I have no need for a bump stock, but they don't fit the statutory definition of an automatic weapon, so I don't see how it is legitimate to regulate them when the statute doesn't cover them.

I also think it is a step on to the slippery slope that should not be taken.

http://www.foxnews.com/politic...ire-bump-stocks.html

Justice Department proposes ban on bump stock attachments to rifles

The Trump administration took a step toward cooling the gun control debate on Saturday after beginning the regulatory process needed to ban the controversial firearms add-ons known as bump stocks.

Following the shooting at a Florida high school last month in which 17 people were killed, President Donald Trump urged that the Department of Justice work toward a ban on bump stocks.

These devices played a role in another, earlier mass shooting in Las Vegas last October. The gunman's weapons included bump stocks, attachments that enable semiautomatic weapons to fire at speeds approximating that of fully automatic arms.

Although the Florida shooter did not use these bump stocks, they have remained at the center of the gun control debate since Vegas.

On Saturday the DOJ announced its proposal to classify the equipment as machine guns banned under the federal law, something that the Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives found not to be the case in 2010.

ATF's decision at the time found that bump stocks did not amount to machine guns and could not be regulated unless Congress amended existing firearms law or passed a new one, something that may happen soon.

Saturday’s announcement is likely to result in a major backlash among Republicans, strong Second Amendment advocates and gun manufacturers.

On Friday, Gov. Rick Scott, R-Fla., broke with the National Rifle Association in signing a bill changing the age to buy guns in the state to 21 from 18. The result: an almost immediate legal challenge by the NRA, which announced that it had filed suit against the state, arguing that the age provision violated the constitutional right to bear arms.

The NRA did not immediately respond to The Associated Press’ requests for a comment on the DOJ bump stock proposal.

The proposal still needs the approval of the Office of Management and Budget.

I've never had a desire for a bump stock, but this still pisses me off.

This is a stupid idea, and like all gun laws it will have ZERO impact on the criminal element.

The left keeps infringing where The Constitution says "shall not be infringed".

quote:

Originally posted by roberth:
This is a stupid idea, and like all gun laws it will have ZERO impact on the criminal element.

The left keeps infringing where The Constitution says "shall not be infringed".

I'm sure the left is pleased, but this is coming from the executive branch - the Justice Department in this case.

The problem with the idea of “cooling” the debate is that this isn’t going to even slow them down.

A true compromise is both sides giving. The left isn’t giving anything here. If they were giving something in return, say a law protecting standard capacity mags or even something like a voter ID law then I’d be all for it. I’d happily sacrifice bump sticks for either of those.

The Illinois legislature passed a bill banning them a week or two ago, and it's waiting for Governor Rauner to sign it. You know, Rauner -- the guy who Fox News called the worst Republican Governor in the whole country.

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:

quote:

Originally posted by roberth:
This is a stupid idea, and like all gun laws it will have ZERO impact on the criminal element.

The left keeps infringing where The Constitution says "shall not be infringed".

I'm sure the left is pleased, but this is coming from the executive branch - the Justice Department in this case.

Its not only coming from the executive branch. There are whole lotta Repub's both in Washington and in states around the country folding on this one (check out my state, Florida, and the BS they just passed which includes a bump stock ban).

Not unlike what Para noted at the beginning of this cluster after Parkland, it was a foregone conclusion the Repub's would cower under pressure from the Dem's and a bunch of moronic, tide pod eating children, and start looking for things to give away. They threw 18-20 year olds under the bus along with bump stocks and a metric crap ton of taxpayer money in Florida's case, to try and make the deafening din go away. Unfortunately, they forgot the most important rule when dealing with Dem's. Any attempt to compromise with them only shows weakness, and emboldens the people who's ultimate goal is to strip us of all our constitutional rights.

Has anyone seen the proposed wording of the regulations that will supposedly ban bump stocks? I saw a bunch of reports over the weekend about the DOJ issuing something, but no specifics of the language they are proposing.

Washington State banned them last week.

Illegal to purchase as of 7/1/18.

Illegal to possess as of 7/1/19.

Washington State Patrol is doing a buyback for those that own them (my buddy has one — I need to ask him about that).

I still can't believe that someone has not realized that drugs caused the minds of these individuals to become messed up and cause these shootings.

Ban the use of these drugs and see how many shootings we have in the future.

The FDA should have never approved release of the drugs used for Bipolar use...can lead to suicide, pain killer drugs and now the drugs used for hyper active kids.

That's right, jhe. Any argument we accept for banning bumpstocks will be used to do real damage later. And we qill not have a logical leg to stand on. Accept this and surrender semi auto later. This is the nature of Progressivism.

quote:

I have no need for a bump stock, but they don't fit the statutory definition of an automatic weapon, so I don't see how it is legitimate to regulate them when the statute doesn't cover them.

Same here, jhe.
A buddy of mine has one. I've tried it. Just thought it was a waste of ammo.
Having said that... The Justice Department doesn't write the law... but it does issue regulations on how it is enforced.
We'll see. I don't like the slippery slope either.

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:

...The proposal still needs the approval of the Office of Management and Budget.

Can someone 'splain how OMB fits in here???

It troubles me greatly.
It's not the device as the bump stock has no appeal to me.
However, when Trump says he can "ban" by Exec order > that is troubling.
Can it be done? I don't know but what if a real lefty loon gets elected and decides to go to town banning every thing they don't like.
Never have been one to give in with concessions as they are always one way ~ the wrong direction.

Indeed, Smschulz.

Presidents always claim more power than they actually have. On the gun issue, the President told us he was our friend. Maybe not so much.

quote:

Originally posted by 41:
I still can't believe that someone has not realized that drugs caused the minds of these individuals to become messed up and cause these shootings.

You can't possibly know that for certainty, yet you proclaim it as if scientific fact. What's up with that?

Unfortunately this will eventually get enacted. It’s going to be a sentimental thing, no real evidence of anything inherently wrong with the device. I agree with you all, it pisses me off and it’s wrong. Eventually we’ll see this lead to something really harmful like not being able to change out a trigger group on a rifle, because it will make the rifle “too easy” to fire and may be manipulated to fire more rapidly. BS, but you can hear the argument coming.

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:

quote:

Originally posted by 41:
I still can't believe that someone has not realized that drugs caused the minds of these individuals to become messed up and cause these shootings.

You can't possibly know that for certainty, yet you proclaim it as if scientific fact. What's up with that?

Here is the report on the Las Vegas shooter and the drugs found in his body:

http://www.greenmedinfo.com/bl...s-during-mass-murder

The school shooters involved people on anti-depressions or other drugs. You have to understand the effect they have on the brain and withdrawal too soon or being addicted to the drug long term.

You also have drugs used for pain killers and people that are bipolar. The FDA should have never approved for these drugs to be approved and released.

http://www.cchrflorida.org/ant...-for-mass-shootings/

https://www.cchrint.org/school-shooters/

The information is out there and I find it hard to believe the lack of problem solving by the NRA and the congress critters. How many other problems have they come up with the wrong solution??

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:

quote:

Originally posted by roberth:
This is a stupid idea, and like all gun laws it will have ZERO impact on the criminal element.

The left keeps infringing where The Constitution says "shall not be infringed".

I'm sure the left is pleased, but this is coming from the executive branch - the Justice Department in this case.

You're right, I forgot where this originated, that makes it even more disappointing.

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:
Indeed, Smschulz.

Presidents always claim more power than they actually have. On the gun issue, the President told us he was our friend. Maybe not so much.

I don't think he thinks these things through thoroughly enough or he doesn't remember who is on the other side of the aisle. I think much of what he's doing is sort of vamping. That's not a criticism since his instincts reflect conservative principles, but because he is not working on principles superimposed over a clear understanding of the what the Neoprogs want and are doing, he can be moved Left. This desire to do it on his own has an echo of Stampy Feet. That makes me shudder. I don't like any president legislating and dictating. Bumpstocks are stupid and useless for much more than giggling your ammo down range. But what we accept so that they can be banned is far more ominous.