Trump administration to announce final bump stock ban
- Thread starter Metal god
- Start date
I believe the firearms policy coalition sent me an email saying this is already being challenged by an owner of a bump stock along with a few other plaintiffs , I deleted that email though .
I have not read the article but thought I should provide a link from where I got the quote
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/bethb...tock-ban-heres-what-you-need-to-know-n2537738
Here's a link to the Gun owners of America ( GOA )
https://gunowners.org/goa-file-bump-stock-suit.htm
Also CA has a case ( Duncan V Becerra - CRPA suit on large cap mags 5/18/17 (injunction sustained 7-17-18) ) working it's way through the courts right now which is pretty much the same thing .
http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Duncan-v.-Becerra_Filed-5-17-17_Complaint.pdf
An injunction was upheld 7/17/18 stopping it's implementation . The lawsuit is over a ban on magazines that hold more then 10rds . It requires the owner to turn in , dispose of/destroy or sell out of state . I believe it's all about the 4th amendment in that case as it will likely be in this case . Along with the fact in this case the same government trying to ban them now said they were legal just a few years ago .
I have not read the article but thought I should provide a link from where I got the quote
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/bethb...tock-ban-heres-what-you-need-to-know-n2537738
in link above said:
Here's a link to the Gun owners of America ( GOA )
https://gunowners.org/goa-file-bump-stock-suit.htm
Also CA has a case ( Duncan V Becerra - CRPA suit on large cap mags 5/18/17 (injunction sustained 7-17-18) ) working it's way through the courts right now which is pretty much the same thing .
http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Duncan-v.-Becerra_Filed-5-17-17_Complaint.pdf
An injunction was upheld 7/17/18 stopping it's implementation . The lawsuit is over a ban on magazines that hold more then 10rds . It requires the owner to turn in , dispose of/destroy or sell out of state . I believe it's all about the 4th amendment in that case as it will likely be in this case . Along with the fact in this case the same government trying to ban them now said they were legal just a few years ago .
I know this is a big ask but …..
Is it possible the Trump admin wrote these regs with other pro 2nd groups in such a way that it will never pass legal muster on purpose . The whole time saying they are doing something about gun violence while knowing it's going to loose on appeal ?
The NRA sure jumped on bored or may have even suggested this is the best way to go about this . Some are saying by doing it this way , congress does not get to chime in and start compromising to the point we get another assault weapons ban or mag limits or who knows what . By keeping them out of it , this stays narrowly defined and gets overturned later when nobodies looking anymore ??
Is it possible the Trump admin wrote these regs with other pro 2nd groups in such a way that it will never pass legal muster on purpose . The whole time saying they are doing something about gun violence while knowing it's going to loose on appeal ?
The NRA sure jumped on bored or may have even suggested this is the best way to go about this . Some are saying by doing it this way , congress does not get to chime in and start compromising to the point we get another assault weapons ban or mag limits or who knows what . By keeping them out of it , this stays narrowly defined and gets overturned later when nobodies looking anymore ??
I'd like to be hopeful, but no. Without pushing this into a more generalized political discussion, there's been this narrative that when President Trump does something his supporters don't like, he's somehow playing an elaborate game of strategic chess.
If that's the case here, he just sacrificed a bunch of gun owners as pawns. If the March 21st deadline comes and an injunction hasn't been successful, thousands of people will be in possession of unregistered machine guns and therefore risking serious jail time. I'm just not feeling the Bobby Fisher vibe in that.
Given his past writings, statements, and actions on gun control, the obvious answer is that he simply doesn't care about gun rights.
I forget who's rule it is, but remember the one about not giving credit to a "clever plan" when simple incompetence explains things adequately?
This one seems to hit a number of legal tripwires, and it is tempting to think it was done deliberately, as no one could be that dumb, right??
They can be that dumb.
There are basically 3 options.
#1) clever plan, deliberately done so the law will be tossed (after due process)
#2) They are that dumb.
#3) done deliberately, with the intent of it standing, because they think WE are that dumb...
This one seems to hit a number of legal tripwires, and it is tempting to think it was done deliberately, as no one could be that dumb, right??
They can be that dumb.
There are basically 3 options.
#1) clever plan, deliberately done so the law will be tossed (after due process)
#2) They are that dumb.
#3) done deliberately, with the intent of it standing, because they think WE are that dumb...
Sorry, but Trump is not that smart...
Still better than Hillary, but not the 2A fan for which we all hoped.
No, a "smart ban" would have included a registration amnesty that (perhaps temporarily) would have allowed new machine guns to be registered...
The admin not only did not do that, but also failed to grandfather existing bump stocks.
This is not a scheme to help us, it is a knee jerk policy to pretend the law says something it really doesn't in order to look popular.
The admin not only did not do that, but also failed to grandfather existing bump stocks.
This is not a scheme to help us, it is a knee jerk policy to pretend the law says something it really doesn't in order to look popular.
Bartholomew Roberts
Moderator
Well, what happened here is instead of listening to the ATF’s own advice on what the most accurate interpretation of the law was, this administration directed the ATF to find the best legal argument for a specific result that it favored.
I’m no fan of Obama; but to give credit where credit is due, he followed agency advice as opposed to directing them to support his preferred result.
The new regulation is nonsense because there isn’t a good legal argument for it. And you can’t “grandfather” machineguns because the registry was closed by Congress in 1986. Even ATF can’t reregulate that.
I’m no fan of Obama; but to give credit where credit is due, he followed agency advice as opposed to directing them to support his preferred result.
The new regulation is nonsense because there isn’t a good legal argument for it. And you can’t “grandfather” machineguns because the registry was closed by Congress in 1986. Even ATF can’t reregulate that.
I think that's the point of the theory here . Do it through regulator means so congress is not involved . Imagine if congress did reopen the registry . That would allow them to add even more items/guns to it . I don't know but the NRA was out front on this from the get go If I remember correctly . I think there is something to this in at least as much as keeping congresses hands out of the cookie jar .
I was under the impression that an "amnesty period" was still allowed under the law. Did the Hughes Amendment eliminate that?
The whole thing is lawless as the ATF does not have the authority to modify the federal definition of "machine gun," and bump stocks do not meet the NFA/GCA definition.
The whole thing is lawless as the ATF does not have the authority to modify the federal definition of "machine gun," and bump stocks do not meet the NFA/GCA definition.
Yes, it effectively did, though in practicality the amnesty ended years before.
Up until about 68, if you "discovered" (or were caught) an unregistered, untaxed machine gun, you could pay the tax, register the gun, and keep it.
It was generally considered a minor tax boo-boo and seldom were criminal charges brought. This changed around 68 (if I remember correctly, but I might have the year wrong..) anyway, the Govt decided to treat an untaxed machine gun as a criminal matter (10years prison, $10,000 fine, felony conviction) At that time, there was a 6 months "amnesty" so that if you hadn't previously registered and paid the tax on your machine gun, you could do so during the amnesty period without facing criminal charges.
More than a few people did just that.
However, the Hughes Amendment ended any additional registry for civilian owners. If the gun was not registered with the government by May 19, 1986, it would not be allowed to be registered in the civilian registry. New guns could be made, and registered, for sale only to the military and police. Machine gun dealers could have them, or make them, as "dealer samples" to demonstrate the weapons to authorized buyers, but these guns cannot be sold to private individuals.
I, personally agree with this, however, the administration apparently does not, they believe they have the authority to administratively change the definition, and they are DOING it. Until/unless a court rules against them, they will get away with it.
Although it would seem clear as a matter of law, the court's general disdain of the 2nd Amendment probably gives the chance of the court ruling against the government in this case around 50%.
It's hard to say, but I could envision a few abuses of the "constructive possession" doctrine going forward.
My $0.02, this is very similar to the fight the FBI had with Apple over the modification of firmware to allow legal access to an encrypted phone. The subsequent DCMA ruling change to legalize (for citizen’s benefit of course) this thus hobbling Apple’s claims that they could not. We all know the FBI could have (has, did, and will again) paid an independent security firm to do this. That is my point and how it relates, this is a stab at the legal right to modify the basic rights in any form. Be they privacy and or gun legislation. It is “can we get ANYTHING to move forward, if so we can use that as leverage for larger changes?”. So as a result, they pick targets that are emotionally motivating such as mass causality crime.
I tell my children all the time (and many young people I know with voting rights), just because a cause sounds good, consider what it means long term and broader to the nature of your rights as a whole.
I personally file this with magazine size restrictions, bullet buttons, and all the other silly stuff that makes lawmakers think they are changing anything about violent crime directly. The homicide statistics do not support these features being influential in the big pool, only the shallow end under the microscope.
Alas though for the same reason we all hold hands and sing songs in church. Emotional convictions imprint longer. They only must rally your sympathies long enough to get a vote passed. And people are proven to passionately back themselves into a corner they will not so energetically work themselves back out of on the next vote.
If it were about life, tragedy, and common sense this would be a cell phone capabilities/pharmaceuticals/tobacco/etc debate not a gun rights debate.
As for bump stocks, I have owned them, they are a fun novelty and an expensive one as well, impractical for anything unless you wanted to do some serious training. Sold them at a huge profit years ago back when they were fashionable. Never missed not having them. All in all, rate of fire and or magazine capacity is not the problem by any means or measure, just a currently popular attack vector for media and politicians. I have seen nothing more logical presented yet than you could argue “the trigger is the most dangerous part of the weapon because it allows the user to make a conscious effort to discharge the weapon!”
As for bump firing remember this, the bump stock was invented as a convenient way to do this, not the only way as many other have pointed out. A bootlace can more effectively do the same thing on the correct gun, already illegal as all get-out, and done routinely even by law abiding citizens.
Why because people find a way… And rights are more often about what people gleefully give away than what people take from them.
So in my humble opinion, fear this with all you have and realize it has nothing to do with needs, or practicality, it is about leverage and effort to make everything about something illegal until the original debate is no longer a debate.
I tell my children all the time (and many young people I know with voting rights), just because a cause sounds good, consider what it means long term and broader to the nature of your rights as a whole.
I personally file this with magazine size restrictions, bullet buttons, and all the other silly stuff that makes lawmakers think they are changing anything about violent crime directly. The homicide statistics do not support these features being influential in the big pool, only the shallow end under the microscope.
Alas though for the same reason we all hold hands and sing songs in church. Emotional convictions imprint longer. They only must rally your sympathies long enough to get a vote passed. And people are proven to passionately back themselves into a corner they will not so energetically work themselves back out of on the next vote.
If it were about life, tragedy, and common sense this would be a cell phone capabilities/pharmaceuticals/tobacco/etc debate not a gun rights debate.
As for bump stocks, I have owned them, they are a fun novelty and an expensive one as well, impractical for anything unless you wanted to do some serious training. Sold them at a huge profit years ago back when they were fashionable. Never missed not having them. All in all, rate of fire and or magazine capacity is not the problem by any means or measure, just a currently popular attack vector for media and politicians. I have seen nothing more logical presented yet than you could argue “the trigger is the most dangerous part of the weapon because it allows the user to make a conscious effort to discharge the weapon!”
As for bump firing remember this, the bump stock was invented as a convenient way to do this, not the only way as many other have pointed out. A bootlace can more effectively do the same thing on the correct gun, already illegal as all get-out, and done routinely even by law abiding citizens.
Why because people find a way… And rights are more often about what people gleefully give away than what people take from them.
So in my humble opinion, fear this with all you have and realize it has nothing to do with needs, or practicality, it is about leverage and effort to make everything about something illegal until the original debate is no longer a debate.
Last edited:
This official act of banning bump-fire stocks is wrong in a number of ways and is at the heart unconstitutional.
I am hopeful that this unjust action will be challenged and struck down.
For one, the bump-fire stock has, for all intents and purposes, been classified the same as a machine gun. However, the immanent piece of plastic is incapable of firing ammunition. Furthermore, it is incapable of firing more than one round of ammunition with one pull of the trigger.
The ruling is quoted as saying;
The rule concludes 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.
In no way does this characterization meet the definition of a machine gun. In fact it adds new definitions to that of existing machine gun terminology. However for gun hating zealots it is but a small leap to rationalize why it should be so.
Furthermore, with this ruling the “people” have now lost the protection of the 5th amendment. If individuals are required to either destroy or surrender property to the “government” without due process and compensation, then the 5th amendment has just been abrogated. There has been no due process of law, just an edict issued by big brother.
The 5th amendment in part says;
...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…
With this precedent now made law (not by congress), what’s to stop the next infringement on yet another one of the bill of rights. We as a county are headed down a slippery slope and big brother is at the top and pushing hard.
And here in Nevada, with this ruling, Sissylack and his hordes will be emboldened and will decimate Nevada gun owners rights in the coming future.
I am saddened to see what this once great nation is becoming. Me, my brother, father, FIL, grandfather, uncles and many friends have served in our military; swearing to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. I am hopeful that the tree of liberty will not have to pruned.
I am hopeful that this unjust action will be challenged and struck down.
For one, the bump-fire stock has, for all intents and purposes, been classified the same as a machine gun. However, the immanent piece of plastic is incapable of firing ammunition. Furthermore, it is incapable of firing more than one round of ammunition with one pull of the trigger.
The ruling is quoted as saying;
The rule concludes 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.
In no way does this characterization meet the definition of a machine gun. In fact it adds new definitions to that of existing machine gun terminology. However for gun hating zealots it is but a small leap to rationalize why it should be so.
Furthermore, with this ruling the “people” have now lost the protection of the 5th amendment. If individuals are required to either destroy or surrender property to the “government” without due process and compensation, then the 5th amendment has just been abrogated. There has been no due process of law, just an edict issued by big brother.
The 5th amendment in part says;
...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…
With this precedent now made law (not by congress), what’s to stop the next infringement on yet another one of the bill of rights. We as a county are headed down a slippery slope and big brother is at the top and pushing hard.
And here in Nevada, with this ruling, Sissylack and his hordes will be emboldened and will decimate Nevada gun owners rights in the coming future.
I am saddened to see what this once great nation is becoming. Me, my brother, father, FIL, grandfather, uncles and many friends have served in our military; swearing to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. I am hopeful that the tree of liberty will not have to pruned.
Last edited:
haha really ? you're kidding me
( yes pure sarcasm ) Can you say assault rifle lol . Redefining something so they can ban it is what they do . It's been going on for decades , maybe to the point that the precedent is solidly imbedded into the laws now with no ability of turning back . The difference if any here is in the regulatory action as apposed this being legislated where they can actually redefine something . But then again doesn't a lot of the regulatory action regardless of type define the regulation . Is it such a big stretch to RE-define something ?