Looks like the bumpstock ban is about to become real

[GodFearinGunTotin]

True. We need more people to take an active roll in government. This is why the Democrats stomp the Republicans a lot. They mobilize their base. And their base stays vocal and active past the election.
I wish we had a strong third party again in this country. The Democrats and Republicans would fight a war to keep it from happening

You ever wonder why the things that come out of city hall are what they are? One of the reasons is the people that just want to mind their own business, peacefully enjoy the fruits of their own labor, try to ignore city hall (local government, mostly but certainly state government too). That leaves a vacuum for the do-gooders, the liberals, those that want to "progress" to step in and try to see their desires come to fruition. I'm as guilty as the next person. I simply do not have a desire to run for elections and run government. But there are plenty that do. And until we can get "more of our own" interested, I don't see much changing. The guys and gals like me that would say 'no' to "free" state grants and federal money will not get elected.

 

[cce1302]

You ever wonder why the things that come out of city hall are what they are? One of the reasons is the people that just want to mind their own business, peacefully enjoy the fruits of their own labor, try to ignore city hall (local government, mostly but certainly state government too). That leaves a vacuum for the do-gooders, the liberals, those that want to "progress" to step in and try to see their desires come to fruition. I'm as guilty as the next person. I simply do not have a desire to run for elections and run government. But there are plenty that do. And until we can get "more of our own" interested, I don't see much changing. The guys and gals like me that would say 'no' to "free" state grants and federal money will not get elected.

Most people live their lives like libertarians, but vote like statists.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

The Trump administration's bump fire stock ban and confiscation scheme is about to go into effect. It looks like there will be no grandfathering. Just straight up outlawing

Stephen Gutowski:

The logic behind the new ban is extremely dubious as well. The claim is bump fire stocks allow continuous fire via a single trigger pull which is simply not true. The trigger still needs to be actuated for each round fired during bump fire. It is also something that can be done without the assistance of a bump fire stock. Bump fire stocks are a niche product, though, and they're understandably very unpopular now because of the Vegas attack. However, the method for outlawing them is everything gun rights activists have warned about for years.

If the reporting is accurate, everyone who currently owns one will become a criminal if they don't turn them in or destroy them. That's straightforward confiscation.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

The Trump administration's bump fire stock ban and confiscation scheme is about to go into effect. It looks like there will be no grandfathering. Just straight up outlawing

Stephen Gutowski:

Sometimes you have to wonder which is worse: democrats, when in the White House, make lots of noise about guns, which can do wild things to the ammo and gun markets. But as Trump is once again demonstrating, republicans too often actually push for and sign bills that outlaw certain classes of guns and now, gun accessories.

Bad Trump.

 

[T.Lex]

Have ANY pro-2A lobbying groups addressed this November 16 filing in the federal register? I only spent a little time looking, but couldn't find anything recent.

 

[AmmoManAaron]

Sometimes you have to wonder which is worse: democrats, when in the White House, make lots of noise about guns, which can do wild things to the ammo and gun markets. But as Trump is once again demonstrating, republicans too often actually push for and sign bills that outlaw certain classes of guns and now, gun accessories.

Bad Trump.

It's eerie how similar Trump and Reagan are. Both were from left-leaning states (New York and California, respectively), charisma and popularity, numerous broadly conservative accomplishments, supportive of military and industry, and yet screwed gun owners on the same general topic.

 

[AmmoManAaron]

The Trump administration's bump fire stock ban and confiscation scheme is about to go into effect. It looks like there will be no grandfathering. Just straight up outlawing

Stephen Gutowski:

The one potential silver lining to this is that the regulation is so draconian AND demonstrably false, that we do have a chance at prevailing in court on one or multiple points. I can't post it from here, but there is a good video on YouTube of using a bumpfire stock with one hand and it only fires one shot (which the shooter demonstrates over and over again). It shows exactly how the stock works and how it very clearly does NOT operate the way the BATFE regulation says it does - I don't blame the BATFE for this, they are doing exactly as they were told. If we can get a fair and objective court, I believe we will win. If we lose, the court might as well just declare they don't care about objective reality.

 

[T.Lex]

The one potential silver lining to this is that the regulation is so draconian AND demonstrably false, that we do have a chance at prevailing in court on one or multiple points. I can't post it from here, but there is a good video on YouTube of using a bumpfire stock with one hand and it only fires one shot (which the shooter demonstrates over and over again). It shows exactly how the stock works and how it very clearly does NOT operate the way the BATFE regulation says it does - I don't blame the BATFE for this, they are doing exactly as they were told. If we can get a fair and objective court, I believe we will win. If we lose, the court might as well just declare they don't care about objective reality.

The NFA has never been about objective reality. Rather, it is an exercise in legislative authority.

Just because Congress CAN do something, doesn't mean they should.

 

[dudley0]

Man I just got these pants and now I am going to have to rip all of the belt loops off.

This is going to hurt even more because I need a belt to hold up my pants while carrying a gun.

The true reason behind this ban...

 

[AmmoManAaron]

The NFA has never been about objective reality. Rather, it is an exercise in legislative authority.

Just because Congress CAN do something, doesn't mean they should.

Actually, this is only tangentially related to the NFA. The larger issue is that an agency has crafted a regulation to ban a previously legal item using language that is in direct opposition to reality, Congressionally-passed statutory definition, and multiple rulings from the agency itself. An agency cannot just create a wholly new legal definition that conflicts with statute...even if that is what the Executive Branch wants. Congress didn't ban bumpstocks, but theoretically they could do so by writing and passing new legislation. Agencies can't write regulations that conflict with existing statute - that is outside of their delegated authority of interpretation and implementation.

 

[T.Lex]

Actually, this is only tangentially related to the NFA. The larger issue is that an agency has crafted a regulation to ban a previously legal item using language that is in direct opposition to reality, Congressionally-passed statutory definition, and multiple rulings from the agency itself. An agency cannot just create a wholly new legal definition that conflicts with statute...even if that is what the Executive Branch wants. Congress didn't ban bumpstocks, but theoretically they could do so by writing and passing new legislation. Agencies can't write regulations that conflict with existing statute - that is outside of their delegated authority of interpretation and implementation.

Yeah, but that's the thing - the whole bumpstock issue was an interpretive one from the beginning.

If Obama (or Bush? - I can't remember when these started hitting the market) had the ATF interpret the statute to include these devices as "machine guns" (like a drop-in sear), then it wouldn't have the problem you describe.

Regardless, the ATF can change their mind on interpretations if they do it the "right" way, which they are.

I hope I'm wrong (and I don't give 2 ****s about bumpstocks), but I'm not sure the courts will overturn this.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Yeah, but that's the thing - the whole bumpstock issue was an interpretive one from the beginning.

If Obama (or Bush? - I can't remember when these started hitting the market) had the ATF interpret the statute to include these devices as "machine guns" (like a drop-in sear), then it wouldn't have the problem you describe.

Regardless, the ATF can change their mind on interpretations if they do it the "right" way, which they are.

I hope I'm wrong (and I don't give 2 ****s about bumpstocks), but I'm not sure the courts will overturn this.

I'm not either. Courts seem to be political animals. If bumpstocks were wildly popular among the people, then yeah, I could see them overturning this. But they're not. Even among "gun people" they're widely disparaged and looked down upon. Then there's the wild-eyed anti-gun people screaming about these being defacto machine guns...no, I don't see them looking too deep to find a way to overturn this reinterpretation.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

CNN quotes a source that indicates “members of the public will be given 90 days to turn in or otherwise discard their bump stocks.”

ATF Acting Director Thomas Brandon told the U.S. Senate he anticipates a legal challenge against the ban and acknowledged that that challenge could slow the ban’s implementation.

 

[JTScribe]

Has anyone other than CNN reported this?

 

[cbhausen]

Has anyone other than CNN reported this?

Nothing on Fox News' website yet but I heard this on Fox & Friends this morning.

 

[T.Lex]

Has anyone other than CNN reported this?

What - like INGO doesn't count?

 

[AmmoManAaron]

Yeah, but that's the thing - the whole bumpstock issue was an interpretive one from the beginning.

If Obama (or Bush? - I can't remember when these started hitting the market) had the ATF interpret the statute to include these devices as "machine guns" (like a drop-in sear), then it wouldn't have the problem you describe.

Regardless, the ATF can change their mind on interpretations if they do it the "right" way, which they are.

I hope I'm wrong (and I don't give 2 ****s about bumpstocks), but I'm not sure the courts will overturn this.

I disagree with it being interpretive. Bumpstocks and drop-in auto sears are fundamentally different. Bumpstocks and the Akins Accelerator stock are fundamentally different. Have you examined or used a bumpstock? I will wait until I can post the video before discussing further. I think you will change your mind once you have more information.

 

[T.Lex]

I disagree with it being interpretive. Bumpstocks and drop-in auto sears are fundamentally different. Bumpstocks and the Akins Accelerator stock are fundamentally different. Have you examined or used a bumpstock? I will wait until I can post the video before discussing further. I think you will change your mind once you have more information.

The mechanics don't matter - from an interpretive perspective.

Does it make the boom-boom go faster? Then it CAN be interpreted as a "machine gun." Not that it SHOULD be interpreted that way. That's a different question. Does the legislative framework allow for it to be interpreted as a machine gun?

Well, that's the question that the courts will ultimately answer.

 

[miguel]

Actually, this is only tangentially related to the NFA. The larger issue is that an agency has crafted a regulation to ban a previously legal item using language that is in direct opposition to reality, Congressionally-passed statutory definition, and multiple rulings from the agency itself. An agency cannot just create a wholly new legal definition that conflicts with statute...even if that is what the Executive Branch wants. Congress didn't ban bumpstocks, but theoretically they could do so by writing and passing new legislation. Agencies can't write regulations that conflict with existing statute - that is outside of their delegated authority of interpretation and implementation.

Don't worry, the lawyers will sort it out for us...

 

[cce1302]

I'm ready to compromise. Let's start by repealing the NFA.