The BATFE has issued a notice of proposed rule making to ban bump-fire stocks and other fire-rate increasing devices. This vague wording could be interpreted to a variety of devices and could lead to an outright ban on semi-automatic firearms. Whether you care about bump-stocks or not, this rule is poorly worded and could be used to greatly restrict our ability to own or modify semi-auto firearms.

Click here to read a good summary and find a link to leave a comment:

https://www.gunownersamerica.c...stlist5000@gmail.com

There are over 20,000 comments already, 7,300 of which have been reviewed and published. Please leave a concise, constructive comment. This process defeated the proposed M855 ban a couple years ago, so it could very well be worth a few minutes of your time.

When the NRA jumped in to embrace such a ban, I spoke out, and was derided, cajoled, and threatened.

Slippery slope, and all.

I provided comments to the BATFE commentary. Whether the bureau is open to read them is another matter...

MilitaryArmsChannel on YouTube has an interview with a former ATF employee who is providing some discussion on this topic. The new regulation may be much worse than previously thought.

Maybe this thread should be posted in Lounge.

quote:

Originally posted by sns3guppy:
When the NRA jumped in to embrace such a ban, I spoke out, and was derided, cajoled, and threatened.

Slippery slope, and all.

I provided comments to the BATFE commentary. Whether the bureau is open to read them is another matter...

The NRA never embraced a ban on anything. For chrissakes.

quote:

Originally posted by Jimineer:
MilitaryArmsChannel on YouTube has an interview with a former ATF employee who is providing some discussion on this topic. The new regulation may be much worse than previously thought.

Maybe this thread should be posted in Lounge.

Link To Video

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:

quote:

Originally posted by sns3guppy:
When the NRA jumped in to embrace such a ban, I spoke out, and was derided, cajoled, and threatened.

Slippery slope, and all.

I provided comments to the BATFE commentary. Whether the bureau is open to read them is another matter...

The NRA never embraced a ban on anything. For chrissakes.

yep. NRA said the ATF should look at it again and decide; a very reasoned response in my mind. there was nothing to fight about until we had something to fight about and until the ATF either revoked or confirmed their first finding there we sat, appropriately.

Soon we can decide if there is something to fight about.

quote:

Originally posted by sns3guppy:
When the NRA jumped in to embrace such a ban, I spoke out, and was derided, cajoled, and threatened.

Threatened? Do you need a safespace?

quote:

Originally posted by DMF:

Threatened? Do you need a safespace? [/QUOTE]

Did I suggest any such thing?

The only one to do so here is you. We do have a culture here, clearly noted, of attempting to shut up those with whom the party-line toters disagree.

I told NRA, upon learning they'd caved on the bump stocks, to cancel my membership and not contact me again. Many did not like this, and yet I am still right.

Buying into surrender of rights is a very slippery slope in which one inch equals more than a mile. Such devils bargains are for the weak and the fools.

quote:

quote:

Originally posted by sns3guppy:

quote:

Originally posted by DMF:

Threatened? Do you need a safespace?

Did I suggest any such thing?

The only one to do so here is you. We do have a culture here, clearly noted, of attempting to shut up those with whom the party-line toters disagree.

I told NRA, upon learning they'd caved on the bump stocks, to cancel my membership and not contact me again. Many did not like this, and yet I am still right.

Buying into surrender of rights is a very slippery slope in which one inch equals more than a mile. Such devils bargains are for the weak and the fools.

Not sure what you're babbling about now, and maybe my post was too subtle. What I'm saying is I don't believe anyone "threatened" you over your opinion on this matter. You might have been criticized, but I doubt you were "threatened" in any real way. Hence, my question about whether you need a safe space.

quote:

Originally posted by sns3guppy:

quote:

Originally posted by DMF:

Threatened? Do you need a safespace?

Did I suggest any such thing?

[/QUOTE]
You said you were threatened, among other things. So yes, you not only suggested it, it stated it unequivocally.

quote:

Originally posted by sns3guppy:

quote:

Originally posted by DMF:

Threatened? Do you need a safespace?

Did I suggest any such thing?

You said you were threatened, among other things. So yes, you not only suggested it, you stated it unequivocally.

quote:

Originally posted by sns3guppy:
We do have a culture here, clearly noted, of attempting to shut up those with whom the party-line toters disagree.

I told you to refrain from uttering one single word about politics, didn't I? No one here- least of all me- wants to listen to someone who does not support the one man who saved us from Hillary Clinton and a continued nightmare of leftist ruination.

And yet, here you are, still running your mouth about politics. Here you are, pissing and moaning about how you've been so mistreated and on my- "threatened".

I do not care that you're completely blind to the political gift that is Donald Trump, nor do I care how you feel about how this forum is managed. Americans had to endure 8 years of a President who all but openly hated us, and who spent all 8 of those years doing his best to destroy this nation. Now that we have a President who cares about Americans and who loves this country and wishes to see it thrive, do you think we want to hear confused people such as you try to deride him?

This is your last warning (oh, excuse me- "threat")- stay out of political discussions in this forum and keep your pissy little remarks about how you're a victim, to yourself. There are all sorts of discussions you can join in this forum, but any sort of political commentary and your lamentations about your self-appointed victimhood- no one here wants to listen to that shit.

Here is the link to the .gov page with the document.

https://www.federalregister.go...ther-similar-devices

Comments can be viewed or submitted from there.

No, wait, let's get back to our special, special member's victimhood. This thread is about him. He's seen to that.

This is due to be "changed" on January 25th. I'm not smart enough to know whether it is a real threat to semi-autos or not, but erring on the side of caution, I wrote both my Senators and my Congressman, and commented on the .gov web-site.

I don't give two shits about Bump Stocks and Binary Triggers, but if you want to waste your money on them, please do. You should have the right to. I am worried (as others have said on other sites) that this might be a new avenue by the Antis to work on a semi-auto ban. I'm a Life Member of the NRA, and I told them I wasn't too happy that they seemed to be encouraging this "change." Maybe I'm being too paranoid.

Prez issues directive to ban bump stocks to AG Sessions, effective "very soon."

Link

Trump moves to ban 'bump stocks'

By Kevin Liptak, CNN White House Producer

Updated 4:38 PM ET, Tue February 20, 2018
Washington (CNN)President Donald Trump said on Tuesday he has directed his attorney general to propose changes that would ban so-called bump stocks, which make it easier to fire rounds more quickly.

"Just a few moments ago I signed a memo directing the attorney general to propose regulations that ban all devices that turn legal weapons into machine guns," Trump said at a Medal of Valor event at the White House, addressing Attorney General Jeff Sessions.

"I expect these regulations to be finalized, Jeff, very soon," Trump said.

Moments earlier, White House press secretary Sarah Sanders said Trump ordered the Justice Department and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to review bump fire stocks, which she said had been completed. She said movement on that front would take place shortly.

"The President, when it comes to that, is committed to ensuring that those devices are -- again I'm not going to get ahead of the announcement, but I can tell you that the President doesn't support use of those accessories," Sanders said.

In December, the Justice Department announced that it had begun a federal rule-making process that could reinterpret the legality of certain bump fire stock devices, a piece of equipment that enabled the Las Vegas gunman in October to fire on concertgoers more rapidly, mimicking automatic fire.

When ATF began the process of considering a bump stock regulation in December the proposal drew more than 35,000 comments from the public, far more than usual, which signals that likely either pro- or anti-gun control groups -- or both -- mobilized their membership and email lists to weigh in. Comments were due by January 25, 2018.

Asked on Tuesday whether the President would support steps that would raise the federal age limit for military-style weapons, such as the AR-15, Sanders did not rule it out.

"I think that's certainly something that's on the table for us to discuss and that we expect to come up over the next couple of weeks," Sanders said.

In most states, the age limit for purchasing the AR-15 is 18, while the limit for handguns is 21.

Historically speaking has there ever been a gun regulation that has retroactively outlawed something which was previously legal? As I sit here I cannot think of one. If so this is a dangerous precedent. If the do outlaw them are they going to register them a la machine guns?

My slide fire 10/22 is at risk of making me a felon. This has me genuinely concerned and I’ve never even shot the thing (though I’ve had it for years).

quote:

Originally posted by LVJD:
Historically speaking has there ever been a gun regulation that has retroactively outlawed something which was previously legal?

Massachusetts just did it with bump stocks. Might face a legal challenge referencing ex post facto laws.

http://boston.cbslocal.com/201...k-massachusetts-ban/

Watching the completed auctions for slide fire on gun broker. It looks like the panic has started.

quote:

Originally posted by LVJD:
Historically speaking has there ever been a gun regulation that has retroactively outlawed something which was previously legal? As I sit here I cannot think of one. If so this is a dangerous precedent. If the do outlaw them are they going to register them a la machine guns?

My slide fire 10/22 is at risk of making me a felon. This has me genuinely concerned and I’ve never even shot the thing (though I’ve had it for years).

Didn’t they outlaw Street Sweeper shotguns and the USAS-12 shotgun? Or at least require registration under the NFA?