made afterwards.
Welcome to that exclusive club called "Everyone Knew That Already".0 -
quote:Originally posted by select-fire
The NRA doesn't seen excited to defend.. just an observation.
The NRA isn?t defending anything. They still have the statement up on their website, they have said ZERO about the ban on social media, and they have disabled comments on some social media platforms and not responding to or outright deleting comments and the people who write them. They are in full on damage control now. While there?s plenty of Fudd?s who will still tow the NRA line, they are going to lose members over this. I?ve never owned a bumpstock nor cared to own one but this ban sets a terrible precedent. To you guys saying who cares about a bumpstock? Well today it?s bumpstocks banned by an administration you thought and were told was pro 2nd Amendment. Just imagine what happens if Congress tips completely to the other side and we have a anti gun POTUS. With another mass shooting I could easily see the new Congress putting up restrictions that this POTUS would sign off on(he already stated he was for some restrictions on them years ago). Until LaPierre is gone and Ackerman-McQueen is no longer involved I will no longer support the NRA. The GOA and other real 2A organizations will get my money and support.0 -
The NRA did stand down. Its the National RIFLE Association. The bump stock is a RIFLE accessory. The NRA should stand up for RIFLES. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by wpage
The NRA did stand down. Its the National RIFLE Association. The bump stock is a RIFLE accessory. The NRA should stand up for RIFLES.
Since my Remington Model 11's aren't RIFLES, they're open to unrestricted regulation/seizure?0 -
quote:Originally posted by wpage
The NRA did stand down. Its the National RIFLE Association. The bump stock is a RIFLE accessory. The NRA should stand up for RIFLES.
Are you in agreement, then, that the NRA should drop the pretense of being an organization that advocates for 2nd Amendment liberties?0 -
quote:Originally posted by ruger41
quote:Originally posted by select-fire
The NRA doesn't seen excited to defend.. just an observation.
The NRA isn?t defending anything. They still have the statement up on their website, they have said ZERO about the ban on social media, and they have disabled comments on some social media platforms and not responding to or outright deleting comments and the people who write them. They are in full on damage control now. While there?s plenty of Fudd?s who will still tow the NRA line, they are going to lose members over this. I?ve never owned a bumpstock nor cared to own one but this ban sets a terrible precedent. To you guys saying who cares about a bumpstock? Well today it?s bumpstocks banned by an administration you thought and were told was pro 2nd Amendment. Just imagine what happens if Congress tips completely to the other side and we have a anti gun POTUS. With another mass shooting I could easily see the new Congress putting up restrictions that this POTUS would sign off on(he already stated he was for some restrictions on them years ago). Until LaPierre is gone and Ackerman-McQueen is no longer involved I will no longer support the NRA. The GOA and other real 2A organizations will get my money and support.
Confusion with firearm owners. As I said not all support the BS. And with the other lawsuits. Once one is finalized the others will twist in the wind.0 -
quote:Originally posted by select-fire
quote:Originally posted by ruger41
quote:Originally posted by select-fire
The NRA doesn't seen excited to defend.. just an observation.
The NRA isn?t defending anything. They still have the statement up on their website, they have said ZERO about the ban on social media, and they have disabled comments on some social media platforms and not responding to or outright deleting comments and the people who write them. They are in full on damage control now. While there?s plenty of Fudd?s who will still tow the NRA line, they are going to lose members over this. I?ve never owned a bumpstock nor cared to own one but this ban sets a terrible precedent. To you guys saying who cares about a bumpstock? Well today it?s bumpstocks banned by an administration you thought and were told was pro 2nd Amendment. Just imagine what happens if Congress tips completely to the other side and we have a anti gun POTUS. With another mass shooting I could easily see the new Congress putting up restrictions that this POTUS would sign off on(he already stated he was for some restrictions on them years ago). Until LaPierre is gone and Ackerman-McQueen is no longer involved I will no longer support the NRA. The GOA and other real 2A organizations will get my money and support.
Confusion with firearm owners. As I said not all support the BS. And with the other lawsuits. Once one is finalized the others will twist in the wind.
Confusion with firearms owners? yes.
Confusion with 2nd Amendment advocates and those that advocate for the rule of law over law by the creation of rules? No.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?
+1
I'm not saying ATF is right or this is constitutional or I agree with the new regulation. I just think taking this thing to court is a losing fight. All ATF needs to do is have the court watch a couple days of nonstop videos posted on various social media platforms of guys doing mag dumps and I'm pretty sure the most 2A friendly judge in the country would agree with ATF that it converts a legal gun into an unregulated machine gun.
Usually a bad idea to start a fight you can't win.
Finally, this is a regulation, not a new law. Not a court ruling. It does not set precedent in the legal sense. But fighting it and losing in court would set precedent. Important to pick our battles.0 -
quote:Originally posted by 35 Whelen
quote:Originally posted by select-fire
Just remember the year 1986 BS Bump Stocks were made afterwards.
Welcome to that exclusive club called "Everyone Knew That Already".
[:D][:D][:o)]0 -
To answer the OP, the NRA can't really stand down, because they never stood up to begin with.[}:)] 0 -
I had it with the NRA once before, but returned when they started the 'no compromise' campaign.
This has finished me,...I'm done for good, unless they dump Waxface Wayne and his cronies, and revamp the entire organization. Extremely doubtful that will ever happen. Possibly they should change their name to FAU (Fudds Are Us)?
That means more money will go to the GOA, SAF, and even JPFO from me in the future.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Marc1301
I had it with the NRA once before, but returned when they started the 'no compromise' campaign.
This has finished me,...I'm done for good, unless they dump Waxface Wayne and his cronies, and revamp the entire organization. Extremely doubtful that will ever happen. Possibly they should change their name to FAU (Fudds Are Us)?
That means more money will go to the GOA, SAF, and even JPFO from me in the future.
Wayne isn't President of the NRA. Oliver North is.0 -
quote:Originally posted by select-fire
quote:Originally posted by Marc1301
I had it with the NRA once before, but returned when they started the 'no compromise' campaign.
This has finished me,...I'm done for good, unless they dump Waxface Wayne and his cronies, and revamp the entire organization. Extremely doubtful that will ever happen. Possibly they should change their name to FAU (Fudds Are Us)?
That means more money will go to the GOA, SAF, and even JPFO from me in the future.
Wayne isn't President of the NRA. Oliver North is.
No poop?0 -
quote:Originally posted by XP100
How can they demand a person to destroy of turn over to someone anything that was legally owned without just compensation?
That issue was settled in 1865 with the 13th amendment.0 -
quote:Originally posted by 35 Whelen
quote:Originally posted by select-fire
quote:Originally posted by Marc1301
I had it with the NRA once before, but returned when they started the 'no compromise' campaign.
This has finished me,...I'm done for good, unless they dump Waxface Wayne and his cronies, and revamp the entire organization. Extremely doubtful that will ever happen. Possibly they should change their name to FAU (Fudds Are Us)?
That means more money will go to the GOA, SAF, and even JPFO from me in the future.
Wayne isn't President of the NRA. Oliver North is.
No poop?
[:D] Any idea who the 1st VP is?0 -
Some have used our October 2017 statement to claim that NRA supports ATF?s final rule, but as NRA-ILA?s Executive Director Chris Cox noted only days after our statement was issued, ?We don?t believe that bans have ever worked on anything.?
We also made this clear in our comments to ATF on the proposed rule earlier this year. In our comments, we further advised that ATF should at a minimum make an amnesty period available to deal with the fundamental inequity imposed on law-abiding gun owners who purchased their bump fire stocks in good faith reliance on prior ATF determinations. We continue to pursue the availability of a period of amnesty with the administration.
While there can be disagreement on legislative strategy, it?s important to remember that we will soon face a hostile, anti-gun Congress led by Nancy Pelosi. It?s critical that all gun owners unite and prevent the Bloomberg-bought Congress from dismantling our Second Amendment freedom.
https://www.nraila.org/articles/20181221/nra-statement-on-bump-fire-stock-rule0 -
quote:Originally posted by RugerNiner
Some have used our October 2017 statement to claim that NRA supports ATF?s final rule, but as NRA-ILA?s Executive Director Chris Cox noted only days after our statement was issued, ?We don?t believe that bans have ever worked on anything.?
We also made this clear in our comments to ATF on the proposed rule earlier this year. In our comments, we further advised that ATF should at a minimum make an amnesty period available to deal with the fundamental inequity imposed on law-abiding gun owners who purchased their bump fire stocks in good faith reliance on prior ATF determinations. We continue to pursue the availability of a period of amnesty with the administration.
While there can be disagreement on legislative strategy, it?s important to remember that we will soon face a hostile, anti-gun Congress led by Nancy Pelosi. It?s critical that all gun owners unite and prevent the Bloomberg-bought Congress from dismantling our Second Amendment freedom.
https://www.nraila.org/articles/20181221/nra-statement-on-bump-fire-stock-rule
Summary:
Our polling to date is inconclusive. When we determine which approach will maximize contributions, we will have a definitive statement to release.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by RugerNiner
Some have used our October 2017 statement to claim that NRA supports ATF?s final rule, but as NRA-ILA?s Executive Director Chris Cox noted only days after our statement was issued, ?We don?t believe that bans have ever worked on anything.?
We also made this clear in our comments to ATF on the proposed rule earlier this year. In our comments, we further advised that ATF should at a minimum make an amnesty period available to deal with the fundamental inequity imposed on law-abiding gun owners who purchased their bump fire stocks in good faith reliance on prior ATF determinations. We continue to pursue the availability of a period of amnesty with the administration.
While there can be disagreement on legislative strategy, it?s important to remember that we will soon face a hostile, anti-gun Congress led by Nancy Pelosi. It?s critical that all gun owners unite and prevent the Bloomberg-bought Congress from dismantling our Second Amendment freedom.
https://www.nraila.org/articles/20181221/nra-statement-on-bump-fire-stock-rule
Summary:
Our polling to date is inconclusive. When we determine which approach will maximize contributions, we will have a definitive statement to release.
It seems pretty clear to me that they're more than willing to compromise rights away... again... still.0 -
March 26 2019 0 -
irregardless of the validity of the item......chip, chip, chip away,,,setting legal precedent for chip, chip, chip away 2nd A 0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
62 comments