I heard several times on the news this morning that Bump-Stocks are getting banned in the USA, and that owners will have 90 days to turn them in once the law goes into effect.
Any thoughts or other news on this?
Alan
They just reported the same thing just now on the radio.
Not sure where the law came from. Hard to believe that congress approved it in both houses and the president signed it.
Jim
Exactly.
Also:
No registration opportunity?
No compensation?
There must be more to this than has been reported.
https://www.theblaze.com/bump-stock-ban
Quote from: iddee on December 18, 2018, 04:19:26 PM
https://www.theblaze.com/bump-stock-ban
From the article: ... The National Rifle Association ... is reportedly preparing for a lawsuit. It's not clear whether or not the ban would survive a court battle. ... No compensation will be provided in return for the bump stock. ...
No compensation or registration - Thats kind of unprecedented.
Machine guns of most all types can be legally owned today (if you can afford it and pass the required background checks) via several routes. They were never completely "banned" - you just can't buy them over-the-counter, so to speak.
I'd be suprised if this stands a legal challenge.
President signed it into law today saying he kept his promise.
Cheers
gww
It's being done under the same law that restricts full auto weapons so I'm guess they will face the same restrictions. As pointed out, you can jump through the hoops and get full auto weapons, but few actually qualify to do so or want to jump those hoops.
We have not seen the actual order and it was not a new law. It is an EO done by way of ATF. A reclassification, if you will.
Quote from: kathyp on December 18, 2018, 07:44:29 PM
We have not seen the actual order and it was not a new law. It is an EO done by way of ATF. A reclassification, if you will.
Which means that is is not constitutional. It?s not a law that congress approved and then signed by the president.
Jim
QuoteWhich means that is is not constitutional. It?s not a law that congress approved and then signed by the president.
It's not a weapon. It's an add-on. Because it is not a weapon and does not technically impact 2nd amendment issues, I think it is within the ATF wheelhouse to regulate.
Honestly, I don't think anyone will challenge it. I can't think what grounds they would use.
The way my small brain sees it - the government can't just pass a "ruling" requiring any person to Turn In something that they legally purchased - regardless of what that "something" is. They have to compensate the individual, or allow a means to continue legal ownership. This goes far beyond the 2nd Amendment. Imho.
Even once machine guns were banned, legal owners were offered a path of registration.
Also - all bump-stocks that I saw sold (10 yrs ago?) Came with a letter from the BATFE stating specifically that they had been reviewed and were legal.
I can see several groups taking issue with being forced to turn something in with no alternatives. What is next? ... with they want to take our homes without compensation? ... it has been done in history, just not here ... yet ...
Alan
>I'd be suprised if this stands a legal challenge.
The problem is legally defining it. If a "bump stock" is any stock that allows you to loosely hold your gun and stiffly holding your trigger finger in such a way as to cause it to fire on the "bump" then that would include any stock on any semi-auto rifle. It is very difficult, maybe impossible, to come up with a specific legal definition that doesn't outlaw every semi-auto rifle. I suppose you could specify any stock that was purposefully designed to do this, but it's difficult to prove that it was done on purpose or by accident.
The other problem, of course, is that the president can't make laws... though George H.W. Bush used an executive order to ban the import of "assault rifles" it was never challenged and I'm sure it was unconstitutional...
But odds are no one will challenge this one unless the ATF decides to be unreasonable in it's interruption and implementation.
QuoteThe other problem, of course, is that the president can't make laws.
No he can't but this points up the problem with all alphabet agencies. They can "regulate". Same thing as making laws, but upheld over and over.
Presidents make law all the time by way of these agencies and their regulations.
Can they be banned? In time, yes. Can they be confiscated without compensation? That seems to be a problem with the 5th amendment. I own one of the ridiculous things, it was a gift about 12 years ago. If you want to rapidly spray bullets with a low percentage chance of hitting a barn , then it is the thing to have. I tried it out took it off the ak and it has been in the closest since then.
Elephants are eaten one little bite at a time.
In short, what the bump stock ban is about is it is a 2 step process to ban and confiscate ALL semi-automatic firearms.
The bump stock ban is NOT a law, it is currently a regulation that has been placed on the Federal Register. Once it has been on the Federal Register for 90 days, it becomes law that can be resinded or enforced by the next president. In a nutshell, regulations made into law in this fashion are absolutely unconstitutional and immoral.
What the vast majority of American DO NOT realize is that once this "regulation" implemented by Trump pulling it out of his ass to be politically correct is that this so called regulation makes bump stocks machine guns under the NFA Acts of 1934 and 1968 which are also totally unconstitutional and immoral. If you read chapter 2, paragraph 2.6.1 of the BATFE NFA Handbook, you will QUICKLY realize there is a "readily restorable clause in that section that ALSO makes any firearm that can be readily restored to fire automatically is ALSO a machine gun.
Bump stocks are junk! You DO NOT need a bump stock to rapid fire like a machine gun, you can do this with your finger VERY easily. Watch the below video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7RdAhTxyP64
The man in the video by law has just readily restored a semi-automatic firearm to fire automatically according to the new regulation in conjunction with the BATFE NFA Handbook. He has committed a future felony if you follow along with the twist progressive Marxist logic of the thugs at the BATFE. The BATFE are doing what Trump is ordering them to do.
There is a lot I do not like about Trump and a lot I DO like about Trump. Trump has accomplished more in 2 years in positive and productive changes than any president in my lifetime and since Calvin Coolidge in my opinion. Guns and the 2nd amendment are NON-NEGOTIABLE with me. Trump has crossed a bold red line with me and I cannot any longer support him unless he rescinds this regulation and stands by his word to protect the 2nd amendment.
It is NOT the bump stock. It IS the back door attempt to confiscate ALL semi-automatic firearms that IS the issue. If this is allowed to proceed forward.......NOTHING ELSE matters, not the wall, not tax cuts, not health care, none of it. A government that can take our natural born rights and liberties can take everything without limits once our natural born right to self defense is taken.
Don't take my word on this. Do your OWN research and find out for yourself.
Live Oak - I believe you nailed it on the head. ... what you just said, is why I posted this originally. It isn't about the Bump Stocks. They are junk. They don't work (properly) ... and they aren't the main point of this law/regulation.
I just wonder how many people understand that.
Alan
This is what gun bans lead to:
https://www.foxnews.com/world/venezuelans-regret-gun-prohibition-we-could-have-defended-ourselves?fbclid=IwAR1KoDcw6CrOsSgCqNIHGN6ZfooecY7VUZdeyuwhFj8TrfVpKC5gOmFN1ME
Quote from: Live Oak on December 22, 2018, 02:37:12 PM
This is what gun bans lead to:
https://www.foxnews.com/world/venezuelans-regret-gun-prohibition-we-could-have-defended-ourselves?fbclid=IwAR1KoDcw6CrOsSgCqNIHGN6ZfooecY7VUZdeyuwhFj8TrfVpKC5gOmFN1ME
Great article. Sad - that it always ends the same.
The only thing we learn from history, is that we DON'T LEARN FROM HISTORY!
this was the stone they threw in a pond that made no ripple. now you'll notice everybody is trying to push red flag laws through on the state level. pay attention to this quote. "i'm for taking the guns early. i like take the guns first , due process second." Donald J Trump speaking about red flag laws. he tested the water with the bump stock ban then he told all his old democrat buddies to go ahead and start pushing the red flag laws through. we have a new york democrat in the white house under whom more gun legislation has been pushed through since the clinton era and his supporters won't dare say a thing. the irony is that if hillary had beat him the republicans would still have the house and the senate and there's now way the bump stock ban would have seen the light of day. we have made a terrible, long term mistake. the trade deficit with china is now at a record high (oops), gas prices have risen right back up to the levels they were at a year ago, the jobs market has stopped growing, we still have obamacare and now tax payers will pay for a wall they were promised mexico would shell out the cash for. also, they say that in the last year something like 7 billion was lost due to tariffs, and dairies in the midwest are dropping like flies. two of the largest pork producers to get tariff bail out money are owned by chinese and the largest meat packer to get bailed out is owned by brazil if i remember right. there is a fox in the henhouse and he needs to goin 2020. let's hope a real republican can step up and take the nomination from him and beat what ever insane knee jerk reaction the democrats have. there are at least 3 that have a strong chance and they are all for wealth distribution and gun control.
Quote from: 10framer on March 11, 2019, 01:13:46 AM
... pay attention to this quote. "i'm for taking the guns early. i like take the guns first , due process second." Donald J Trump speaking about red flag laws. ... let's hope a real republican can step up and take the nomination from him and beat what ever insane knee jerk reaction the democrats have. there are at least 3 that have a strong chance and they are all for wealth distribution and gun control.
Sheesh. You make great points. I wish you were wrong. ... and I wish [right now] that I could swear here. ...
I'm not a fan of bump stocks. Never was. They are useless. (Don't anybody argue with me on that). ... but the Precedent set by this ... well ... that's a real problem. ...
"Those who don't study history are doomed to repeat it. Yet those who DO study history are doomed to stand by helplessly while everyone else repeats it."--Tom Toro
I am a gun owner and 2nd amendment supporter. I also have mixed feelings about red flag laws. I would like to see laws amended so that those who are mentally ill can be stopped before they go out and shoot up the workplace, or whatever. In order to intervene, you would have to make sure they can't buy weapons and would have to take what they have even though they have not yet committed a crime.
I am very conflicted about this, but I am not sure how else you could stop these nuts if you are not proactively disarming them. I understand that this does not impact the majority of gun deaths and does not stop the criminal. However, WE are more in danger of having our weapons taken because of the public and spectacular nature of the shootings done by the nuts.
Of course, my first preference would be to have places to lock up the nuts...
Kathy
QuoteI am very conflicted about this, but I am not sure how else you could stop these nuts if you are not proactively disarming them.
You can not stop the nuts and who gets to pick what is nutty. How many people get to not be the chosen ones to own a gun so you can have safety? You can have a gun and not be safe but at least you have some kind of chance. You can not have a gun accident if you don't have one around. You cannot have the chance you might have in some certain situations that you would have if you do have a gun around. In the beginning, you make a choice and only at the end of life will that choice be judged by you as good or bad. I make the choice to have a gun knowing that it is what it is, a chance for good or bad. I keep my fingers crossed that there is more good then bad in the world and hope that my judgement puts me on the good side of things knowing that some out there are going to have bad judgement and evil intent.
It is sorta like the safety or freedom argument. You won't have freedom and may not have safety if somebody else gets to make those decisions on what your safety is.
As bad as it is, bad actors have to commit bad things to be guilty of something in a place where you are innocent until proven guilty. The only counter to that is for a person to have the opportunity to do the things and have the tools to try and protect himself. It will not always work but gives the best chance. The ones hurt will think it was bad and the ones helped will know it was good. No guarantees in life except the chance to do your best.
Cheers
gww
Quote from: kathyp on March 11, 2019, 04:12:43 PM
Of course, my first preference would be to have places to lock up the nuts...
That attitude is why the nuts don't seek help until it is too late. There are some solutions to mental illness but it is not guaranteed. Most solutions involve taking medication. Then there is the problem of the patient going off meds on their own because of the side effects, costs, or timing requirements. An alcoholic has to give up alcohol in order to have a normal life. It seems to me a gun owner has to give up firearms if they have been prescribed drugs for mental illness. Also the right to own firearms should be dependent on metal stability.
>Also the right to own firearms should be dependent on metal stability.
Then it wouldn't be a right, it would be a privilege dependent on proving you are not crazy. How would you prove you are NOT crazy?
The problem with that is someone in government can decide that they don?t like you and make the decision to take away your guns away, they can.
Jim
QuoteYou can not stop the nuts and who gets to pick what is nutty.
The problem with that is someone in government can decide that they don?t like you and make the decision to take away your guns away, they can.
Herein lies my conflict.
There was a time that you could lock up people who were perceived to be a danger. Under lock and key, they could be evaluated. It is true that this system was also abused and that it was also perhaps a violation of rights. On the other hand, it was a safety issue and we didn't have as many crazy folks on the streets like the one who just stabbed someone here for no reason other than the voices told him to.
Being on the west coast I am closer to losing my right to have the weapons I wish to have. If I still lived in CA I would already be in violation of the state laws. If we don't figure this out, you guys will end up where we are.
I don't know the answer. I just know the problem and see where we are going.
Old thread, new ruling. And the final answer is...
QuoteSupreme Court strikes down federal ban on bump stocks
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/supreme-court-strikes-down-federal-ban-bump-stocks?intcmp=tw_fnc
They are not my thing but I believe it should be for those who's it is.
this was kind of a technical ruling, rather than a rights ruling. I am happy to see the courts rein in some of the alphabet agencies. They don't have (shouldn't have) the power to redefine things and then order action on the re-definition.
One of the frustrating things about most of these rulings is they are not based on rights, but on technicalities... The pistol brace rule is dead, but since it's not based on rights, what does it actually mean? They will just invent a new stupid rule that will have to be contested and fought in court.
Quote from: Michael Bush on June 14, 2024, 12:44:02 PM
One of the frustrating things about most of these rulings is they are not based on rights, but on technicalities... The pistol brace rule is dead, but since it's not based on rights, what does it actually mean? They will just invent a new stupid rule that will have to be contested and fought in court.
Yes!
The ironic thing is that bump stocks could be banned using reasoning based on the 2A itself.
The term "well regulated" comes into play and the fact that the bump-stock decreases accuracy and effectiveness of the rifle. In other words, the way the bump stock functions, it encourages an ill regulated militia by decreasing the rifle's effectiveness in battle(as well as in general use). Under the same lines of reasoning, there would be no grounds for the effective banning of actual full automatics and selective fire rifles ... no politician wants to open that can of worms.
Yup, it could be done legislatively and might be done that way eventually. They could do it in the same way they did the assault weapons ban in the past. Congress would rather have the agencies do this stuff so they don't have to put their name on anything.
I don't see the point in the bump stocks. Seems like a great way to waste a bunch of ammo. I also hate these agencies thinking that they are unelected legislators. Let Congress put their names on the bill and deal with those who elected them.
> I don't see the point in the bump stocks.
Nor do I.
>I also hate these agencies thinking that they are unelected legislators.
Ditto They are not.
>Let Congress put their names on the bill and deal with those who elected them.
That should be the same for ANY regulation. Regulation without reparation should be as taxation without representation.
Kathy ... Nope. the bump stock thing was Trump jumping in to direct the ATF and getting populist credit after the Vegas nutjob . .. one of the very few places gww could fault Trump for doing something unconstitutional and actually be right. :oops: (edit: just to clarify, the way it was done was unconstitutional and the reasoning behind the action was flawed)
The AWB should have been struck down and it wasn't because SCOTUS was abysmally stacked at the time. Things are better now(but not really good) ... Based on rulings it the past few years, AWB would have a chance of being struck down today. It's never a good idea to take such chances, though.
The agencies don't just think that. Congress has unconstitutionally delegated power to them. (another front in the Supreme Court "war" that is ongoing ... and related to many areas of regulation, including guns.)
My point was they would never ban bump stocks by the 2A reasoning I mentioned ... because it would rely on declarationist rather than constructionist reasoning ... and be in line with Michael Bush's comment. This shift in the basis of Constitutional reasoning could lead to undermining well over half of the things the govt. does and spends money on.
Quote from: Ben Framed on June 14, 2024, 02:25:14 PM
> I don't see the point in the bump stocks.
Nor do I.
a "budget" way of : opening up a stack of watermelons so bees can feed.... rapidly draining water from plastic jugs .. or just making a little girl giggle(priceless) :cheesy:
Seriously, I don't have any use for them either ... but I also say the same for golf clubs, cricket bats, skateboards, and fireworks. .. but others have different ideas of having fun than I do and I'm not a control freak ... like most politicians are. I did like lawn darts(and never hurt anyone with one), but there ya go...
I always felt like the ATF, EPA et al were used to pass laws at the whim of the president and sidestepping a congress that would not have passed them. IIRC, there was fairly recently a decision that the EPA was not a lawmaking body and did not have the right to pass at least some of their regulations.
QuoteKathy ... Nope. the bump stock thing was Trump jumping in to direct the ATF and getting populist credit after the Vegas nutjob .
Yes, but the point of this decision is that ATF did it and did not have the authority to do it. The same might have been said if Trump had done it by executive order.
Congress has unconstitutionally delegated power to them. (another front in the Supreme Court "war" that is ongoing ... and related to many areas of regulation, including guns.)
QuoteMy point was they would never ban bump stocks by the 2A reasoning I mentioned ... because it would rely on declarationist rather than constructionist reasoning ... and be in line with Michael Bush's comment. This shift in the basis of Constitutional reasoning could lead to undermining well over half of the things the govt. does and spends money on.
Yes, which was my point about Congress trying to keep it's hands clean of controversial stuff. "ATF did it, Not us!".
Quotethere was fairly recently a decision that the EPA was not a lawmaking body and did not have the right to pass at least some of their regulations.
I think that was the inland waterways thing where EPA tried to take over every puddle and cow pond in the country.
Just to correct both of us here... Actually the ATFE didn't do it.
Trump issued a memorandum to the AG and told him to do it. The ATFE didn't have a director and would not have been able to because the power to "write rules implementing legislation" rests with the director of the agencies.
Blocking appointment of an ATFE director for years was a tactic of pro-gun politicians to prevent that sort of thing.
Trump went the extra mile of unconstitutionality, so to speak, by going a route that had never been done before.
Trump ordered a legal but unconstitutional act to be done by the AG ... and yeah, 99 percent Congress's fault.
QuoteJust to correct both of us here... Actually the ATFE didn't do it.
Lol. Thanks for looking all of that up and fixing us. :grin:
:cheesy:
nah .. you made me think about it a second, remembered that there wasn't an ATF director ... and was compelled to look up how it happened without an XO .. :embarassed:
it's a disease..
I have a much easier time arguing with democrats ... they almost never say anything that makes me think :cheesy:
Quote from: animal on June 14, 2024, 03:00:34 PM
Quote from: Ben Framed on June 14, 2024, 02:25:14 PM
> kathyP
I don't see the point in the bump stocks.
Nor do I.
a "budget" way of : opening up a stack of watermelons so bees can feed.... rapidly draining water from plastic jugs .. or just making a little girl giggle(priceless) :cheesy:
Seriously, I don't have any use for them either ... but I also say the same for golf clubs, cricket bats, skateboards, and fireworks. .. but others have different ideas of having fun than I do and I'm not a control freak ... like most politicians are. I did like lawn darts(and never hurt anyone with one), but there ya go...
>"but I also say the same for golf clubs, cricket bats, skateboards, and fireworks. .. but others have different ideas of having fun than I do and I'm not a control freak ... like most politicians are. I did like lawn darts(and never hurt anyone with one), but there ya go..."
We are on the same page. The nor do I was based for 'my' interests, (or lack of), which was based on the picture I had drawn 'of them' from the conversation you all are having here, which was 'you would be lucky to hit the broad side of the barn with one'! lol. So if that were the case then whats the use ....... Each to his own..
As far as the yard darts, that should be up to each individual to choose and do as they please.. It was a fun game when I was young especially on camping trips with several other kids in the group.
However it was reported there was a kid from another school who got hit in the top of the head with one. I had also seen a kid walk to close to a batter and took the swing in the head during baseball, luckily he had a batting helmet on but it still gave him a concussion. So there you go again.... :shocked: :grin: ......
Trump did the bumpstock ban under pressure after the LasVegas shooting. I've always thought a full auto was too inaccurate to be of any use. A bumpstock is even worse.
Yes that is what prompted the ban as I recall as well. And wasnt it about two weeks or a few short weeks later after the Las Vegas Shooting that he made a world tour, first stop Saudi Arabia? Where several of the crown prince were arrested and over 800 billion dollars in their assets were frozen, putting an end, or almost an end to isis at that time?
except there wasn't any pressure to speak of on Trump. Trump was looking to score points and he did.
Trump isn't a 2A guy or a Constitutionalist. He just isn't "anti" on either ... and this is an example where it's important who is around him as advisors.
In the 2A community, the Fudd factor kicked in and there wasn't any real opposition, NRA endorsed it(no surprise to those of us with no illusions about the NRA)
The Constitutionaists kept away from this one because it was too hot of an issue and it scared most of them silent.
Plus, the ban was done so quickly that it took a lot of people off-guard.
The SCOTUS ruling here wasn't really considering whether a bump stock ban would be constitutional. It was struck down because of how it was done. .. now we'll get the media circus and see if the Dems can use the issue the way they did abortion last time.
QuoteThe SCOTUS ruling here wasn't really considering whether a bump stock ban would be constitutional. It was struck down because of how it was done. .. now we'll get the media circus and see if the Dems can use the issue the way they did abortion last time.
Probably not. Abortion is a big issue with the old bra burners. They have convinced the young and uninformed that they will be forced to have babies they don't want if they can't get abortions on demand. They both might make some noise, but I don't think it's going to be a big issue by the time the election comes.
In the 70s and 80s, there were few BC choices and some women couldn't use things like the pill. Now there are tons of choices and getting pregnant for the vast majority is either a choice or because of carelessness. Lazy people can get BC that is long term, but easily reversible, and then they don't have to think about it.
bump stocks are not a hill for most 2A guys to die on and it could end up a legislative throw away anyway .. depends on the media and whether the public cares.... used as a spear-tip and drumming up support for gun control(new AWB) as an issue is possible. I doubt it would be successful but that depends on a lot of other factors.
The abortion issue is one of those emotional issues for many Republicans and there's no constitutional basis for it being federally regulated. People like Linsey Graham throwing gasoline on the fire (touting the idea of Congress banning abortion) increased the reaction by the left. It was either a stupid move or an attempt to torpedo the more important goals popular in the Republican party so he could benefit in his state.(and in his other motives)
SCOTUS was correct in it's decision to defer the question to the States.
It remains to be seen what Republicans will do with gun issues.