Trump administration to announce final bump stock ban

More bump stock thoughts

Never had one, don't want one & honestly why does anyone need one? I will fight for the 2nd Amendment but are we pushing the envelope to far? Just because it can be added to a firearm does it have to be? I support the NRA but we gun owners need to apply common sense AND defend our gun rights, just sayin' my thoughts guys!!:eek:
 
are we pushing the envelope to far?
Click to expand...

No, they are.

it's not the fact that the bump fire stock is a "gadget" a fun toy (for some) with no real use other than entertainment, it is the fact that we wish the government to play by their own rules, and be consistent about it.

It's not a firearm, but they want to ban it under a specific firearm TAX law.

They want to change law via a regulation change. This is NOT the proper thing to do. It is not the Executive branch's authority to change (make) law. They may even be trying to redefine what legally constitutes a full auto weapon.

Again, entirely by regulation /definition change, entirely within the Executive branch. I could go so far as to say banning bump fire stocks this way is unconstitutional, and NOT because of any 2nd Amendment issue. It's unconstitutional because they are not obeying the Constitution's established separation of powers in government.
 
More bump stock thoughts
Never had one, don't want one & honestly why does anyone need one? I will fight for the 2nd Amendment but are we pushing the envelope to far? Just because it can be added to a firearm does it have to be? I support the NRA but we gun owners need to apply common sense AND defend our gun rights, just sayin' my thoughts guys!!
hot chili powder is offline Report Post Quick reply to this message
Click to expand...

Need? Need? It's never about need.
 
hot chili powder said:
I will fight for the 2nd Amendment but are we pushing the envelope to far? Just because it can be added to a firearm does it have to be? I support the NRA but we gun owners need to apply common sense AND defend our gun rights,...
Click to expand...

Emphasis added. Those "but"s are part of a weak position on the issue. One can't really fight for a constitutional order so vaguely understood. A right one holds against the government is less effective if it is fundamentally about envelopes of public acceptance and the sense of the community.

There is also a broader constitutional issue in legislation through regulation:

44amp said:
it's not the fact that the bump fire stock is a "gadget" a fun toy (for some) with no real use other than entertainment, it is the fact that we wish the government to play by their own rules, and be consistent about it.

It's not a firearm, but they want to ban it under a specific firearm TAX law.

They want to change law via a regulation change. This is NOT the proper thing to do. It is not the Executive branch's authority to change (make) law. They may even be trying to redefine what legally constitutes a full auto weapon.
Click to expand...

This is a firearms issue, but not only a firearms issue. People with puddles in their yards can find those puddles regulated as navigable waters or wetlands. Congressional legislation can certainly threaten one's rights, but at least there is some accountability for those acts. Delegating these legislative changes to less accountable government bureaus puts an individual who is already over matched at an additional disadvantage.

The bump-stock issue isn't really about a hokey gizmo; it's about whether our rights yield every time they meet publicly expressed discomfort. Yield on this and you invest public pearl clutching with greater authority.
 
Last edited:
zukiphile said:
There is also a broader constitutional issue in legislation through regulation:


This is a firearms issue, but not only a firearms issue. People with puddles in their yards can find that those puddles regulated as navigable waters or wetlands. Congressional legislation can certainly threaten one's rights, but at least there is some accountability for those acts. Delegating these legislative changes to less accountable government bureaus puts an individual who is already over matched at an additional disadvantage.

The bump-stock issue isn't really about a hokey gizmo; it's about whether our rights yield every time they meet publicly expressed discomfort. Yield on this and you invest public pearl clutching with greater authority.
Click to expand...
I agree. Personally, I have no need or desire to own or use a bump stock. (Or a binary trigger, for that matter, which I've been told is in the crosshairs of my state's legislature. ) That doesn't mean that I shouldn't object to kneejerk efforts to regulate those toys out of existence. It's the "slippery slope" argument -- or "creeping incrementalism."

I suggest a review of Lawdog's blog on the cake: https://thelawdogfiles.blogspot.com/2013/01/a-repost.html

There are definitions that establish what constitutes a "machine gun" or fully automatic firearm. There is a definition of what constitutes a semi-automatic firearm: one pull of the trigger fires a single round. Once we allow the regulators to muck around with the definitions, blurring the lines, we make it that much easier for them to tweak the definitions a bit more when they're ready to come after the next group of firearms they want to eliminate.
 
44 AMP said:
No, they are.

it's not the fact that the bump fire stock is a "gadget" a fun toy (for some) with no real use other than entertainment, it is the fact that we wish the government to play by their own rules, and be consistent about it.

It's not a firearm, but they want to ban it under a specific firearm TAX law.

They want to change law via a regulation change. This is NOT the proper thing to do. It is not the Executive branch's authority to change (make) law. They may even be trying to redefine what legally constitutes a full auto weapon.

Again, entirely by regulation /definition change, entirely within the Executive branch. I could go so far as to say banning bump fire stocks this way is unconstitutional, and NOT because of any 2nd Amendment issue. It's unconstitutional because they are not obeying the Constitution's established separation of powers in government.
Click to expand...
Just a question cuz I'm new here..who is 'they'? Cuz this administration is GOP.
Agree with second bolded part..
 
Just a question cuz I'm new here..who is 'they'? Cuz this administration is GOP.
Agree with second bolded part..
Click to expand...

They in this context is always the government with no party affiliation . It's to bad really since it should be "we" the people ;)

An example of why it's government rather then party is how it's represented . A few years ago at the time it was the ATF that said bump stocks are legal but now it's the Trump admin saying they are not . Why at the time was it not the Obama admin saying bump stocks are legal ?

You see this in politics all the time depending on who's making the talking points . Depending on the topic and what side you're on . It's either the EPA , NSA , FDA or ATF said or regulating this , or It's what ever admin is in office at the time is saying or regulating that . The media plays a big roll in that and how it's represented to the public . Go back and look at the news reports from 2006 through 2012 . You will see how the boarder patrol , ICE or homeland was using pepper spray on people entering the US illegally , Now it's the Trump admin doing it . He who controls the narrative controls the …….

The only reason you are now hearing but not at the time "the Obama admin" said anything is because it plays into the narrative that they should not be regulated . If an anti gun president was not for regulating them how could a pro gun president be ?

This is why it's they and not a specific admin . At the time I thought the government got it right when saying the stocks should not be regulated . Now I'm saying "they're" wrong in there new position . The constitution doesn't care what party you are affiliated with .
 
Last edited:
It's to bad really since it should be "we" the people
Click to expand...

Maybe it is "we", and that's part of the problem. People get all sorts of ideas about what the state should do. The COTUS is a hint of a framework for saving us from ourselves. If we don't take the hint, no one is going to force us to take it.
 
Time to storm the streets?
Click to expand...

Not for me, I am a practical person, its what it does and that is turn it into a machine gun (yep, I heard the tapes and I was thinking, well that is the first time a machine gun has been used)

We The People
Click to expand...

That has changed dramatically over time.

I think other rights are vastly more in danger than this one.
 
The final ruling has been registered. President Trump has directed the acting Attorney General to sign it.

In short, bump stocks are now classified as machine guns, and owners have until March 21 to either destroy or turn them over yo law enforcement.

Since these are post-86 machine guns, it's safe to say there's no way to legally register them. I suggest having a lawyer present when surrendering it to law enforcement. I am not exaggerating or kidding.

Yes, the GOA have pledged a lawsuit, but unless they can get a quick injunction, I can't recommend holding on to a bump stock in hopes of a legal resolution.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
Apart from social media posts, how are they going to know where the bump stocks are?

I don’t have one, I must say, never did. Thought they were impractical.
 
Anyone here actually have or have used one of these "bump stocks"?

I am curious about the fact that the administration says it fires more than one shot for a single pull of the trigger by harnessing the recoil energy "so that the trigger resets and continues firing without additional physical manipulation of the trigger by the shooter."


This is not my understanding of how bump fire works. My understanding is bump firing does "pull" the trigger for each shot, the weapon essentially bounces back and forth during recoil, and "bumping" the trigger finger with the trigger (which is a single trigger pull/trigger action) rapidly.

If this isn't correct, and the administration defining it wrong, please, educate me.
 
While the world will not be worse having eliminated bump-stocks. The fact that they are banned and the way it was done is a danger to all gun rights I think.
 
No, you are correct 44AMP. The bunp stock just facilitates holding your finger in one place. You apply forward pressure with the offhand and the recoil resets the trigger while the forward pressure pushes the trigger back into your finger to fire the next shot. You can use a belt loop for that matter.

You really want to :confused: read the commentary on the regulation (pg. 83) I believe where ATF explains why binary triggers aren’t illegal but bump stocks are.

If ever there was an ATF regulation designed to fail in spectacular and unpredictable ways by forcing judges to rule on something they have no understanding of, I think this is it.
 
My understanding is bump firing does "pull" the trigger for each shot, the weapon essentially bounces back and forth during recoil, and "bumping" the trigger finger
Click to expand...

I see that even you put "pull" in quotes. The reason for this is because people using a bumpstock are not actually pulling the trigger on each round, are they. The gun cycles back and forth allowing the trigger to bump into a stationary index finger. It's really the same thing as the Akins Accelerator. It's just that the makers of the bump stock(s) have perfected them to the point where the spring the AA device used was no longer necessary.

Remember the hell-fire trigger? BATFE didn't give a hoot about those things because they simply didn't work to simulate full-auto fire. The pull-release triggers are a bit trickier to simply declare a machine gun. I believe a change to the existing laws would be necessary to do this. And, if the laws are changed to outlaw a device that was previously legal, there will either have to be a registration process or compensation paid for it.

Personally, I think all of these devices should be legal and available. But, when I first saw that the bump stocks actually worked, I knew they were living on borrowed time. I bet most folks here knew that too. And, then when some dope when nuts with one, that was all it took.
 
I see that even you put "pull" in quotes. The reason for this is because people using a bumpstock are not actually pulling the trigger on each round, are they. The gun cycles back and forth allowing the trigger to bump into a stationary index finger
Click to expand...

Yes, I did put "pull" in quotes in this statement,

My understanding is bump firing does "pull" the trigger for each shot, the weapon essentially bounces back and forth during recoil, and "bumping" the trigger finger
Click to expand...
And that's because after the first shot, the trigger finger isn't pulling, the rifle is being pushed against it. Same result, (firing) just different method of movement.

However, "pulling the trigger" is the most common phrase used. BUT, note that the law refers to "operating" the trigger, and pulling it.

Which is why I find this language disturbing."so that the trigger resets and continues firing without additional physical manipulation of the trigger by the shooter."

Even if its not actually a rearward pull, I think the rifle bumping the trigger finger EACH SHOT is actually an " additional physical manipulation of the trigger by the shooter."

SO, in addition to the question of possibly illegal abuse of powers (making law by regulation, not legislation), the new "law" also incorrectly defines what bumpfire stocks are, and why they are now under NFA jurisdiction.
AND, I also note what seems to me to be petty and vindictive rule, as the law doesn't just say "you can no longer legally use them" it says "you can no longer legally possess them, and you must destroy or surrender any that you have" and without compensation of any kind, for what was formerly a legal and unregulated item.

Also, I'm curious about the people who made them, now being put out of business, because of an administrative regulatory change, not a law passed by Congress.

One would think there is a legal case here, based on the principles, but we shall have to wait and see if someone has both the standing and resources to pursue it.

Bump stocks may be a gadget, a range toy, just an accessory you or I don't use or care much about, but the principles being used to turn this formerly legal item into an illegal item which must be destroyed or surrendered by their owners is something we must not grant to the Executive branch of government without challenge.

Because if we do, it's a certainty someone will, in the future try to use that "established authority" to ban something we DO care about.
 
Because if we do, it's a certainty someone will, in the future try to use that "established authority" to ban something we DO care about.
Click to expand...

I'm not disagreeing with you. I think BATFE has taken a creative way of interpreting the law that exists to prohibit a device that was once perfectly legal. And, until someone challenges that law.....and wins in the Supreme Court, I see how BATFE is getting away with this.
 
Well the Constitution never said machine guns were banned either, but effectively they are so regulate and post banned that you could now own one unless you sell your house (if you own it) and all your children (if you have any)

We are in the realm of human logic (which is to say we are probably functionally insane) - I sell my integrity every day at work, its called politics.

So, getting down the nuances of this is not that etc is the same as people thinking AR stands for Assault Rifle. Well hard to argue as the AR looks exactly like the M16/M4 and the variants.

Like most gun owners, I see middle ground in all this though I do find it hilarious the timing of the change.

So there we go and like all the other stuff it will work its way through the courts.

Keep in mind its these same courts that concluded that Microsoft did not have a monopoly on operating systems and you had to have Internet Exploder to make it work. (Bwahhhhhahhahaha)

Sorry folks, they are legal beagles not mechanics, or techs and if you assume legal has anything to do with logic let alone justice you are badly mistaken.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top