My concern over this isn't the stock itself, but the ability to use Police Powers in a way that effectively skirts the protections afforded by the 5th Amendment. see Akins v. United States, 82 Fed. Cl. 619 (2008) (11th Cir. 2009). (Akins Accelerator)

Assuming that a search is 100% unConstitutional, but does turn up illegal narcotics, the state can't charge you with possession because the evidence came as a result of a 5th amendment violation, but LE doesn't have to give the drugs back to you or compensate you for their market value because illegal narcotics are something you could never legally own in the first place: Police Powers.

But, if you own land at the end of a peninsula, and the gov't wants to take it to make a bird sanctuary out of it, they need to compensate you for it. Imminent Domain/5th Amendment taking.

Bump stocks are property, that was legally sold, owned, and operated by the populace at large. Now, through non-legislative means, they're declared non-ownable? That sounds more like legally-owned-land than always-was-illegal-drugs. It sounds like picking on the little guy from here--if the gov't passed a law against owning beachfront property and tried to confiscate it under police powers the difference would be the number of people affected, and $$$ invested, not the principle of the confiscation.

While I have no use for bump stocks I don’t like this. Reclassifying something that is legal to make it now illegal is bad on many levels.

Crap like this can set a precedent. Who knows what could be reclassified down the road. Everyone should be against this kind of law making no matter what it’s for.

Those that support this because it ties into their ideas need to really think about the long-term repressions.

I have issues with the process and hope there are lawsuits.

But staying home and letting a commie win in 2020 is like slitting your own throat because someone gave you a papercut.

Unless of course you wish to speed the process along to the breaking point, which can be understood.

Martin Niemöller's poem seems appropo:

quote:

First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

It could easily be:
First they came for the bump stocks, and I did not speak out—because I was not a bump stock owner.

Then they came for the binary triggers, and I did not speak out— because I was not a binary trigger.

Then they came for the SBRs, and I did not speak out—because I was not a SBR owner.

Then they came for pistol braces — and there was no one left to speak for me.

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 couldn't communicate my thoughts on the issue any better! Thanks.

quote:

Originally posted by sjames:
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.

Indeed, on all points.

For the Trump administration (or any Republican administration) to do this is inexcusable, unforgivable, unnecessary, and 180* from what earns my support. It's tantamount to (if not literally) breaking campaign promises, and casually speaking - traitorous fucking bullshit.

Whichever morons are truly behind this deserve to be gnawed on for the remainder of their miserable lives by an army of angry honey badgers for this one act alone, even if that's President Trump himself. I don't accept unsolicited fuckings-over by "my team".

And I don't give a damn about bump stocks. It's the principle, and the method by which they're supposedly going about it, which are as wrong as wrong gets, politically speaking.

This best not materialize or there will surely be election consequences that hurt us all.

Those mother fuckers... . (shakes head in literal disgust)

"This water lives in Mombasa, anyway."

As soon as President Trump got on board with the idea of banning these stocks, it was a foregone conclusion.

There is a precedent for this, remember the Auto Sear, although I think it was the ATF that banned that, not the President. My own feeling is that if full-auto weapons are controlled, than anything that successfully mimics full-auto fire, should also be controlled. Whether or not full-auto weapons should be controlled is a different argument. I have serious concerns with allowing such controls to be initiated by Executive Order.

What are they gonna do when someone uses a rubber band around the trigger and magwell or their belt loop to bumpfire an AR-style rifle during a mass shooting? It absolutely can be done and there are countless Youtube videos on how to do it. A stock just makes it require less practice.

quote:

Originally posted by Perception:
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.

Hope they don't ban my Levi's (given my pocket can be used to perform the same function as a bump stock). I might end up like Kevin, posting with no pants.

quote:

Originally posted by smschulz:
Just make suppressors totally legal and We can call it a wash.

No, let's do away with NFA and call it even.

quote:

Originally posted by bigdeal:

quote:

Originally posted by smschulz:
Just make suppressors totally legal and We can call it a wash.

No, let's do away with NFA and call it even.

I can live with that.

Two red flags for me. Banning a device that functions in semi auto. Mandating they be turned in. Establish those two standards and the Left will run wild with them. Think of where the next Obama will go with this...

quote:

My own feeling is that if full-auto weapons are controlled, than anything that successfully mimics full-auto fire, should also be controlled..

Rate of fire is the only useful measure beyond the mechanics of the gun itself, and it's a terrible way to go about this. How fast is too fast? Where is that line that divides one from the other? (rhetorical) My index finger ain't no slouch, if I'm just trying to dump a magazine... are we going to license high-speed trigger fingers next? Thick rubber bands? Belt loops? Shoe strings? This new rule would literally accomplish nothing, public safety wise. Pure theatre, of the very worst kind (useless, ineffective, nonsense).

quote:

My own feeling is that if full-auto weapons are controlled, than anything that successfully mimics full-auto fire, should also be controlled

Should Jerry Michalak turn himself in then? Since you can't ban Jerry, or beltloops, or thumbs, what do you ban? Why semi-automatic firearms of course.

I don't see how this can hold up if no compensation is being offered, but given the current state of "judges" in this country anything is possible.

It’s a mistake. He will lose support from some 2A folks and liberals and anti gunners will still hate him. This move makes no sense, he stands to lose more than he could hope to gain. It’s the first time I can say, yeah he truly fucked up.

quote:

Originally posted by mbinky:
I don't see how this can hold up if no compensation is being offered

Agreed, that was my first thought aside from the yuge mistake Trump made by trying to do this.

How can you tell people to turn stuff in / destroy property without compensation?

Bad bad bad.
The Government taking legally owned property from the people.

At our club range we have banned accessories and methods that can increase the rate of fire. Add binary triggers to that. Because there are people who come to the range who are totally ignorant on safe firearm operation and procedures. Translation: stupid and unsafe people. Our other customers are very nervous around such idiots.

Personally, I have no use for bump stocks or anything else like that.

quote:

Originally posted by RHINOWSO:

quote:

Originally posted by mbinky:
I don't see how this can hold up if no compensation is being offered

Agreed, that was my first thought aside from the yuge mistake Trump made by trying to do this.

How can you tell people to turn stuff in / destroy property without compensation?

Given President Trump's enthusiastic support for the 2005 Kelo decision his decision to ban Bump Stocks through Executive Administrative Order without compensating legal owners isn't completely unexpected.

https://www.politifact.com/tru...buse-says-conservat/