http://fortune.com/2018/11/29/...ck-ban-announcement/

By reclassifying bump stocks as illegal devices under the current regulations.



President Donald Trump’s administration is moving forward with a bump stock ban, according to a new report.

The administration plans to announce in the next several days a federal rule banning the sale and use of bump stocks across the U.S., CNN is reporting, citing sources who claim to have knowledge of the administration’s plans. Once the rule is made, those who have bump stocks will need to destroy them or surrender them to law enforcement officials within 90 days, according to the report.

Bump stocks are attached to semi-automatic weapons and use the gun’s recoil to “bump” the trigger and allow for a faster rate of firing. Bump stocks don’t create a fully automatic firing speed, but come close. Since the Obama Administration, bump stocks have been classified as gun accessories that can be lawfully used.

However, bump stocks became a point of debate last year, after it was used in the horrific Las Vegas shooting that left 58 people dead. The bump stock allowed the shooter to increase the firing rate and maximize damage.

Soon after, President Trump said he would stamp out bump stocks, but was soon met with opposition from the National Rifle Association and other gun advocates, including Congresspeople.

Banning bump stocks could have been done in a legislative setting, but would have been met by opposition among those lawmakers. Opting to change a federal rule and classifying bump stocks as illegal sidesteps any lawmaker opposition.

Still, a rule change is subject to lawsuits that could hold up any ban. And it’s possible that gun advocates could attempt to overturn or just delay the ban through the court system.

Not sure how I feel about this. I think banning bump stocks is stupid, accomplishes nothing (other than scoring a few political points), and may be open to legal challenges, yet I find the device somewhat silly and nothing I'd personally ever own.

Bump stocks are stupid and reckless. But I don't support banning them. I just wish Trump could have used them as a bargaining chip to get us something in return.

quote:

Originally posted by bigdeal:
Not sure how I feel about this. I think banning bump stocks is stupid, accomplishes nothing (other than scoring a few political points), and may be open to legal challenges, yet I find the device somewhat silly and nothing I'd personally ever own.

agreed. Not to happy about them requiring all of them to be turned in to be destroyed. They were legal. whats to stop them from doing the same to braces in a couple of years!!

quote:

Originally posted by bigdeal:
Not sure how I feel about this. I think banning bump stocks is stupid, accomplishes nothing (other than scoring a few political points), and may be open to legal challenges, yet I find the device somewhat silly and nothing I'd personally ever own.

I agree with you about personally not owning one, however I do abhor the idea of the left trying to divide and conquer.

quote:

Originally posted by Ronin101:
whats to stop them from doing the same to braces in a couple of years!!

I think this is the biggest concern. Don't like the regulations' application? Just tweak it to cover something different. The executive can do this without involving Congress. Dangerous, and not just in the gun-control arena.

My feelings about the utility of bump-stocks doesn't enter into it.

My biggest issue will be to see how they define bump stocks. There are zillions of other parts that that can arguably increase a rifle's rate of fire.

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:

quote:

Originally posted by Ronin101:
whats to stop them from doing the same to braces in a couple of years!!

I think this is the biggest concern. Don't like the regulations' application? Just tweak it to cover something different. The executive can do this without involving Congress. Dangerous, and not just in the gun-control arena.

My feelings about the utility of bump-stocks doesn't enter into it.

The most I could see happening under the current administration is re-applying the “cannot shoulder” restriction. The leftists are another matter entirely. But let’s not jump the panic gun on braces just yet.

What a cluster!

To take property from law abiding people with no compensation, all through an executive order instead of the legislative process reeks of tyrannical government.

I, too, care little for bump stocks but recognize the danger of a broad definition of changing rate of fire and how that can be applied to almost anything.

My hope is that this “report” was floated to test the waters and they will find that the waters are swift and dangerous.

quote:

Originally posted by Chris17404:
Bump stocks are stupid and reckless. But I don't support banning them. I just wish Trump could have used them as a bargaining chip to get us something in return.

How do you know that he didn't. He's a shrewd businessman that plays tit for tat deals all the time. It's one of the reasons that he is a billionaire.

Jim

I don't give a damn about bump stocks, but I absolutely abhor it when bureaucrats broaden or reinterpret regulations to make once-legal products, illegal.

That is a level of power that they should not possess.

Fucking shitbags; right up there with Rick Scott screwing gun rights in Florida so that he could get elected Senator. Useless, political hacks, all of them.

Just make suppressors totally legal and We can call it a wash.
As for changes via Exec Order - that is dangerous and could reshape "gun control" in the future and most likely not in a good way.

quote:

Originally posted by Jimbo54:

quote:

Originally posted by Chris17404:
Bump stocks are stupid and reckless. But I don't support banning them. I just wish Trump could have used them as a bargaining chip to get us something in return.

How do you know that he didn't. He's a shrewd businessman that plays tit for tat deals all the time. It's one of the reasons that he is a billionaire.

Jim

This, quite frankly, is ridiculous. When politicians make trades like that, they make damn sure the people who care know about it.

Frankly, I expected better from DJT!

Do not GAS what he may, or may not, have gotten in return.

And, yes, now we have to wonder what else he might do as part of some deal.

Constitutional rights should not be subject to trades.

Personally, I see little real use for a bump stock. But that is a personal thing along the lines of what is the best pistol caliber/model, etc.

Imagine what Hillary would have done.

I don't expect perfection from this man, but in my own personal life, I've heard from people who want to string him up by his balls over this. It just blows my mind. After Las Vegas and Parkland, these modern-day Akins Accellerators were going to get the red stamp. They just were. When these stupid things came out, I told some of those same people who want the ball-stringing to happen that "just wait until some fuckwit uses one of these gray-area toys in a high profile shooting and they'll be an expensive investment right in the garbage." And that happened, and yet the "string him up by his balls!" shouts followed anyway.

Duplex triggers are next. Mark my words.

Whatever. And yeah, I'm somehow against freedom or something. Again, whatever.

Insanity. I pray there are lawsuits on this issue. The ATF was correct with its ruling and definition on bumpstocks.

If Trump can have ATF change their correct definition what can a president like Bloomberg, or Warren do?

If he does this, I will literally stay home in 2020.

I realize that dems could win, but I don’t care. We need our elected officials to loose if they diminsh our 2A rights at all.

Saying, “he’s better than a democrat, just vote for him” is what enables this. I’m willing to lose in the short run. This is a longer game than one election.

quote:

Originally posted by esdunbar:
If he does this, I will literally stay home in 2020.

I realize that dems could win, but I don’t care. We need our elected officials to loose if they diminsh our 2A rights at all.

Saying, “he’s better than a democrat, just vote for him” is what enables this. I’m willing to lose in the short run. This is a longer game than one election.

I can't agree with this plan, but can understand the frustration. Especially after the promises made.

quote:

Originally posted by esdunbar: I’m willing to lose in the short run. This is a longer game than one election.

Once a democrat signs a new AWB with no sunset, there is no long game.

As long as he continues his course on the courts for the next two years, I would feel better dumping him in 2020, knowing that a bulwark was established against legislative efforts of the left.