quote:

Originally posted by Hamden106:
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.

It's one thing for a private club to set it's own safety rules (whether reasonable or not)... but quite another for a government to ban a previously legal object while circumventing the legislative process for an administrative one...without due compensation to those suffering financial loss...moreso when viewed under the lens of Constitutionally guaranteed rights.

I'd like to see what compliance numbers turn out to be. Bump stocks don't have serial numbers on them. Are the manufacturers going to turn customer info over to the Feds? There have to be a million of those things out there now and that's many times the number of registered machine guns. I don't see how they can enforce it, other than driving the existing ones underground.

quote:

Originally posted by Rick Lee:
I'd like to see what compliance numbers turn out to be. Bump stocks don't have serial numbers on them. Are the manufacturers going to turn customer info over to the Feds? There have to be a million of those things out there now and that's many times the number of registered machine guns. I don't see how they can enforce it, other than driving the existing ones underground.

There is no way that they can be tracked, except by the ones sold by the original manufacturer. Too many retailers were selling them, and they were not a registered item any more than any other accoutrement. I see a LOT of these going underground for play on private property, limited use in criminal acts, or for “the revolution”.

I also see a lot of probable ignoring outside of federal agencies and blue states bent on ravenous gun control.

quote:

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?

Thing is, you don't even need the belt loop. I can bump an RPK with a drum using just my index finger. I'm not giving that up.

These things have been around for ages, and there is only ONE (alleged) instance of one being used in a crime.

quote:

Originally posted by zoom6zoom:
These things have been around for ages, and there is only ONE (alleged) instance of one being used in a crime.

And, as member Sigfreund rightly pointed out some time ago, there is no way to know if the presence of a Bump Stock at the crime scene actually increased the casualty numbers. It's entirely possible that the presence of the Bump Stock actually contributed to inaccuracy...the casualty numbers may have been actually greater if a Bump Stock hadn't been used by the killer.

Banning the Bump Stock is a foolish knee jerk reaction that does nothing to increase safety, and deprives law abiding citizens from owning a previously legal accessory without compensation for their loss, while using administrative executive orders and circumventing the legislative process.

It's difficult to overstate just how disappointing this decision by our President is. I hope it is immediately challenged and defeated. I actually believe a lawsuit would win easily which is why I'm not worried at all about this holding up. What concerns me is a President so willing to do something like this. And for no good reason.

quote:

Originally posted by Hamden106:
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.

What does any of that have to do with anything?

For the record, I agree with everything you said. But I am 100% against banning them, especially in the manner that Trump is going about it.

Turn em in? Is that a joke? Genna pay market value for them?

Destroy em on scout's honor?

Discover them through searches or randomly stumbling across them and seize them? Is this a felony at that point?

What's next?

I smell another will not comply campaign.

And for the record, I think bump stocks are ridiculous. But as has been said a few times in here, this model sets a dangerous precedent.

quote:

Originally posted by NK402:
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.

Full auto and bump fire aren't even in the same ballpark.
One trigger pull vs many trigger pulls. The *rate* of many trigger pulls means dick...it's still semi-auto.

Agree with you that EO or BATFEIEIO proclamation is NOT the way to make "law".
I hope this crap gets stopped quickly. It's as dumb as a bump stock!

On an unrelated subject, what is the best way to preserve hard plastic if it were to be buried in soft soil?

Let's not get silly over this, OK?

[video embedded in linked article]

Bump Stock Ban to Become Law in 90 Days

By Debra J. Saunders
Las Vegas Review-Journal
December 18, 2018 - 6:50 am

Bump stock ban to become law in 90 days

This Oct. 4, 2017 file photo, shows a "bump stock" attached to a semi-automatic rifle at a gun store and shooting range in Utah. (Rick Bowmer/AP File)

WASHINGTON — The long road to banning bump stocks in the wake of the Oct. 1, 2017, Las Vegas mass shooting will come to an end in 90 days when a final rule drafted by the Department of Justice and prompted by President Donald Trump takes effect.

Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker signed the 157-page document Tuesday morning. A senior Department of Justice official told reporters that the rule is expected to take effect on March 21.

The devices, which accelerate the rate of fire of semi-automatic weapons and enabled a lone shooter in a hotel room to kill 58 and wound hundreds more, will be defined as “machine guns.” Possession of the devices will become a felony offense.

Owners will have 90 days to destroy their bump stocks or turn them into the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. Owners also can contact local law enforcement offices to see if they would be willing to accept the devices.

According to a Department of Justice official, federal agents “have no plans to go door to door” to ensure compliance, “nor would (the department) have the resources.”

“Most firearms owners are law-abiding citizens,” said the official, adding that the Justice Department anticipates compliance. “We will investigate on a case by case basis.”

No compensation will be given in return for the bump stocks. Owners will not be allowed to register the devices.

In February, Trump met with a bipartisan group of lawmakers to urge them to pass a comprehensive school safety bill in the wake of the January school shooting in Parkland, Florida.

At the meeting, Trump said he supported a ban on bump stocks, but added that Congress would not have to pass legislation because “we can do that with an executive order.”

On Feb. 20, Trump directed then Attorney General Jeff Sessions to propose “a rule banning all devices that turn legal weapons into machine guns” and to do so “as expeditiously as possible.”

That action launched periods of rule making, followed by the submission and review of public comments. Of the over 186,000 comments, the Department of Justice reported, more than 119,000 supported the new rule while more than 66,000 opposed the rules.

Gun control advocates countered that a new law passed by Congress could better withstand legal challenges than a rule change, as gun rights advocates could argue that a regulation banning the devices is wrongful interpretation of federal gun law, as evidenced by the ATF’s decision to allow the sale of bump stocks in 2010.

Contact Debra J. Saunders at dsaunders@reviewjournal.com or 202-662-7391. Follow @DebraJSaunders on Twitter.

I just received this email from GOA (Gun Owners of America):

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives (ATF) today announced its long-expected regulations banning bump stocks.

I want to assure you that Gun Owners of America is now in the final stages of preparing a lawsuit against the ATF and the Department of Justice to seek an injunction protecting gun owners from these unconstitutional regulations.

We will be filing our lawsuit very, very soon.

As written, this case has important Second Amendment implications for gun owners.

After all, in the coming days, an estimated half a million bump stock owners will have the difficult decision of either destroying or surrendering their valuable property -- or else risk felony prosecution.

GOA will argue that courts should be highly suspect when an agency changes its "interpretation" of a statute in order to impair the exercise of an enumerated constitutional right.

Help support GOF's lawsuit against ATF. Every tax-deductible dollar you contribute to GOF right now will be automatically doubled, thanks to a very generous GOA Life Member!



ATF Regulation threatens AR-15s and other semi-autos

The new ATF regulations would define bump stocks as "machineguns" -- and, down the road, that new definition could implicate the right to own AR-15's and many other semi-automatic firearms.

ATF's new bump stock regulation clearly violates federal law, as bump stocks do not qualify as machineguns under the federal statute.

Moreover, bump stocks, which have been in circulation for many years, have repeatedly been ruled by ATF as lawful to own.

This ban was imposed through regulations because Congress has repeatedly refused to amend the law to ban them.

But the ATF has no authority to radically "re-interpret" a statute that is clear and unambiguous. To do so would allow agency regulations to overturn the clear provisions of statutory law.

Will AR-15s soon be deemed "machine guns"?

Statutory law is clear: Under 26 U.S.C. 5845(b), a "machinegun" is a weapon which shoots "automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single FUNCTION of a trigger." (Emphasis added.)

A firearm equipped with a "bump stock" uses the recoil of the firearm, coupled with forward pressure exerted by the shooter, to force the trigger to function more quickly than it would normally. But the trigger is still required to function each time a round is discharged. Therefore, the gun cannot be said to function as a "machinegun."

Another problem with the regulation is that it is overly broad and could later be relied on to ban semi-automatic firearms in the process of trying to ban "bump stocks."

The ATF has previously said that "[Bump stocks] convert an otherwise semiautomatic firearm into a machinegun..."

But hold on a minute. If the AR-15 becomes a "machinegun" -- or even if it is readily convertible into a "machinegun" -- then AR-15's could eventually become illegal as well.

Think the ATF wouldn't use this regulation to summarily outlaw semi-automatics? Maybe not right now. But you can bet that the first anti-gun Democratic president to win the White House will order the ATF to do so.

These regulations would deny honest Americans the enjoyment of their Second Amendment-protected rights.

And so based on these objections, Gun Owners of America will shortly file suit to overturn the illegal, unconstitutional, politically motivated action by ATF in outlawing "bump stocks."

In closing, I would ask two things:

1. For those who own or possess a bump stock and want to contact ATF to turn in your bump stock, please realize that the ATF will likely direct owners to sign ATF Forfeiture (Form ATF 3400.1) and/or Property Receipt (ATF 3400.23) forms.

You are not required to sign any form, but if you elect to do so, note the following.

The ATF Forfeiture form is a waiver of your rights and releases ATF from all liability. So read the form -- and talk to your own attorney if you are thinking of signing it! Even if a court later decided against ATF, a person who signed this form would have no claim.

Unlike the ATF Forfeiture form, the Property Receipt form is simply an acknowledgement that ATF has received your bump stock and you no longer possess it. If you plan to turn it in, then get the ATF to sign this form as a receipt and you keep a copy.

2. For everyone who realizes the freedom implications of GOA's case, please help support this case financially.

By going to his link here, your gift will be tax-deductible and will go directly to helping pay for this case.

The costs are staggering, as our attorneys have already put in a lot of time and effort -- finding the best district to bring a case and getting the most authoritative witnesses.

Not to mention, they've already started coordinating with the plaintiffs and researching the most effective arguments to use.

So I want to thank you, in advance, for your help in this very important endeavor.

In Liberty,

Erich Pratt
Executive Director


I’m all for the lawsuit. I’m curious how much this is going to cost. I’m also an NRA member and encourage All gun owners to be NRA members. I believe the membership to be around 5 million. We need closer to 50 million members to really fund lawsuits protecting our rights. The AARP, for example has 50 million plus members.

I'm just as hardcore for my 2nd Amendment Constitutional rights as the next guy/gal here and I FULLY understand the implications of this law being enacted, but really...how many people does this impact? I believe this is a "gimme" for the Trump team to "give up" bump stocks (so they can demand something meaningful from the Libtards in the future), as they have no REAL value in the firearm community. JMHO...

Firesuit - DONNED

quote:

Originally posted by erj_pilot:
I'm just as hardcore for my 2nd Amendment Constitutional rights as the next guy/gal here and I FULLY understand the implications of this law being enacted, but really...how many people does this impact? I believe this is a "gimme" for the Trump team to "give up" bump stocks (so they can demand something meaningful from the Libtards in the future), as they have no REAL value in the firearm community. JMHO...

Firesuit - DONNED

Good thing you put on that firesuit, cause you're gonna need it.

The ban itself is bad enough, but the retroactive illegality and confiscation at the federal level is absolutely fucking disgusting and horrifying, and sets an absolutely unacceptable precedence.

When has something like this happened at the federal level that didn't have the prior owned items grandfathered in?

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.

...

Agreed. One of the main problems we currently have - not just a problem, but a MAIN problem - is Congress not doing their job and passing on their responsibilities to the Executive Branch.

Makes for a very convenient boogyman to blame when those know-it-alls go back home to their districts or states.

quote:

Originally posted by erj_pilot:
I'm just as hardcore for my 2nd Amendment Constitutional rights as the next guy/gal here and I FULLY understand the implications of this law being enacted, but really...how many people does this impact? I believe this is a "gimme" for the Trump team to "give up" bump stocks (so they can demand something meaningful from the Libtards in the future), as they have no REAL value in the firearm community. JMHO...

Firesuit - DONNED

Do you really understand the implications? Because your comment after saying so seems to suggest that you don't. How many people does this implact? It impacts all of us gun owners.

^^^^
With gun owners like that, the left dosen't need to ban things. They will gladly do it on their own volition.

quote:

Originally posted by erj_pilot:
I'm just as hardcore for my 2nd Amendment Constitutional rights as the next guy/gal here and I FULLY understand the implications of this law being enacted, but really...how many people does this impact? I believe this is a "gimme" for the Trump team to "give up" bump stocks (so they can demand something meaningful from the Libtards in the future), as they have no REAL value in the firearm community. JMHO...

Firesuit - DONNED

It's not whether or not this is a useful accessory.
The fundamental issue is whether these laws can be implemented without proper procedure of creating the laws.
If they can start pulling bump stocks - then what's next and it opens Pandora's box for whenever the Libs get control.
If anyone thinks that it will stop with the bump stock - you are delusional.
Repub's in the past always tried to give in to Dems in a show of good faith and we ALWAYS loose.....always.
FWIW, I could not care less about the bump stock - it is the precedence I am worried about.

quote:

Originally posted by erj_pilot:
I'm just as hardcore for my 2nd Amendment Constitutional rights as the next guy/gal here and I FULLY understand the implications of this law being enacted, but really...how many people does this impact? I believe this is a "gimme" for the Trump team to "give up" bump stocks (so they can demand something meaningful from the Libtards in the future), as they have no REAL value in the firearm community. JMHO...

Firesuit - DONNED

I'd say you're not as hardcore. Certainly not if the next guy is me.

I think the administration is willing to give this up because it isn't as pro-gun as it claims, and/or doesn't really have a core guiding principle on this issue. They think bump stocks are a fringe issue and are kind of dangerous anyway, so ban them. As several others have noted, if you allow the executive branch to nibble away at actual laws by tweaking the regulations, then no law has much meaning. Everyone should recognize that such action hands the executive branch far too much power.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: jhe888,

quote:

I believe this is a "gimme" ...(so they can demand something meaningful from the Libtards in the future), as they have no REAL value in the firearm community

Because demanding anything from the GDCs works out so well for us, because 'fair-play' and what-not?

No real value in the 'community'? How much do they cost? sixty, a hundred bucks? How many are there? 1,000,000 I've seen postulated. So the 'community' is out $10,000,000 or so but since you aren't in the deep end of the 'community' pool it's OK and of no value.
What's that bit about coming for the masons and the trade unionists and it's copasetic because...?

In an issue of natural rights the 'community is a mere cipher, a lodestone for the left, a nonsensical construct to camouflage the pain of the individual.

If I don't watch out for my neighbors rights I shouldn't expect him to give a rat's ass about mine.

but then I repeat myself.