# GENERAL FORUM > IN THE NEWS >  Bump-Fire ban is signed

## Beetlegeuse

Today, acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker signed the federal regulation declaring bump-fire stocks to be an NFA device. The ban takes effect 90 days after publication in the Federal Register, which is expected to take place this Friday.




> With limited exceptions, the Gun Control Act, as amended, makes it unlawful for any person to transfer or possess a machinegun unless it was lawfully possessed prior to the effective date of the statute. The bumpstock-type devices covered by this final rule were not in existence prior to the effective date of the statute, and therefore will be prohibited when this rule becomes effective. Consequently, under the final rule, current possessors of these devices will be required to destroy the devices or abandon them at an ATF office prior to the effective date of the rule.



If this passes Constitutional muster (or if there is no challenge on constitutional grounds) it sets the precedent for whoever next is POTUS and he (or she) can unilaterally declare anything from all multi-shot firearms to wrist rockets to be NFA devices and they will have precedent to enforce it.

----------


## MuscleScience

Yep, it’s a dangerous precedents. The anti-freedom/liberty lovers out there pick away and pick away at our god given liberties. The USA was formed in to be the exact opposite of what Europe was and how the state and elites know best for the “common,” man. I fear with my generation and beyond, they will move us closer and closer to Europe and a welfare/nanny state of being. 

The funny thing is, the Euros don’t understand just how much the government controls every aspect of their lives. Except for those that move here and see what free enterprise and less than 50% taxation of income is like. 

Of course I guess the French are on the verge of Revolution again. May the EU die a swift death.

----------


## Couchlockd

Someone should tell them to include the fostec echo trigger as well.

And also belt loops, and if you hold your rifle at waist level too.

----------


## HoldMyBeer

Alright, I am 100% pro gun. I don't think this should pass.
But please don't pull some shot like "if they pass this then they can ban wrist rockets." Bumpstocks and wrist rockets are two completely unrelated things. Those are some left tactics. Don't stoop to their level. Or at least show me a picture of a wrist rocket with a bump stock (the most badass wrist rocket of all time)

Sent from my LG-LS993 using Tapatalk

----------


## Obs

Oh wow...
You mean trump isnt the die hard conservative he was made out to be?


I am free because I am an enemy of the state. A goddam criminal. If you arent a criminal, you are not any more free here than in europe.

----------


## Obs

And wtf is a wrist rocket?
Sounds like a mastrubation device.

----------


## Obs

> Someone should tell them to include the fostec echo trigger as well.
> 
> And also belt loops, and if you hold your rifle at waist level too.


Why would anyone mess with a bump stock when its so easy to get a class 3 and the real deal?
I mean if being legal is something they are concerned about... Why not get real full auto, legally?

----------


## HoldMyBeer

> And wtf is a wrist rocket?
> Sounds like a mastrubation device.


Lol right?
It's a sling shot

Sent from my LG-LS993 using Tapatalk

----------


## Obs

> Lol right?
> It's a sling shot
> 
> Sent from my LG-LS993 using Tapatalk


Well shit... Here I was getting excited to get my freak on.
This is the worst news since I found out they banned bump stocks.

----------


## Beetlegeuse

ATF estimates there might have been as many as a little over half a million of them sold. No one is addressing how this ruling DOES NOT violate the 14th Amendment right to Due Process of all those buyers, especially since the ATF previously had published two separate rulings confirming they WERE NOT an NFA device.


The NRA already has bailed on this one so we're probably well and truly gefukt.

A life membership in the NRA was the worst firearms-related money I've ever spent. Once you've taken the big bite they only ramp up their marketing and membership upgrade solicitations because they smell deep pockets. This ignores the fact that solicitations largely are wasted on anyone who has bought a life membership because they've already demonstrated a willingness to support the cause, and they probably would upgrade their life membership without prodding if they thought there was a point. The worst part is, the only real leverage you have against them -- a threat to resign your membership -- loses its teeth once you're a lifer because *they don't care, they done got your money.*

Any organization -- the NRA included -- will get fat, lazy and inefficient if they have the market cornered and don't even have to work for it. That is where this lot are now. They need a serious shake-up so they have to work for a living again.

The current NRA president supported Bill Klinton's AWB. A previous president (Chuck Heston) supported the 1968 GCA. With people like these steering the NRA, who needs Sarah Brady, Chuck-U Schumer and Nancy Pelosilly? Organizations like the Second Amendment Foundation, Gun Owners of America and Jews For The Preservation of Firearms Ownership (yes, they take gentiles) could get a lot more traction and further advance the cause if the NRA weren't sucking up all the oxygen from the 2A/RKBA ecosphere.




> Alright, I am 100% pro gun. I don't think this should pass.
> But please don't pull some shot like "if they pass this then they can ban wrist rockets." Bumpstocks and wrist rockets are two completely unrelated things. Those are some left tactics. Don't stoop to their level. Or at least show me a picture of a wrist rocket with a bump stock (the most badass wrist rocket of all time)


Repeat after me:

Hyperbole

Hi - Per - Bohlee

Hyperbole

----------


## HoldMyBeer

> ATF estimates there might have been as many as a little over half a million of them sold. No one is addressing how this ruling DOES NOT violate the 14th Amendment right to Due Process of all those buyers, especially since the ATF previously had published two separate rulings confirming they WERE NOT an NFA device.
> 
> 
> The NRA already has bailed on this one so we're probably well and truly gefukt.
> 
> A life membership in the NRA was the worst firearms-related money I've ever spent. Once you've taken the big bite they only ramp up their marketing and membership upgrade solicitations because they smell deep pockets. This ignores the fact that solicitations largely are wasted on anyone who has bought a life membership because they've already demonstrated a willingness to support the cause, and they probably would upgrade their life membership without prodding if they thought there was a point. The worst part is, the only real leverage you have against them -- a threat to resign your membership -- loses its teeth once you're a lifer because *they don't care, they done got your money.*
> 
> Any organization -- the NRA included -- will get fat, lazy and inefficient if they have the market cornered and don't even have to work for it. That is where this lot are now. They need a serious shake-up so they have to work for a living again.
> 
> ...


Hyperbole

Sent from my LG-LS993 using Tapatalk

----------


## Obs

> Hyperbole
> 
> Sent from my LG-LS993 using Tapatalk


Next person makes me get the dictionary...

----------


## HoldMyBeer

> Next person makes me get the dictionary...


LMAO! Dude said repeat after me. I was just following instructions 

Sent from my LG-LS993 using Tapatalk

----------


## MuscleScience

Listen, I get why trump did it. It’s to get deAls elsewhere from the Dems. And any gun guy knows bump stocks are shit anyway. HOWEVER, it’s not about the bumpstock itself. It’s about pealing the gun rights afforded to us by the Constitution layer by layer. 

It’s the long game, it means nothing now but in 50 years. Where will the rights of free people everywhere be? It took Venezuela nearly 50 years to fully ban citizen gun ownership by a progressively socialist and communist government progression and look what happened. They WERE the second richest nation in the Western Hemisphere and the jewel of South American free enterprise. And now, they can barely keep the lights on. On and then pesky guns? Only the communist and those loyal to them own them now. Just like Cuba...

----------


## ghettoboyd

> Listen, I get why trump did it. It’s to get deAls elsewhere from the Dems. And any gun guy knows bump stocks are shit anyway. HOWEVER, it’s not about the bumpstock itself. It’s about pealing the gun rights afforded to us by the Constitution layer by layer. 
> 
> It’s the long game, it means nothing now but in 50 years. Where will the rights of free people everywhere be? It took Venezuela nearly 50 years to fully ban citizen gun ownership by a progressively socialist and communist government progression and look what happened. They WERE the second richest nation in the Western Hemisphere and the jewel of South American free enterprise. And now, they can barely keep the lights on. On and then pesky guns? Only the communist and those loyal to them own them now. Just like Cuba...


I agree he did it to appease the citizens that are demanding something be done and that is all imho...they had to do something right?...bump stocks where made to shoot bullets quickly but far from accurate..to me its obvious they where not designed for hunting but for fun/sport/mayhem idk...my 2 cents...

----------


## Obs

> Listen, I get why trump did it. It’s to get deAls elsewhere from the Dems. And any gun guy knows bump stocks are shit anyway. HOWEVER, it’s not about the bumpstock itself. It’s about pealing the gun rights afforded to us by the Constitution layer by layer. 
> 
> It’s the long game, it means nothing now but in 50 years. Where will the rights of free people everywhere be? It took Venezuela nearly 50 years to fully ban citizen gun ownership by a progressively socialist and communist government progression and look what happened. They WERE the second richest nation in the Western Hemisphere and the jewel of South American free enterprise. And now, they can barely keep the lights on. On and then pesky guns? Only the communist and those loyal to them own them now. Just like Cuba...





> I agree he did it to appease the citizens that are demanding something be done and that is all imho...they had to do something right?...bump stocks where made to shoot bullets quickly but far from accurate..to me its obvious they where not designed for hunting but for fun/sport/mayhem idk...my 2 cents...


Idk why people make excuses for their candidate. Thats what everyone does and exactly why politicians do what they do every day to use the constitution as toilet paper. 

No he didnt have to do anything. He is a piece of shit like every other out there. You couldn't vote in enough good people to make this country free again. 
Trump is no great messiah, he is a reality tv star that got rich playing off simple people desires, and manipulating them.

Be honest... If it had been Obama that had done this it would be an outrage and republicans would be kicking and screaming everywhere. 
Unfortunately people will, have, and always will blindly follow a candidate beause of a letter in front of their name, depending on whether it be a D or an R.

Trump is a bag of dog shit.
Same as obama.

----------


## ghettoboyd

im not condoning anything here obs and I agree with you... all I am saying is I understand there feeling the need to do something...

----------


## MuscleScience

> Idk why people make excuses for their candidate. Thats what everyone does and exactly why politicians do what they do every day to use the constitution as toilet paper. 
> 
> No he didnt have to do anything. He is a piece of shit like every other out there. You couldn't vote in enough good people to make this country free again. 
> Trump is no great messiah, he is a reality tv star that got rich playing off simple people desires, and manipulating them.
> 
> Be honest... If it had been Obama that had done this it would be an outrage and republicans would be kicking and screaming everywhere. 
> Unfortunately people will, have, and always will blindly follow a candidate beause of a letter in front of their name, depending on whether it be a D or an R.
> 
> Trump is a bag of dog shit.
> Same as obama.





> im not condoning anything here obs and I agree with you... all I am saying is I understand there feeling the need to do something...


Same here, 

Bumpstocks are pure gimmick. BUT they left binary and enhanced triggers alone. Those make a huge different especially enhanced or light weight triggers for precision at a distance for those that don’t know what they are.

----------


## Jayd85

> Idk why people make excuses for their candidate. Thats what everyone does and exactly why politicians do what they do every day to use the constitution as toilet paper. 
> 
> No he didnt have to do anything. He is a piece of shit like every other out there. You couldn't vote in enough good people to make this country free again. 
> Trump is no great messiah, he is a reality tv star that got rich playing off simple people desires, and manipulating them.
> 
> Be honest... If it had been Obama that had done this it would be an outrage and republicans would be kicking and screaming everywhere. 
> Unfortunately people will, have, and always will blindly follow a candidate beause of a letter in front of their name, depending on whether it be a D or an R.
> 
> Trump is a bag of dog shit.
> Same as obama.


Im solid R across the board. Lesser of 2 evils I suppose. I have yet to see one that isnt a fucking sell out. 
I voted purely on the basis of who I wanted to replace Scalia and got lucky with the second pick. 
Trump sucked off the NRA all through the election despite his pro assault rifle ban history. I saw this coming a mile away. Anyone who didnt was blinded by bullshit. 

I wouldnt ever waste my money on a bump stock.... just bitching based on the principle of it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

----------


## Jayd85

> Same here, 
> 
> Bumpstocks are pure gimmick. BUT they left binary and enhanced triggers alone. Those make a huge different especially enhanced or light weight triggers for precision at a distance for those that dont know what they are.


Thats because no one with any ability to handle a firearm at a distance has done anything they can make a pitchy slogan out of. Any retard can spray and pray. Not a one of them could tell the difference between a 3.5lb trigger on a match rifle and gritty 8 pounder on a clunky pistol. 
Im really surprised binary triggers havent made it into features tests in certain states.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

----------


## Obs

> I’m solid R across the board. Lesser of 2 evils I suppose. I have yet to see one that isn’t a fucking sell out. 
> I voted purely on the basis of who I wanted to replace Scalia and got lucky with the second pick. 
> Trump sucked off the NRA all through the election despite his pro assault rifle ban history. I saw this coming a mile away. Anyone who didn’t was blinded by bullshit. 
> 
> I wouldn’t ever waste my money on a bump stock.... just bitching based on the principle of it.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I voted trump.
Last time I will ever vote.
It does no good.
We will be perpetually handed mediocre socialism and watch laws, burea codes, and government grow perpetually. It hapoens slow enough the gullable dont notice. Even if they did they are too fat and lazy to do anything about it. 

Socialism is easier than freedom for the masses.
Freedom is the duty to take care of ones self. Why would the average pussy choose freedom?

The collective rules and the collective are those people gymrats can't stand. The fat lazy excuse makers, scoffing at exceptionalism.

The people who run the country are the same people you see at the gym one week out of the year for their new years resolution. Aka NON-HACKERS

----------


## Jayd85

I couldnt agree more. The easier life is for these shit piles, the more complacent they become. Complacency is the direct enemy of excellence. On the plus side, the few of us that strive for more, more money, more muscles and more for our children stand taller as the crowd around us gets shorter. 

While I do feel that on a national level, voting is a pointless exercise, I like to be very involved locally. I know the local politicians, the judge, the sheriff. I coach kids football and am pretty involved in wrestling. I feel that community involvement is where my real value is as a citizen. That said, almost every mediocre fat assed father in this area has something to say as soon as I turn around. If your too fat lazy and stupid to strive for excellence just put down anyone who does.

----------


## Beetlegeuse

NRA Distances Itself from Bump Stock Ban: Current Owners Should Be Allowed to Keep Theirs




> We are disappointed that this final rule fails to address the thousands of law-abiding Americans who relied on prior ATF determinations when lawfully acquiring these devices. As we recommended to the ATF in our comments on the proposed rule Congress made it possible for the Attorney General to provide amnesty for firearms regulated under the National Firearms Act. The Attorney General should have exercised that authority to provide a period of amnesty under this rule.



They don't get that. You don't get to agree with the new rule but disagree with its consequences. Whether existing owners get grandfathered in or not is a red herring. If that's genuinely their excuse then they were irresponsible for supporting the ruling in the first place without receiving assurances from the administration that exceptions would be made. Only POTUS bears more responsibility for this clusterfuck than the NRA.

Besides device owners, they also fucked Slide Fire Solutions, which had assurances from the BATF that the devices they were making were NOT an NFA device and were 100% legal. They spent their own capital on device R&D, and continued to spend profits on R&D refining their product (and expanded their product lines) all the time it was being manufactured. They were a going concern posting profits of more than half a million dollars a year. But they closed shop last June because they could see what was coming.

----------


## Beetlegeuse

> ...[T]hey left binary and enhanced triggers alone. Those make a huge different especially enhanced or light weight triggers for precision at a distance for those that don’t know what they are.


That's coming, and Trump (and the NRA) have opened the door. Wait until Pelosilly gets her gavel back. Anything that can affect cyclic rate is liable to be banned. Target and binary triggers, lightweight BCGs, certain buffer weight/buffer spring combinations, certain gas tube length/barrel length combinations and all adjustable gas blocks. Greasing the buffer tube increases cyclic rate, as will certain "hi-tech" gun lubes on the BCG.

EDIT:
I forgot suppressors. Suppressors also increase cyclic rate (unless you have an adjustable gas block) so they could decide that affixing a suppressor to an EBR transforms it into an NFA.

The dems will go after anything they can to try to claw back the losses from the Heller decision.

----------


## Beetlegeuse

A coalition of four pro-gun entities filed suit yesterday in the DC district court against the ATF  on grounds of abuse of power, lack of statutory authority, violation of _Ex Post Facto_ principles, and procedural irregularities.

Gun Owners of America states they will file suit as soon as the regulation takes effect on the grounds it violates citizens' constitutionally-enumerated right.

From GOA's announcement:



> ...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....

----------


## Ernst

So we got a GOP majority in House and Senate wit a GOP President and instead of expanded gun rights and suppressors and constitutional carry we banned bump stocks. Good job you fcukin idiots. So over politics.

----------


## Obs

> So we got a GOP majority in House and Senate wit a GOP President and instead of expanded gun rights and suppressors and constitutional carry we banned bump stocks. Good job you fcukin idiots. So over politics.


The party means nothing. Its just a means to divide people into two groups and keep them easy to control. Keep them focused on hating each other and cheering for their candidate rather than see that they are fucking slaves to the government. 
There are more laws and codes licenses and permits in the US than anywhere on earth and we got a bunch of retards calling it the most free country....

----------


## Chrisp83TRT

> The party means nothing. Its just a means to divide people into two groups and keep them easy to control. Keep them focused on hating each other and cheering for their candidate rather than see that they are fucking slaves to the government. 
> There are more laws and codes licenses and permits in the US than anywhere on earth and we got a bunch of retards calling it the most free country....


Anyone to call this country "free" needs to re-check their mental health.

We can't even speak freely without being judge , punished or imprisoned. 
This country is and has been outbid wack forever and yet people still come here to be "free" ... Free of what exactly. 

Everything we say or do is watched or monitored. 
That In itself is a crime but the government can do whatever the fuck they want because we as the people who pay taxes are too pussy shook to fight against it. 

Sent from my JSN-AL00 using Tapatalk

----------


## Couchlockd

> That's coming, and Trump (and the NRA) have opened the door. Wait until Pelosilly gets her gavel back. Anything that can affect cyclic rate is liable to be banned. Target and binary triggers, lightweight BCGs, certain buffer weight/buffer spring combinations, certain gas tube length/barrel length combinations and all adjustable gas blocks. Greasing the buffer tube increases cyclic rate, as will certain "hi-tech" gun lubes on the BCG.
> 
> EDIT:
> I forgot suppressors. Suppressors also increase cyclic rate (unless you have an adjustable gas block) so they could decide that affixing a suppressor to an EBR transforms it into an NFA.
> 
> The dems will go after anything they can to try to claw back the losses from the Heller decision.


You are too intelligent for the Dems and repubs bullshit. It has nothing to do with Dems or Repubs. It's Trump. He's a fucking small dicked orange business man.

He cares about what benifit him, and him only. He may paint his actions as "being for America" or a certain group of people. But that's classic example of "pissing down our backs and telling us it's raining at the same time blowing smoke up our asses"

I know, I know Hillary would be no better and Obama created isis.

SMH....

----------


## Chrisp83TRT

> You are too intelligent for the Dems and repubs bullshit. It has nothing to do with Dems or Repubs. It's Trump. He's a fucking small dicked orange business man.
> 
> He cares about what benifit him, and him only. He may paint his actions as "being for America" or a certain group of people. But that's classic example of "pissing down our backs and telling us it's raining at the same time blowing smoke up our asses"
> 
> I know, I know Hillary would be no better and Obama created isis.
> 
> SMH....


Bro at this point Isis is rainbows and color sprinkles compared to where our government is 

Sent from my JSN-AL00 using Tapatalk

----------


## Couchlockd

> Bro at this point Isis is rainbows and color sprinkles compared to where our government is 
> 
> Sent from my JSN-AL00 using Tapatalk


That last sentence was purely sarcasm.

Those are the responses trumpers use when all DT's shortcomings and lies are pointed out .

Obama created isis (yeah fucking right)
Hilary and emails and uranium ore dealings.

Just to point out the uranium or thing you know how far from being usable weapons-grade uranium, uranium ore is?

Uranium ore contains like 0.3% uranium and that has to be extracted it's like 36 steps away from being usable weapons-grade uranium in the amount of or needed to make one bomb is outrageous

----------


## Obs

I know some very rich people very well. I helped make them rich. 
They give zero shits about politics, but all their employees were diehard conservatives which was obvious. 

Sooo once in a while when everyone was at the same place they would appeal to their employees with their kinda politics and bitch about democrats or praise a conservative. This was merely to make the employee say, "Oh my employers are good ol down to earth people." 
This strengthened a bond and made the simpletons work all the harder, trying to impress their employers.

Such is the nature of every politician. Get simple people on your side. 

How would you get a collective of over 50% of people on your side? By only giving them two options, yes or no.

This makes everything black and white for the voters.
You will never get just black or just white. 
You will get the mix of the two which is gray.

It does not matter who you vote for, you will get the same outcome. You will get gray every time, which will always create a stronger government, more taxes, more socialism, and less individual rights according to said government.

The polarity today is fabricated by media. 

Issues that are not issues are created such as racial inequality, sexism, distribution of wealth, gun control, 
homosexual rights, gender fluiduty.....

We were set up on a system that was supposed to see things in black and white terms.
Constitutional or unconstitutional? Yes or no?

Now the system makes everything gray and the citizens see things as black and white, yes or no.

The masses were never supposed to be able to have an opportunity to vote away others rights. 
Now it is not only allowed, it is encouraged with every bit of the shit propoganda on the news and used as a tool for the candidates, whether it be trump, clinton, Obama, or bush.

----------


## Beetlegeuse

Bump stock ban opens the door for literally anything to be declared to be a machine gun




> ...This is the ATF making law. Not writing a regulation or deciding how to enforce a law through regulatory power. This is making law. This is such an incredibly dangerous precedent and if this is allowed to stand then a hostile administration can use this same power to literally declare almost anything a machine gun.
> 
> When the standard is, its a machine gun if we say its a machine gun then what is stopping them from again changing the language for the definition of a machine gun? What is stopping them from declaring all semi-automatic firearms to be machine guns? What is stopping them from declaring any gun that has the ability to accept a detachable magazine to be a machine gun? What is stopping them from declaring anything that can be fired more rapidly than a muzzle loader to be a machine gun?
> 
> This is a pivotal crossroads for the right to keep and bear modern firearms.



Rolling Stone: Why Isnt the NRA Screaming About the Bump Stock Ban?

Gun owners: Trump stabbed us in the back

Can Heller save bump stocks? Estimated 520,000 in circulation

New language is added to the end of the current definition of a machine gun

Analyzing the Bump-Stock-Type Devices Rule Technical Flaws

Facebook bans pro bump stock commentary

Pro-gun groups file lawsuit over Trump Bump Dump

----------


## Beetlegeuse

Trump's Bump Stock Ban Shows Once Again He Is Happy to Ignore Inconvenient Laws
*The administration usurps Congress by redefining machine guns.*




> ...As Joshua Prince and Adam Kraut, lawyers representing the Firearms Policy Coalition, noted in comments on the rule, the DOJ's "interpretative jiggery-pokery" is "pure applesauce." It not only is inconsistent with what everyone previously understood the law to mean, but it arbitrarily targets certain products when the DOJ's reasoning would cover all manner of jury-rigged setups that make bump fire possible. "An individual does not require a bump-stock device in order to bump-fire a factory semi-automatic firearm," Prince and Kraut write. "ATF readily acknowledges that bump-firing can be lawfully achieved through the 'use [of] rubber bands, belt loops, or [to] otherwise train their trigger finger to fire more rapidly,' in a clear statement of its intent to unequally apply the law."
> 
> Given those alternatives, not to mention the tradeoff between speed and accuracy for shooters using bump stocks, it is doubtful that banning them will have any noticeable impact on the lethality of mass shootings....


In support of his point (and in case you didn't know), infantry soldiers in the US army are armed with a select-fire weapon (meaning it will rock-n-roll but it also will fire semi-automatic) but the grunts are forbidden to use them in full auto mode under ordinary circumstances. Why? BECAUSE YOU CAN'T HIT SHIT. The weapon is shaking all the time and screwing up your cheek weld and sight picture. You're just prayin' and sprayin', which is not an effective tactic. The Army even tried to cure that problem with the M-16A2 by removing the full-auto setting and adding a 3-round burst setting. That way you still might hit something with at least one bullet out of three. But that failed because they trigger control group was a shitty design that had too many quirks and they abandoned the 3-round burst when they moved on from the A2.

ARs with bump-fire stocks are even worse because you have to manipulate the weapon in a certain manner to make the stock perform as intended and designed. You have to pull forward on the forearm with the off-hand while at the same time pulling back on the ledge on the stock adjacent to the trigger with the shooting hand, like you were playing some half-assed trombone. So in order to keep the gun running, you have to focus on keeping it stretched out as much as you can rather than focusing on the eight steady-hold factors.

So one nut job uses bump-fire stocks for a mass shooting and everybody wants 'em banned. Which is all based on the assumption that the incident was deadlier because of bump-fire. But there is exactly zero evidence to support that belief.

----------


## Obs

Trump is officially the worst president ever. 

He is worse than Obama. 

He has circumvented legislative process the same way obama caught shit for and done something no democrat could have gotten away with. 

Just keep kissing that ass for your political party. 


Ffs people are so blind! 

Thanks for the fucking multibillion dollar wall that will be abandoned on the next presidency you bag of shit. How about them tax breaks!
The part of that fucking wall that is built will have 50,000 libs dancing on it in a couple years, pretending they just toppled the berlin wall. They will all be singing kum bay yah about their "Change" too. 

Yay trump! Its change! Make America great again!

I dont have words to describe just how ignorant the masses are. 

Circle jerking morons

----------


## Couchlockd

> Trump's Bump Stock Ban Shows Once Again He Is Happy to Ignore Inconvenient Laws
> *The administration usurps Congress by redefining machine guns.*
> 
> 
> 
> In support of his point (and in case you didn't know), infantry soldiers in the US army are armed with a select-fire weapon (meaning it will rock-n-roll but it also will fire semi-automatic) but the grunts are forbidden to use them in full auto mode under ordinary circumstances. Why? BECAUSE YOU CAN'T HIT SHIT. The weapon is shaking all the time and screwing up your cheek weld and sight picture. You're just prayin' and sprayin', which is not an effective tactic. The Army even tried to cure that problem with the M-16A2 by removing the full-auto setting and adding a 3-round burst setting. That way you still might hit something with at least one bullet out of three. But that failed because they trigger control group was a shitty design that had too many quirks and they abandoned the 3-round burst when they moved on from the A2.
> 
> ARs with bump-fire stocks are even worse because you have to manipulate the weapon in a certain manner to make the stock perform as intended and designed. You have to pull forward on the forearm with the off-hand while at the same time pulling back on the ledge on the stock adjacent to the trigger with the shooting hand, like you were playing some half-assed trombone. So in order to keep the gun running, you have to focus on keeping it stretched out as much as you can rather than focusing on the eight steady-hold factors.
> 
> So one nut job uses bump-fire stocks for a mass shooting and everybody wants 'em banned. Which is all based on the assumption that the incident was deadlier because of bump-fire. But there is exactly zero evidence to support that belief.


The argument of full auto m16 not being able to hit shit is fluff.

The way a AR pattern rifle is balanced and buffered makes full auto groups easy.

It's a nice argument for gun nuts to use to justify full auto, but it's an invalid argument in the case of the AR pattern.

Now a tech 9, Mac 10, m14
Yeah good luck after first shot.

BTW, I'm a gun nut, but I choose to use valid arguments.

I want full auto cuzz it's cool. Plus full auto weapons will be in the hands of legal responsible gun owners, not your average geek off the street

I literally have shot a full auto ar. Pretty easy to keep everything center mass at 75 -100 feet.

I watched iraqveteran8888 YouTube channel out 3 drums in 10" at 25 yards with an sbr ar15 full auto.

----------


## Beetlegeuse

And the NRA is taking a victory lap, claiming they only allowed bump-fire stocks to be sacrificed to the anti-gunners for the preservation of binary triggers and the like.

----------


## Beetlegeuse

Legal Brief on the Bump-Fire stock ban

----------


## EDCG19

> And the NRA is taking a victory lap, claiming they only allowed bump-fire stocks to be sacrificed to the anti-gunners for the preservation of binary triggers and the like.


I've been saying this for years. The NRA is an organization that will eventually let shit get taken away 
One of my best friends is actually in his 20s and just doesn't have the life experience to understand nothing will change
We have argued about this shit tons of times and he still thinks Trump will change gun laws and make NFA items fully legal
Hahaha, I've been laughing ever since Trump was elected. There's no way in hell anytime soon we will see legal NFA items being sold like candy 

Some people just don't understand, you're a slave, another cog in the machine born into the system. They control you and your rights. None of this shit will ever change and the system will continue taking away your rights. They'll never stop and it will continue happening unless the nations people (slaves) open up their third eye and realize whats been going on for years in this country and all over the world

----------


## Beetlegeuse

From the Zalman Partisans:

Screw you, NRA

December 22, 2018 Carl Bussjaeger

The NRA has released a Statement on Bump Fire Stock Rule. Feel free to read it, but I can paraphrase their five paragraphs in a few words:

_Dont blame us. We only wanted regulation under the NFA, registration, taxes, and a ban on new stocks. And our compromise saved us from other bans. Lets work together._

The preemptive surrender monkeys of the NRA asked for the ATF to regulate bump-fire stocks as National Firearms Act items. They asked for this as nearly the entire politico-media industrial complex was saying that bump-fire stocks turn semiautomatic rifles into machineguns.

And just in case it wasnt clear enough, the NRA told them: The NRA believes that devices designed to allow semi-automatic rifles to function like fully-automatic rifles should be subject to additional regulations.

Does that language sound familiar?

_What type of NFA item did the NRA think the ATF would call them?_ I recall when the NRA helped draft a city assault weapon ban and similarly claimed they were preventing something worse. It didnt. And the NRA version even banned SKSs with fixed ten-round magazines.

Capitulating on bump-fire stocks turn guns into machineguns before anyone even entered a bill merely signalled to the gun control crowd that theyre fair game, and open season. It told their pet RINOs that they would not be held responsible for human/civil rights infringement. Semiauto ban bills were then entered.

The NRA claims there could have been an amnesty for existing bump-fire stocks, as provided for in the Gun Control Act of *1968*, and gives an example from 1981. Apparently they completely forgot their complicity in the Firearms Owners Protection Act of 1986 that completely closed off any possible amnesty for anything built or imported after the May 1986 deadline. (For that matter, the NRA was complicit in the NFA, claiming it would have been worse without them caving on militia grade weapons for militia members.)

If the NRA wanted an amnesty to register existing bump-fire stocks, it had to be through legislation to change the complete ban on new machineguns in FOPA. By going the ATF regulation route, they guaranteed a ban on bumpfire stocks. The Zelman Partisans have been pointing out this problem for months. The NRA didnt notice until the rule was signed (and the problem of a semi-auto ban because they can be easily converted to machinegun with bump-fire stocks, the same way we lost open-bolt semi-autos)?

The NRA told the ATF to regulate these inert chunks of plastic as machineguns, and then act shocked that FOPA applies.

Either the NRA is staffed with complete idiots, or it was just another cunning plan to push rights violations so they could then fundraise to fight the rights violation. Or buy Wayne a limo; whichever makes him happier.




> Its critical that all gun owners unite and prevent the Bloomberg-bought Congress from dismantling our Second Amendment freedom.


It is critical for all gun owners to unite. Folks, it isnt your grand dads NRA anymore, and its too far gone to ever fix and make into whatever you imagine the NRA once was. The NRA has been doing this for more than two decades. I quit the NRA over it in the mid 90s. Its past time to tell them you arent buying this load of manure anymore.

Take your time, money, and effort to someone who will work for you, instead of the NRA which consistently  _NFA, GCA, FOPA, GFSZA, Brady, constitutional carry, ERPOs_, bump-fire  works *against* you and your rights.

----------


## Obs

You put a lot of work into this thread and it is very thorough.
It is appreciated.

----------


## Obs

In case any of you don't realize the legalities, trump basically just made every semi auto illegal with a shit written law.

----------


## i_SLAM_cougars

That's okay, when they come to my door trying to take my shit away I'll make sure I have enough Tren and Halo in me that bullets won't take me down

----------


## Obs

> That's okay, when they come to my door trying to take my shit away I'll make sure I have enough Tren and Halo in me that bullets won't take me down


Thats the thing though... They wont come take them and you will have to keep it hid away and if you are ever caught with it they will arrest you and you will go to prison for a couple years. 

In a link beetle posted LE had aknowledged there would never be a confinscation. "We will just catch them during domestic incidents etc"

The only good a gun you cant shoot is good for is if there is an uprising against the government. 

There will never be an uprising against the US government because people blindly follow their candidate and political party. 

All the people who voted trump in are busy celebrating a wall that will waste billions of dollars and be torn down by liberal idiots in the next democratic presidency.

----------


## Beetlegeuse

Di-Fi agrees. The ATF lacks the authority to ban bump-fire stocks. Period.



Followed by words I never thought I'd find myself typing, ....

... Thank you, Senator Feinstein.


EDIT:
I just noticed something. Di-Fi even used the correct name. The inventor and manufacturer (Slide-Fire) called them "bump-fire" stocks. They sold them as "bump-fire" stocks and "bump-fire" was what was printed on the box they came in. The first time they sent a sample to the BATF for comment, in his reply, the jack-off from the ATF called it a "bump stock." Probably too fucking lazy to type the other five characters. So that's the term the "antis" have glommed onto.

----------


## Couchlockd

I dunno, bump fire was the first skill I learned with my mini 14.

I can shoulder bump a mini accurately enough to dispatch any threats inside 50 yards.

----------


## Beetlegeuse

Now there's a petition at White House -dot- gov you can sign for everyone to ignore. Currently at a little more than 3500 signatures.

There's a great quote in the narrative to the petition from Rob Pincus, There are many reasons to fight a bump stock ban but, Bump Stocks themselves are not one of them!

The author continues, 




> The underlying concern is that this ban opens the door to the restriction of any and all gun PARTS on the basis that they can be misused by criminals. We can't afford to simply let this one go or look the other way.
> 
> The ban unconstitutionally rewrites existing law defining what constitutes a 'machine gun'. If anything can make a semiauto firearm shoot faster, will they ban all those things? Will they ban firearms altogether, since they can be bump fired without accessories??

----------


## Beetlegeuse

From the keyboard of Massad Ayoob:

THE BUMPY ROAD OF BUMP STOCKS
December 27, 2018

So, bump stocks are now forbidden, and those who own them are ordered to turn them in or destroy them. Period. The ninety-day countdown is already underway.

Many thousands of law-abiding Americans criminalized with the proverbial stroke of the pen.

Not even an amnesty period in which to declare the oh-so-recently legal goods..

No compensation that I can see, for many, many millions of dollars worth of product. Owners are ordered to destroy them or turn them in to authorities. No other options.

In theinterest of perspective: bump stocks were used in exactly ONE atrocity, the Las Vegas massacre of 2017. I do not own one and never saw a need to. I see the bump stock as a novelty product in the firearms world, a range toy as it were.

But its not about the bump stocks.

Its about the precedent this order sets.

The bumpstocks had been approved by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives during the Obama administration. People bought them in good faith because the United States Government said they could. 

Quite apart from the Second Amendment, I think there should be other succor to be found in the Bill of Rights, because this action is about confiscation without compensation of property legally purchased and responsibly owned. 

Whats next? Only a naif would ignore the likelihood of the same action being taken against arm braces for AR15-style handguns. Or for shotshell-using firearms of the Mossberg Shockwave persuasion, probably more sooner than later if the bump stock ban stands. And, of course, the semiautomatics

Predictably the other side in this culture war will say, Screw you gun nuts, we hate you and you shouldnt have guns anyway. And to them I would say, Do you not see the same precedent being applied to your swimming pools where children drown every year, and to your gas-guzzling vehicles, and to your wood stoves that fill the air with polluting smoke?

Slippery slope. Unintended consequences. Insert additional clichés as necessary. The bump stock ban, in the long run, isnt about bump stocks nearly so much as its about terrifying precedents which are anathema to a society based on freedom and justice.

Were seeing something similar in New Jersey with its new, complete ban on any magazine holding over ten rounds, and well discuss that next time.

All the grim details of the ban order are here.

----------


## Beetlegeuse

A fourth litigant has entered the anti-anti-bump-fire stock ban fray. A Mississippi lawyer by name of Stephen Stamboulieh (who has had some successful high-profile pro-2A actions in the past) has challenged the ban on the grounds that the "acting" US Attorney General lacks the authority to sign the ban into law. He cites 28 U.S. Code § 508, which stipulates who may act as the AG, and an "acting" AG isn't mentioned anywhere.

EDIT:
Stamboulieh also argues that people who already owned bunp-fire stocks should have been grandfathered in because the BATF itself had given assurances not once but twice that the devices were legal. The obvious objection to that is that would violate the 1986 Hughes Amendment (the bizarrely-named Firearm Owner's Protection Act) which set the date of its passage as the cut-off for registering any new machineguns. BATF argues that it is not possible to make exceptions to Hughes without an act of Congress but Stamboulieh argues there already has been an exception made in at least one case and a 'new' machinegun was registered by BATF after the Hughes cut-off date. And if one exception was made, that sets the precedent for other exceptions.



And vendors are beginning to back out of the April NRA show in Indianapolis in protest over their failure to oppose the bump-fire stock ban. Hopefully enough will follow suit that they'll wake up and smell the bacon, but I doubt it.

----------


## Obs

Time to wake up.
The idiots thinking guns will be confinscated are living in the dark ages. No one will ever (door to door) collect guns. That would be absolute suicide and all politicians know it. Anyone with an IQ over 80 knows it. 
They will legislate them away slowly and if you are ever caught with a firearm that is not in compliance you will be facing ten years. There will be no uprising because people are too soft and just like to talk tough and never act. 
New Jersey has banned any magazine over 10 rounds now. Many states will follow suit. The interesting shit will happen when trump is gone. When the next Dem gets in office and uses a sloppily written law to literally classify semi autos as illegal based upon bumpfire capability. You dont need a gay ass stock to do this and likely the Democrats will realize that it is too big of a stretch to ban all semi autos because that could cause an uprising. Likely we will see nationwide magazine restrictions instead. 

"From my cold dead hands," will be arranged if you resist arrest when you are caught with a non compliant firearm. Even if you don't resist you will get to finally learn how wonderful our judicial system is. It will ruin your life for many years. 

What good is a gun you have to keep hidden away?
GUNS WILL BE TAKEN ONE AT A TIME.

To blow off trumps ban and New Jerseys ban is playing right into their hand. There needs to be zero tolerance for encroaching legislation that will slowly rob you of freedom. "From my cold dead hands" is outdated. They can take your non compliant firearms and all your freedom if you posess one, one at a time. You won't be going to the range or ever firing a non compliant weapon or you will be toe tagged or sent to prison. 
There is no question if guns were attempted to be confinscated on a mass level the blowback would be so severe that the government would be taken down. SO THEY WON'T!
They will legislate you into being a criminal and you won't be using those firearms. 

It would be so convinient if the government operated off black and white constitutional laws and rights but they don't. They turn it all grey and slowly criminalize all. 
So what are you going to do when the police have a warrant because of a suspected N/C firearm or are there on a domestic call etc and find your non compliant hi capacity semi auto? Are you going to fight them to death or go to prison? I can assure you your fellow citizens won't be pulling out their non compliant firearms and coming to your aid. After all the warrant is only for your house and as long as they keep quiet they can keep their non compliant firearms and imagined freedom. Sooooo... They will. 

This ain't 1950. The government knows how to take your guns without blowback. 

WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO ABOUT IT?

IGNORE FIREARMS LEGISLATION PASSED BY POLITICAL CANDIDATES WE LIKE?

----------


## Beetlegeuse

What's wrong with a bump-stock ban?

_The end goal of gun prohibitionists is total elimination of private firearms ownership._

They have a national history that goes back four score and five years to the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA 1934).(*1) Being unable to succeed in their goal in one fell swoop, they have implemented bans on various firearms; and created a slowly growing list of prohibited persons who may no longer legally possess firearms.

Here is a short list of just some of their actions, both nationally and in various states and localities:

1911 - Sullivan Law in New York
1981 - Morton Grove, Illinois gun ban
1982 - Chicago gun ban
1990 - Mayland Saturday Night Special ban
1986 - Hughes Amendment gun ban
1997 - Lautenberg Amendment people ban
2018 - A proliferation of Red Flag laws, including one proposed in Tennessee.

Additionally, we saw the Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994, which banned firearms with certain cosmetic features. A partial list includes semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and with two or more of the following:

Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
Bayonet mount
Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
Grenade launcher

This Federal ban, which had a ten year sunset, could have been called a lipstick and eye-shadow ban because of the fact that it had no effect on the functionality of a firearm. It also included a ten round magazine capacity limit. A number of states and municipalities passed similar bans which are still in effect. Recently, there has been a spate of similar Goldilocks bans passed around the country.

With that bit of history, we come to bump stocks.

Bump stocks were reported to be found at the site of the Las Vegas massacre. Eventually the NRA issued this statement: "The NRA believes that devices designed to allow semi-automatic rifles to function like fully-automatic rifles should be subject to additional regulations."(*2) 

Then, President Trump ordered the ATF to make a rule banning bump stocks.

Several lawsuits have been filed following the ATF's issuing their rule. Some interesting things of note in these proceedings. According to the complaint filed in the suit by David Codrea et al,

The FBI *refused to let ATF examine the guns that were found* in the Vegas hotel.

Codrea has legal possession of an Akins Accelerator, which should assure he has standing in the suit.

The deceased person identified as the perpetrator in that incident was reported to have had enough wealth to have _legally purchased any number of fully automatic weapons_. These weapons are still readily available to those who have sufficient funds. Note, the NFA 1934 was not an outright ban, but imposed a $200 tax meant to be prohibitive.

The FBI has refused a FOIA request for data stating bumpstocks were actually used in the Vegas massacre.

Much appreciation to David Hardy for the heads up on this particular lawsuit.

The United States has a government with three branches, the Legislative, the Judicial, and the Executive. We have seen a dangerous history of one branch usurping power from another. While I agree with the president on many of his policies, which are proper for his position, on this he stepped over the line into legislation. From Hardy:
"ATF has ruled at least ten times that a bumpstock is not an MG..." -but now they are by executive fiat.

This legislating from the Oval Office sets a bad precedent for future presidents who really will *renew efforts toward the end goal of total disarmament.*
-------------------------------------------
*1) I leave off discussion here of antebellum slave codes which far predated NFA 1934.
*2) Never mind that videos are readily available on the web that show how to use a rubber band or belt loop to simulate fully automatic; nor the fact that fully-automatic weapons are readily available (legally) to someone with a multi-million dollar salary.

----------


## Beetlegeuse

I've been asleep at the frickin' wheel, this is from nine days ago:

Judge sides with gun owners' groups, overrules Cincinnati's ban on bump stocks

CINCINNATI  Hamilton County Judge Robert Ruehlman sided Monday with gun owners groups that sought to overturn a city of Cincinnati ordinance banning bump stocks, a type of gun attachment that can allow a semi-automatic firearm to be fired at nearly the rate of a fully automatic weapon.

When City Council voted 7-2 to pass the ordinance in May 2018, seven months after a bump-stock-equipped shooter killed 59 people and injured hundreds of others at the Harvest music festival in Las Vegas, Councilman P.G. Sittenfeld argued: "No city should tacitly condone a device which is specifically intended to maximize carnage."

He also referred to laws that permitted bump stocks as some perverted interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.

The Buckeye Firearms Association and Ohioans for Concealed Carry filed suit June 21, 2018, arguing that the ordinance violated a state law preventing individual cities and counties from creating policies that conflict with their state and federal counterparts. A judge granted their motion for a temporary injunction preventing the ordinance from taking effect.

Court records indicate the case persisted through the rest of 2018, the city continuing to argue that bump stocks were firearm accessories and could therefore be regulated without infringing on state law or gun owners rights.

In November, both the city and the gun owners groups filed motions for summary judgment in their favor. Ruehlman granted the latter Monday.

This ban was completely unjustified and a great concern for gun owners, Buckeye Firearms Foundation executive director Dean Rieck wrote in a news release, adding later:* These bans are not about public safety. They are merely political theater and an excuse for City Councils to 'virtue signal' for publicity and personal aggrandizement.*

The local victory is likely to be overwhelmed by a national loss by the start of summer. On Dec. 18, 2018, the Trump administration announced a federal ban on bump stocks set to take effect the following March.

Its policy reclassified bump stocks as machine guns, all of which are illegal for private United States citizens to own unless manufactured before 1986. Anyone who owned one of the estimated thousands of bump stocks in the country was ordered to destroy theirs or turn them in to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives by the March 18 deadline.

Gun owners organizations such as Gun Owners of America promised a lawsuit as soon as the policy was announced, meaning members of the Buckeye Firearms Association could soon see their fight reenacted on a national stage.

----------


## Beetlegeuse

This sounds like you can count of Gorsuch to side with the plaintiff. The Chevron doctrine is like saying Bill Klinton wasn't being a smartass when he said "It depends upon what the meaning of the word 'is' is." It gives unelected bureaucrats the right to parse the the meaning of words like automatically and in the doing arbitrarily alter the intent of a law to their liking.

Bump Stock Case Expedited by Court of Appeals in DC

U.S.A. -(Ammoland.com)- The appeal by the Plaintiffs against the BATFE in the bump stock ruling has been expedited. The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has ordered the parties to submit briefs by March 4th of 2019. That is extraordinarily fast by U.S. appeals court standards.

The original ruling by the Circuit court hinged on the notion that ordinary words are ambiguous, and an agency can reverse previous rulings when the agency decides to do so. From the opinion:




> Most of the plaintiffs administrative law challenges are foreclosed by the Chevron doctrine, which permits an agency to reasonably define undefined statutory terms. See Chevron v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, 467 U.S. 837 (1984). Here, Congress defined machinegun in the NFA to include devices that permit a firearm to shoot automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger, 26 U.S.C. § 5845(b), but it did not further define the terms single function of the trigger or automatically. Because both terms are ambiguous, ATF was permitted to reasonably interpret them, and in light of their ordinary meaning, it was reasonable for ATF to interpret single function of the trigger to mean single pull of the trigger and analogous motions and automatically to mean as the result of a self-acting or self-regulating mechanism that allows the firing of multiple rounds through a single pull of the trigger. ATF also reasonably applied these definitions when it concluded that bump stocks permit a shooter to discharge multiple rounds automatically with a single function of the trigger. That this decision marked a reversal of ATFs previous interpretation is not a basis for invalidating the rule because ATFs current interpretation is lawful and ATF adequately explained the change in interpretation.


The Chevron doctrine gives enormous power to the administrative bureaucracies. An agency is not required to be consistent. An agency can change its interpretations of the law arbitrarily, as long as it can conjure up some justification of reasonableness.

One of the major challenges to the bump stock ban is that it reverses long-standing interpretation of the statute by the BATFE.

Both of President Trump's appointees to the Supreme Court, Justice Gorsuch, and Justice Kavanaugh, have been critical of the Chevron decision and its consequences. From eenews.net:




> The Chevron doctrine, which is named for a 1984 Supreme Court case, played a big role in the confirmation battle for Gorsuch, who wrote a scathing concurring opinion slamming the doctrine shortly before he was nominated for the high court. Senators focused several questions on the doctrine during Gorsuch's multiday hearing.
> 
> While Chevron is unlikely to make front-page news during the Kavanaugh confirmation process, the debate over the future of the doctrine remains strong, particularly in conservative legal circles.


The Chevron decision gives enormous power to unelected officials. It undercuts the rule of law, as interpretations of a rule can be reversed at any time, arbitrarily, and without any change in the law by Congress.

When the Chevron decision was made, it was the D.C. Circuit court that was undercutting the democratic process, by applying the court's interpretation of regulations, which often seemed at odds with what Congress had intended.

Chevron was meant to stop the abuse of power by the D.C. Circuit but unintentionally gave enormous power to the bureaucracy.

It is difficult to accurately assign motivations to an appeals court or to the Supreme Court based on the timing of appeals.

----------


## Beetlegeuse

I keep updating this thread in the hope that with all the lawsuits against the bump-fire stock ban that at least one of them will find a judge who actually has read the Constitution and will overturn Trump's EO.

Gun Owners of America Gets Its Day In Court On Bump Stocks

USA  -(AmmoLand.com)- As I write this letter to you, I am on a plane, returning from western Michigan. The lake effect has dropped more snow than Im used to seeing during this time of year. So for me, Im looking forward to returning home to dry land.

Ive left the federal district court in Kalamazoo, Michigan, where Gun Owners of America delivered its oral arguments on Wednesday in opposition to the ATFs bump stock ban.

As you know, GOA is suing the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) over its illegal ban on bump stocks. This ban is so poorly written that it threatens the legality of AR-15s and other constitutionally-protected firearms.GOAs attorney Rob Olson did a fantastic job representing gun owners in court. And he repeatedly hammered the ATF for exceeding its authority and for capriciously reversing itself in banning firearms-related items that were once legal to own.

Olson also made it clear that hundreds of thousands of innocent bump stock owners are now in danger of becoming felons after March 26. So given this looming deadline, GOA is requesting an injunction from the judge, which would stop ATF from enforcing the ban when the turn-in period ends.

*Judge Appears Wary of ATF Overreach*

During oral arguments, Olson had to vacillate between fine points of legal doctrine to countering the governments talking points that could have come from Moms Demand Action.

For example, much of the discussion with the judge centered around a doctrine known as Chevron deference.

If youre not familiar with this guideline, you might wonder what this has to do with bump stocks. But, in fact, it has quite a bit to do with the subject at hand. Chevron deference is a doctrine that essentially gives a federal agency tremendous latitude in interpreting and applying a federal statute.

Olson consistently made the point that the ATF did NOT deserve deference  that the agency was misapplying the federal statute regarding bump stocks  and, more importantly, that the ATF was effectively changing the statutory definition of what a machine gun is.

This argument seemed to resonate with the judge, who appeared unwilling to grant deference to the ATF.

*Why a Bump Stock is NOT a Machine Gun*

Another much-discussed topic centered around the very nature of a bump stock.

The judge asked GOAs counsel if a bump stock allows an uninterrupted automatic cycle of fire  as a machine gun would. Olson said NO. He explained that a bump stock allows for repeated SEMI-automatic fire in a rapid manner, where each function of the trigger produces one bullet out the end of the barrel  albeit occurring in rapid, repeated succession.

The government took the contrary view, claiming that a bump stock starts in motion a continuous chain of successive fire.

More to the point, Olson noted that while an untrained shooter could fire an automatic weapon with one hand  by simply pulling the trigger back  no person could repeatedly bump fire a semi-automatic weapon with just one hand.

Even the ATF has had to concede in its written regulation that bump firing a weapon requires the shooter to use both hands.

And this gets to the core distinction between a bump stock and an automatic weapon. The U.S. code defines a machine gun as a firearm that can shoot automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.

One can fire a machine gun with only one hand because the internal mechanism in the weapon will produce automatic fire with a single function of the trigger. But to bump fire a semi-auto, the shooter must use two hands, and in most cases, spend time learning how to actually perfect his individual technique for each different bump stock firearm. Anyone who has ever bump fired a semi-auto knows there is a learning curve in determining the appropriate amount of force with which to push forward on the firearm using the non-trigger hand.

So in other words, its the shooter who creates the bump fire effect. Because bump firing, first and foremost, is a technique, and not a product that is sold over-the-counter.

But thats not the case with a machine gun. A person who has never touched a gun could easily fire an automatic weapon because its the internal mechanism that actually allows repeated rounds to be fired automatically.

The back-and-forth between Olson and the judge on this point was crucial and could play a critical role in the judges decision-making process.

*No Evidence that Bump Stocks are a Threat to Safety*

One of the governments lawyers brought up the Las Vegas shooting from 2017 as a reason to ban bump stocks. He claimed that the inherent dangerousness of bump stocks necessitated a ban for the sake of public safety.

Of course, if this logic were to prevail, the government could justify banning all weapons  handguns, rifles, shotguns, etc.  given that all these weapons are inherently dangerous.

GOAs attorney countered by telling the judge there is no actual proof of one recorded instance where bump stocks have been used in a crime. Olson even cited the lack of FBI and ATF statements, studies or reports to demonstrate that there is no conclusive evidence that a bump stock was actually used by the Las Vegas shooter. This was something of a mic drop moment, because when given the chance to respond, the governments lawyer could not  in fact, he refused to  counter Olsons statement on this point.

Thus, the oral arguments in the Western district federal court on March 6 established unrebutted testimony that, to date, there is no proof of any documented case where a bump stock was used in a crime.

Even if it is one day determined conclusively that the Las Vegas shooting was the first case where a bump stock was used in a crime  it would still remain the ONLY case.

And this ONE case would hardly then represent an imminent danger to public safety. Especially when one considers that bump firing a weapon can be achieved without bump stocks, and that these items have been used by hundreds of thousands of gun owners in a perfectly safe manner.

*Bump Stock Regs Open Door to Banning AR-15s*

Finally, one of the most crucial moments centered around a discussion involving the potential threat to AR-15s.

GOA has repeatedly warned that the ATFs ban on bump stocks can be easily used by a future anti-gun administration to ban most, if not all, semi-automatic rifles. Olson repeated this warning to the judge and noted that the threat to AR-15s would inextricably follow from these regulations.

While the government lawyer hotly contested this assertion, Olson noted that there are other common, household items that can be used to bump fire an AR-15  such as, rubber bands, belt loops, etc.

So what happens if a homeowner has several AR-15s and a box of rubber bands? Olson noted that the ATF has already successfully prosecuted people who owned unassembled parts that could later be used to (theoretically) convert a firearm into a machine gun.

In other words, the ATF has already shown its true colors on this point. So if these regulations are eventually allowed to stand, gun owners need to beware.

Dont be surprised if the ATF  say, under a President Kamala Harris administration  deems that any homeowner who possesses both AR-15s and rubber bands has committed a felony because he or she has constructively intent to build a machine gun.

You can be sure that, if this were to occur, the ATF will be called upon to provide the best understanding of the law at that particular time. And all of its prior promises and representations  that the rule does not apply to semi-autos  will be worthless.

*Judge Questions ATF for their Change in Position*

ATF officials are well-known for changing their positions on a dime. And they are guilty of doing this in regard to their position on bump stocks. In court, the government claimed their prior opinions approving possession of bump stocks in the past were correct based on what they knew, but now they are not the best understanding of the law.

And this led to another mic drop moment, when the judge called them out on their past behavior.

The judge dryly wondered, out loud, why he should believe the ATFs position today.

The ATF claims that judges like him must adopt the agencys current interpretation on bump stocks. But ten years ago, the judge noted, the ATF was arguing the complete opposite, claiming that bump stocks were totally legal under federal law. It was a great point. And we can only hope the judge will take this point to heart  that its ATFs arbitrary interpretations that have changed over the years, and not federal law.

Judges typically will not immediately issue their rulings, and this one was no exception. We can probably expect a decision within a week.

What Ive shared with you here is only the tip of the iceberg from our day in court. But it certainly represents the highlights of what took place.

I want to thank you for helping keep Gun Owners of America on the frontlines.

Your support of GOA is what allows us to continue the fight for freedom.

In Liberty,

Erich Pratt
Executive Director

----------


## Beetlegeuse

Yahoo is reporting  that Chief Justice Roberts has rejected the request for SCOTUS to hear one of the challenges to Trump's bump-fire stock ban. The idiots at Yahoo only identify the submission as one that came from the District of Columbia and I can't figure out the specifics of their filing from that,

Yahoo also states that a another bump-fire stock ban filing (of unspecified origin) is on the desk of Justice Socialistmayor and awaiting her decision.

Proof yet again of the validity of the Peter Principle. Everyone always rises to the level of their own incompetence.

----------


## Beetlegeuse

The Bump Stock Ban: MUCH More At Stake Than Most Realize

March 28, 2019 by L.A. Paredes 

Banning bump stocks  whats next? Rubber bands? Bungee cords? Belt loops?

As pleased as weve been with having a huge 2nd Amendment advocate in the White House, and an even greater show of support with two new solid pro-gun jurists on the Supreme Court, we remain deeply frustrated with the federal ban on bump stocks. The ban is pointless  its nothing more than a ridiculous solution in search of a problem that has absolutely nothing to do with guns. And thats why Gun Owners of America (GOA) is waging a robust battle against it.

GOA is our federal counterpart, and they have taken the lead on *getting this policy reversed* (officially in place as of March 26, 2019). This week they requested the Supreme Court issue a stay of enforcement of the ban, which meant the ban would not have gone into effect until such time that the court could rule on the initial case which challenged the ban on Constitutional issues. That case is still in district court. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court denied the stay and the ban is in full effect. To be clear  the case regarding the ban is still very much alive, but our efforts to delay the ban until a final judicial resolution is in place was not successful.

* Gun Owners of America is disappointed that the Supreme Court has refused to issue a stay while our challenge to the administrations illegal bump stock ban is being considered by the courts.*

_ Gun Owners of America (GOA) legislative counsel, Michael Hammond, in response to the Supreme Courts denial of a stay on the enforcement of the bump stock ban._
Talks about banning bump stocks began in earnest following the horrific 2017 Las Vegas massacre. GOA has consistently spoken in opposition to the prohibition because it wouldnt make a dent in gun crimes nor would it have prevented that monster from committing his atrocious act two years ago. GOAs Executive Director Erich Pratt says the ban represents *an arbitrary and illegal reversal by a federal agency which for years has ruled bump stocks to be legal firearm accessories. Federal law is clear and does not apply to bump stocks.*

Pratt cautions *the regulation as written endangers the legality of semi-automatic rifles, as the ATFs new regulations open the door to further legal manipulation to ban these common rifles in the future, and Finally, the ban violates the Constitutions Takings Clause, forcing the destruction of property of law-abiding individuals without compensation.*

Without question, these are logical concerns and point to why the ban should be repealed, but as weve seen in the media, bump stocks generate a lot of opinion and raw emotion, no matter how illogical.

That being said, though, the implications are far more significant than most realize, and could impact every single American  gun owner or not. *The most serious and underlying question is whether the government should be able to change long-standing, clear and unambiguous definitions and regulations in order to achieve a politically motivated goal.*

Of course not, says the sensible American.

This, however is precisely what the Department of Justices bump stock ban has done * it has swapped out existing definitions that have been trusted, cited and quoted by the courts and the federal governments for decades. If a switcheroo is possible for distinct, legally applied and explicit definitions, there is no telling to what extreme some bureaucrat could take this.* 

To quote GOAs petition to SCOTUS, *As Applicants have noted, were the government to claim that the statute is now confusing or unclear, that would conflict with numerous past court opinions that have said otherwise and could put countless past criminal prosecutions in jeopardy.*

This is positively frightening.

California, ahead of the game when it comes to suppressing Constitutional rights, has had its own bump stop ban, even prior to the Las Vegas shootings. That did not stop the wide-eyed anti-gunners from introducing a bill in response to Las Vegas that was *already* state law. Wait  *already state law*? It was a ridiculous effort, but thats how we roll here sometimes. Politicians are big on recreating the wheel just to get their name in the press

Even if GOA is successful in reversing the ban, Californias heavy anti-gun handed bump stock ban will still stand. Unfortunately.

*To stay up-to-date on GOAs bump stock court case, click* here.

----------


## Beetlegeuse

A website that calls itself The Citizens' Voice argues that the momentum the hoplophobes gained in the bump-fire stock debacle should be used as fuel to implement even more gun grabs.


"You never want a serious crisis to go to waste."

-- Rahm Emanuel

----------


## Beetlegeuse

The sheriff of Boundary County Idaho is refusing citizens' efforts to surrender their bump-fire stocks to him. He tells them to take them to the ATF.

----------


## Beetlegeuse

A Fort Worth gun dealer is suing the government for losses they incurred when executing the federally-ordered destruction of 72,400 bump-fire stocks.

The BATF gave the public their assurances ON SIX SEPARATE OCCASIONS that bump-fire stocks were legal.

And then there's that whole pesky constitutional Due Process thing.

----------


## Beetlegeuse

RW Arms Sues Federal Government for Losses from Bump Stock Ban

Ammoland Inc. Posted on April 22, 2019 by Dean Weingarten

Arizona -(Ammoland.com)- The repercussions of the BATFE rule change classifying bump stocks as fully automatic firearms continues. RW Arms is a company located in Ft. Worth Texas. The company distributes firearms parts and accessories in the United States. RW Arms had a large inventory of over 73,000 bump stocks, when the BATFE changed the regulations and classified bump stocks as automatic firearms. RW Arms joined with retailer The Modern Sportsman to sue the federal government for an uncompensated taking of their formerly legal product under the Fifth Amendment of the the U.S. Constitution. From rwarms.com:

Fort Worth, Texas (April 8, 2019)Fort Worth based retailer RW Arms, Ltd has filed a federal lawsuit seeking monetary damages for the fair market value of the 73,436 bump stocks it destroyed in compliance with the Bump Stock Ban that went into effect on Tuesday, March 26th. The ban, which was enacted by the Trump administration, reclassifies bump stock devices as machine guns, and therefore subject to regulation as part of the Gun Control Act of 1968. The rule requires that previously lawful owners destroy or surrender the device without compensation or be subject to a penalty of up to 10 years in federal prison and $250,000 in fines for each violation.




> RW Arms joins retailer The Modern Sportsman in suing the federal government for this taking without just compensation. The lawsuit alleges that the regulation, which forces lawful owners to destroy or surrender the device, is a physical taking of their property without just compensation in violation of the 5th Amendment of the United States Constitution. Their case captioned The Modern Sportsman et al., v. United States, was filed on March 29th in the Court of Federal Claims, Washington D.C..
> 
> Without legislation, the government was able to overturn the previous ruling on bump stocks effectively turning law abiding gun owners into felons overnight if they were not turned in or destroyed, said Michael Stewart of RW Arms. This is an injustice, overreach, and infringement on our 2nd amendment and 5th amendment rights. We appreciate the work of Gun Owners of America and Firearms Policy Coalition for continuing to fight for our rights. We at RW Arms have been working behind the scenes preparing for this fight and have now filed lawsuit against the government to protect our rights and the rights of our customers from being infringed any further.
> 
> RW Arms is a wholesaler, distributor and retailer of firearms accessories and components, including high capacity magazines, performance triggers, scopes and parts for semi-automatic rifles. We appreciate the support that we have received and thank you for your business. As a small 100% veteran owned and operated company, we value your loyalty and cherish the 2nd amendment. RW Arms will continue to bring leading and innovating products to the marketplace.


The lawsuit has a better than usual chance of success, because a regulation was changed, instead of legislation being passed by Congress and signed into law by President Trump.

Another lawsuit, Codrea v. Barr, is in the works as well. That lawsuit challenges the Chevron Doctrine. Both of President Trump's Supreme Court appointees have expressed skepticism about the Chevron Doctrine, which gives enormous power to the unelected bureaucracy.

GOA has also filed a lawsuit challenging the bump stock ban on the basis of BATFE overreach by effectively changing the law, with a regulation, rather than keeping the existing interpretation, which has been the same for decades.

RW Arms clearly has standing. It suffered a clear financial loss of several million dollars.

The courts have been mixed on applying the Takings Clause. The Takings Clause has a greater chance to apply in this case, because the BATFE did not offer to grandfather existing bump stocks, as it has historically done when it ruled that formerly legal items were now prohibited.

Machine gun owners were allowed to register their previously legally owned machine guns in 1934. When the 1968 Gun Control Act was signed into law, an amnesty period was granted for people to register machine guns and other NFA items that had not been previously registered. Owners of drop-in auto sears were allowed to register their items as machine guns when the BATFE ruled that they were machine guns, at least before 1986. The NRA called for an amnesty coincident with the bump stock ban.

An amnesty is no longer a choice for RW Arms, because their property has been destroyed.

We do not know how the courts may rule on these lawsuits.

Much may depend on whether or not President Trump appoints another Supreme Court justice before the cases are settled at the Circuit Court level.

----------


## Beetlegeuse

I am in general very slow to buy into conspiracy theories, but almost from the outset there has been an "internet myth" that the Las Vega shooter didn't have bump-fire stocks at all, that he was using a full-auto FN M-249 5.56 NATO "squad automatic weapon" (SAW). For instance there are smartphone videos of the event on YouTube and the accompanying narratives claim that the cyclic rate indicated by the timing of the reports from whatever the shooter was using happens to match that of the SAW, 650-850 rpm, and was too "regular" to be a bump-fire stock. Even if true, that could be a combination of coincidence and a well-trained bumpfire stock user, so that alone does not gibve me reason to believe it was a SAW.

And almost since the beginning there also has been a story circulating that the ATF agents on the scene -- who the FBI allowed only a passing glance at the shooter's collection of weapons -- didn't see a single one with a bump-fire stock. And they weren't allowed opporunity for closer examination to determine if any of them had been 'converted' to full-auto. And supposedly the FBI spirited the cache of arms away and no one in the ATF has seen them since.

But that's purely "word of mouth" ...or keyboard. None of those accounts I've seen offer any 'proof' whatsoever.

Regardless, the shooter somehow had acquired the 24 rifles found on the scene. Presuming he wasn't an accomplished thief who never got caught, that means he bought or swapped or borrowed to get them. So I would argue it's reasonable to presume that he had adequate resources to acquire a fully-automatic weapon.

But now there's this. It purports to be the response to a Freedom Of Information request. It's the account of a man who says he crossed paths with the Las Vegas shooter at a gun range in Texas. The Vegas shooter and his companions were shooting fully-automatic ARs and an AK, which they told the witness were converted by an Athens, Texas man. There is no discussion of whether this conversion was legal but the man who the witness claims was the Vegas shooter offered to sell him one.

This is beginning to smell a little ...off ...to me.

----------


## Couchlockd

> The off smell is pretty typical of the gubbernment. Remember Waco? Ruby Ridge? We will likely NEVER know the whole truth of those encounters. 
> 
> Just like in a war, the victor gets to write 'the truth', regardless of how false it might be.


Man that was the first thing I said when I heard that story. Sounds like a belt fed machine gun

OBS can confirm that comment. First thing I said, the rate of fire and thud and clank I heard instantly said "belt fed" in my mind 

Then when I heard bump stock, I'm like maybe that explains the wierd rate of fire, but I kept saying it was just to even of a rate of fire to be a bump stock.

It never missed a beat just chugging away.

----------


## Beetlegeuse

June 18, 2019 9:07AM

Again Pointing Out Executive-Power Abuses in the New Bump Stock Ban

By Ilya Shapiro 

Before the tragic mass shooting in Las Vegas, almost nobody in the United States had ever heard of a bump stock. What was, and always has been, a gun-range novelty was suddenly the subject of national discussion. In the months following the tragedy, Congress considered and ultimately rejected a law banning these devices. Eager to seize political capital, however, the Trump administration sought to ban them anyway.

The administration faced one problem, though: the Constitution. As anyone whos seen School House Rock can tell you, only Congress can write new laws. Never to let something like a written constitution get in their way, the administration tried to make new law by reinterpreting an existing law: the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA), which heavily regulates machineguns.

For decades, Congress, the executive branch, and the people shared a common understanding: the definition of machinegun in the NFA was clear, applying only to weapons that fired continuously from a single function. Be it with a button, a lever, or a traditional trigger, a machinegun fires continuously upon the performance of a single function. Bump stocks, which require substantial and continuous user input to fire, had never been considered machineguns. President Trump announced that his administration was changing course. The president expressly declined to go through Congress, instead directing officials to redefine bump-stock devices as machineguns. In turn, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) broke from decades of precedent and granted itself a new power to ban a widely owned firearm accessory.

This expansion of regulatory authority, motivated by political expediency, cannot stand. Whether one agrees that bump stocks should be regulated or not, this change is about far more than bump stocks. ATF has asserted the complete authority to ban any new class of weapons that were never covered by the 1934 law. This approach impermissibly expands the executive branchs power to rewrite criminal laws and the casual approach to ignoring the Constitution would certainly not stop with the ATF if allowed to stand.

The new rule, making felons of an unknowable number of Americans, took effect on March 26, 2019. Gun owners and advocacy groups filed lawsuits in several federal districts, including one that ended up in the U.S. Court of Appeals for D.C. Circuit in which Cato also filed.

Another case is now before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. It was brought by the New Civil Liberties Alliance on behalf of Clark Aposhian, who lawfully purchased a bump stock. Our brief here addresses issues that no other amicus discusses: that the executive branch cannot use the administrative process to accomplish legislative goals that Congress declined to enact.

The implications of this case extend far beyond bump stocks. Regardless of what public opinion is at this moment, the law means what it says. The executive branch has the power to interpret existing law, not create new ones. The administration argues, essentially, that the clear political motive here doesnt matter, and that nothing prevents them from inventing their own definitions of the terms that define a machinegun. That simply isnt the case. Administrative interpretations are supposed to do just thatinterpret existing lawnot give new meaning to an old one.

If the government really wants to regulate bump stocks, it needs to do so by passing a new law, not by assigning new meaning to an old one. The Founders werent short-sighted; theres a reason laws that affect the entire nation have to come through Congress, not through politically motivated bureaucratic reimagination.

The Tenth Circuit will hear argument in Aposhian v. Barr this summer.


************************************************** ************************************

For the 999,999th time, the CORRECT term is bump*-FIRE* stock. Some dickhead at the ATF (dickheads? at the ATF? Isn't that redundant????) _INCORRECTLY_ typed it as "bump stock" and all the little dickhead hoplophobes who had never heard of the device before Las Vegas joined in in unison.

It's as disgusting all the dickheads who think that the 'E' at the end of Porsche is silent.

----------


## Obs

Thats a poorsh man

----------


## Couchlockd

Porsh-a?

I always thought that was the dumb layman term.

----------


## Obs

> Porsh-a?
> 
> I always thought that was the dumb layman term.


Thank God for Cheavrolay

----------


## Obs

Its like a dodg-A

----------


## Obs

Cant fuck up the annunciation of FORD.

Porsche monkeys!

----------


## Couchlockd

> Cant fuck up the annunciation of FORD.
> 
> Porsche monkeys!


Cheavrolay?!?

I swear it was Chev-row-let.

----------


## Obs

> Cheavrolay?!?
> 
> I swear it was Chev-row-let.


The "Ch" does not make an "s" sound. 

Chewy
Chow
Chunky
Chevrolet

----------


## Beetlegeuse

Trump has made noise twice in the past weeks that an executive ban might be coming for silencers. There's a shit-ton more suppressors in public hands than bump-FIRE stocks, and they cost more -- some several times several more -- than a bump-FIRE stock. And it would be a more consequential ban because the government knows who has all the suppressors (the legal ones anyway). And "silencers" already are an NFA device, the most highly regulated and tightly restricted of all firearms, so an EO banning them would be directly at odds with the NFA of 1934 (and POTUS is Executive branch, not Legislative, and is NOT constitutionally empowered to unilaterally alter or countermand existing law). And there are dozens if not hundreds of suppressor mfgrs in the US, as opposed to just a couple of bump-FIRE stock mfgrs, meaning a lot more commercial interests have skin in this game. So the pushback likely would be more ...energetic.

And there's only so many times Trump can wipe his ass with the 2nd Amendment before his base takes notice.


The 'E' in Porsche is NOT silent for the same reason that the M1 Garand is properly pronounced GAR-und and not guh-RAND. Because it's a man's name, and that's how the man himself pronounced it.

----------


## Beetlegeuse



----------


## Obs

I been saying guh rand!

I aint saying powshuh, no sir.
That was gay.

----------


## Beetlegeuse

Gun silencers would be barred under new federal legislation




> TRENTON, N.J. (AP)  Gun silencers like the one used in a recent lethal shooting in Virginia Beach would be banned under legislation that U.S. Sen. Bob Menendez of New Jersey introduced Friday....



This wouldn't be happening if Trump hadn't gone fascist and the NRA gone full-goose dumbass on the bump-FIRE stock.

----------


## Obs

> Gun silencers would be barred under new federal legislation
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This wouldn't be happening if Trump hadn't gone fascist and the NRA gone full-goose dumbass on the bump-FIRE stock.


He always was. 
They always will be.
You vote for a progressive republican or a democrat now. They are this same thing.

No politician can save people from progressive socialism. Leftist ideology is growing so fast you cannot be elected unless you are a progressive.





@ 0:50

Its not the legislature. Its the people appointing them.

----------


## Beetlegeuse

It was only ever just a matter of time before this shit started.

Relying on the Same Illogic That Trump Used to Ban Bump Stocks, a New Lawsuit Argues That Customizable Rifles Are Illegal

*The plaintiffs say manufacturers broke the law by producing rifles that were compatible with accessories that facilitate rapid firing.*

A new lawsuit against the manufacturers of guns used in the 2017 Las Vegas mass shooting claims that AR-15-style rifles are illegal because they are compatible with bump stocks, which increase their rate of fire. The plaintiffs, parents of a woman who was murdered in the Las Vegas massacre, argue that bump stocks like the ones used in that attack convert semi-automatic rifles into illegal machine gunsa position that has been endorsed by the Trump administration. Therefore, they argue, AR-15s are themselves illegal, since the federal definition of machine guns includes firearms that "can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger."...

----------


## Obs

Attachment 176952

----------


## Beetlegeuse

Net denizens are claiming Trump has told the BATF to go after stabilizer braces.

If you aren't familiar, a stabilizer brace is an add-on created so disabled shooters hold the gun more steadily when shooting with one hand. There are many designs but in general they're based on the idea of a vert short stock-like extension with a saddle-type device on the end that's strapped to the forearm. The hitch is, most of these 'stabilizers' also can be used as a butt stock. With a stabilizer brace you can "mount" the pistol as if it were a rifle.



The problem with that is the idiotic idea that a short-barreled rifle is more dangerous than one with a "full length" barrel, which is why under other circumstances any rifle with a barrel shorter than 18" is considered "short-barreled," which subjects it to the NFA, a $200 tax and a ~6-month wait period.

The truth is an SBR is more concealable but less powerful than a full-on rifle, and less concealable but can be fired with better accuracy than a 'regular' pistol, so the shooter is less likely to miss his target and hit an innocent bystander, and likely to do less damage if he does.

The bump-fire stock ostensibly also was created to help disabled shooters but their popularity among the able-bodied gave them too much exposure. I stopped caring but the last time I read an ATF opinion on the brace was that it was legal ...unless you used it like a shoulder stock. Which is tantamount to saying your automobile is illegal if you drive it over the speed limit.

I find them less defensible than the bump-fire stock but the truth is the whole SBR designation is nonsensical, should never have been created and should be abolished.

The whole NFA was a knee-jerk reaction to the prohibition-era gang wars (most notably the St. Valentine's Day Massacre of 1929, performed with "Tommy" guns) followed by the crime sprees of John Dillinger, Baby Face Nelson and Bonnie and Clyde, all four of whom were killed by LEOs the year before the NFA was passed. And besides the Tommy guns, Clyde Barrow was fond of a short-barreled Browning Automatic Rifle. Which gave the Congress a raging hard-on for fully automatic and short-barreled weapons.

Do you really think if they had passed this law in 1928 that it would have prevented any of the aforementioned acquiring what they needed anyway (Dillinger's BAR was among the machine guns he stole from a National Guard armory)? It obviously had exactly zero net effect on high-level criminality even after it was enacted, yet pass it they did, two demoncrat-controlled houses and a demoncrat/fascist president, despite the fact that the US Constitution forbade them doing so.

As I've written before, bad news makes worse law, and this is a clear example of that principle. This law had zero net effect on crime but it was the camel's nose under the tent for every gun law since.

But the upshot of this -- if it's true -- is that Trump thinks the 2nd Amendment is subject to his interpretation. And he has remarked on more than one occasion that he doesn't "like" silencers, so if this comes to pass, expect silencers to come next (if only after his re-election)..

Matters of constitutionality aside, the NFA was a duly-enacted law. Trump doesn't run the legislative branch and is not Constitutionally empowered to alter existing law, yet he did it anyway. The bump-fire stock ban was an overreach and a violation of the separation of powers. It's not a certainty that the law suits against the ban will get high enough the judiciary food chain to do any good, but until they do, until the court knock his dick into his watch pocket, I fear there'll be more of this to come.

----------


## Beetlegeuse

Good thing Kalashnikov is now an American company, huh?

Is the Trump Administration Imposing More Gun Control through BATFE with a Ban on Pistol Braces? UPDATE
Firearms News has inquired with multiple sources in Washington, D.C. and elsewhere in order to confirm what some firearm attorneys feel is the next step for pistol braces and to bring more light on this issue. As soon as we receive all answers to our inquires, we will post them on this page so be sure to check back for updates. We will leave the question mark at the end of this article’s title until more information becomes available or until there is confirmation that Trump administration and BATFE are moving forward with the regulation of pistol braces. 

A rumor appears to have been verified as fact last night, via the website AR15.com, as firearms Attorney Joshua Prince posted on Instagram that his sources have informed him that the BATFE will be issuing a statement regarding pistol arm braces at the request of President Trump. The statement will not be good news to gun owners as most likely President Trump, or his “best people,” have asked BATFE to reverse their decision which allows gun owners to place an arm brace against the shoulder without being prosecuted for having an unregistered short-barreled rifle. Will gun owners see a declaration that all arm braces are rifle stocks or will we see all braces banned outright? We will know within a short period of time. Possibly, the BATFE will just revert back to their last decision and state that the user cannot place the brace against the shoulder and there will be no confiscation of the braces as some gun owners fear. If pistol braces are all declared to be rifle stocks, a user can still attach the device to a long-gun configuration firearm. However, if they are declared as rifle stocks users, including the disabled, will not be able to use them for one-handed pistol firing.

*President Donald Trump has been proving himself to be one of the most anti-2nd Amendment presidents in the last 50 years* with the emperor-like push of his bump stock ban, his support of over 21-gun purchase legislation, his obvious lack of understanding the 2nd Amendment, his ignoring of gun control laws which passed in the last two years in CA, OR, WA, IL, NV, NM, NY, NJ, MA, FL, VT, CT and elsewhere (without an effortless tweet in opposition), support for soviet-esque red flag laws which destroy the 1st, 2nd, 4th, and 5th Amendments, and his statement that he does not like silencers.

Most likely, any BATFE declaration will be backed up by legislation at a later date just as the import “assault weapons” ban legislation of 1989 was passed after President George H.W. Bush stopped all imports earlier that year by presidential order. It looks like gun owners have nothing to look forward to in this Trump presidency. 

If this is the kind of “winning” Trump spoke about during his campaign, gun owners are now wondering who is he “winning” for.

----------


## Beetlegeuse

ATF Admits No Legal Authority For Bump Stock Ruling

The article is too fiddly to reproduce here so follow the link in the headline for the complee story. Here's the upshot:




> The statutory scheme does not, however, appear to provide the Attorney General the authority to engage in gap-filling interpretations of what qualifies as a machinegun. Congress has provided a detailed definition of the term machinegun


WOW. Truth-telling from a federal agency. Whooda thinkit?


And in other news ...

ATF only had 582 bump stocks turned in




Therein lies the rub. Since the bump-FIRE stocks were not serialized (or registered), how to find the half million or so scofflaws who ignored the EO?

----------


## Beetlegeuse

Wait, ... did Trump just make his own order to ban bump-fire stocks _illegal?_


No More ATF Guidance?

October 11, 2019 by Shawn

*Some big news this morning that may not seem that big to a lot of people. Everything from the IRS randomly changing rules on people to the ATF issuing guidance out of their ass could be effected by this. Only time will tell to what extent the swamp will be able to interpret/nullify it, of course, but it is definitely a step in the right direction.*

The order instructs federal agencies to treat guidance documents as non-binding both in law and in practice, include public input in formulating guidance, and make the documents readily available to the public:

Agencies may impose legally binding requirements on the public only through regulations and on parties on a case-by-case basis through adjudications, and only after appropriate process, except as authorized by law or as incorporated into a contract.

They have 120 days following the implementing memorandum from the Office of Management and Budget to review their own guidance documents and rescind those that they determine should no longer be in effect. If it wants guidance to remain in effect, an agency must publish the document in a single, searchable, indexed database on its website.

The second order bars federal agencies from pursuing a civil administrative enforcement action or adjudication absent prior public notice of both the enforcing agencys jurisdiction over particular conduct and the legal standards applicable to that conduct.

It notes that the Freedom of Information Act amended the Administrative Procedure Act to better protect Americans from the inherently arbitrary nature of unpublished ad hoc determinations:

The Freedom of Information Act also generally prohibits an agency from adversely affecting a person with a rule or policy that is not so published, except to the extent that the person has actual and timely notice of the terms of the rule or policy.

Unfortunately, departments and agencies (agencies) in the executive branch have not always complied with these requirements. In addition, some agency practices with respect to enforcement actions and adjudications undermine the APAs goals of promoting accountability and ensuring fairness.

The order binds agencies to apply only standards of conduct that have been publicly stated in a manner that would not cause unfair surprise to a target of enforcement, adjudication or other forms of determination that have legal consequence.

It even requires them to publish any document that they intend to enforce arising out of litigation (other than a published opinion of an adjudicator), such as a brief, a consent decree, or a settlement agreement. This means agencies cant spring new rules out of thin air on parties that werent subject to the litigation.

*One wonders if this means trump just made his own bumpstock ban illegal..*

----------


## Obs

Not sure I am understanding...
From what I read agency code is meaningless which would make 99% of laws null and void

----------


## Beetlegeuse

Dis be bad. Last I checked fewer than 600 of the estimated 500,000 bump-FIRE stocks sold had been turned in.

Court: No Compensation for Destroyed Bump Stocks

10/28/19 3:17 AM | by Chris Eger

A federal judge last week dismissed a claim from bump stock retailers who sued the government for damages they incurred after having to destroy their inventory.

The plaintiffs include two companies as well as two individuals who in all lost 74,995 bump stocks to the ban which took effect in March. The case, filed in a Washington, D.C. federal court, argued that the bans requirement that bump-stocks be surrendered or destroyed within 90 days, with no opportunity for registration, violated the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment which states that private property cant be taken for public use without compensation.

The court didnt see it that way.

The law is different in this case because the government, as the sovereign, has the power to take property that is dangerous, diseased, or used in criminal activities without compensation, said Senior Circuit Judge Loren A. Smith in his nine-page ruling. Here, ATF acted properly within the confines of the limited federal police power.

Smith, appointed to the federal bench in 1985 by President Ronald Reagan, said the $500,000 claim under the Tucker Act would be different if the government confiscated a gun legally possessed by a person not committing a crime, but argued that machine guns, which was how bump stocks were reclassified, are not protected by the Second Amendment.

The ATF rule change, retroactively reclassifying legally-sold bump stocks as illegal machine guns, became effective on March 26, 2019. After that date, those possessing a bump stock could face federal weapons charges that carry up to 10 years in prison and $250,000 in fines for each violation. Between 2008 and 2017, the ATF had issued several classification decisions concluding that certain bump-stock-type devices were not machine guns.

In early 2018, federal regulators believed there could be upwards of 520,000 stocks in circulation.

Mark Maxwell, with RW Arms, one of the plaintiffs, told Guns.com the fight will go on:

We feel strongly that the Court got this ruling wrong, and we are preparing an appeal to the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. As we plan to file later this week we recognize there are several errors made by the Judge regarding the facts and law, and we are incredibly concerned with the dangerous precedent it sets.

We will continue the fight for the Second Amendment and property rights of all Americans, against the most well-funded defendant in America, who has a history of changing rules and regulations mid-stride.

----------


## Beetlegeuse

Gun Owners of America is suing the Trump Administration over the unconstitutional bump-FIRE stock ban.




> ...Understand that whether you like bump stocks or not or think they are worthless or not is not the issue here. Its an issue of who has authority to write law and what those laws can be written concerning. Furthermore, our Constitution is clear that ex post facto law is prohibited....

----------


## Beetlegeuse

The first bump-fire stock ban appeal reached SCOTUS today and the court denied a preliminary injunction. They only lost the request for a preliminary so the entire appeal isn't dead. In fact Justice Gorsuch's comments might have lighted the way:




> ...I agree with my colleagues that the interlocutory petition before us does not merit review.The errors apparent in this preliminary ruling might yet be corrected before final judgment. Further, other courts of appeals are actively considering challenges to the same regulation. Before deciding whether to weigh in, we would benefit from hearing their considered judgments -- provided, of course, that they are not afflicted with the same problems. But waiting should not be mistaken for lack of concern.


That actually to me sounds encouraging. And if it were overturned I can only hope Trump will feel the sting of his fingers getting singed so he'll seek wiser counsel before he does anything this blatantly stupid and anti-RKBA again.

----------


## Beetlegeuse

Could this be the beginning of the end for the bump-fire ban?

Another Trump-Appointed Judge Benchslaps the Trump Administration for Rewriting Federal Gun Laws

*The federal government forgot the Tenth Amendment and the structure of the Constitution itself.*

Damon Root | 4.1.2020 1:50 PM

In response to 2017's mass shooting in Las Vegas, President Donald Trump vowed to use executive authority to ban bump stocks, a type of firearms accessory that the shooter reportedly used. The Justice Department soon delivered on Trump's promise with a new rule amending "the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives regulations to clarify that [bump-stock-type devices] are 'machineguns' as defined by the National Firearms Act of 1934 and the Gun Control Act of 1968" because "such devices allow a shooter of a semiautomatic firearm to initiate a continuous firing cycle with a single pull of the trigger." In effect, the Trump administration rewrote federal gun law in order to achieve the president's preferred policy outcome.

That unilateral executive action has now come under blistering criticism from two federal judges appointed by Trump himself.

On March 2, Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch issued a statement respecting the denial of certiorari in _Guedes v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives_. The executive branch "used to tell everyone that bump stocks don't qualify as 'machineguns.' Now it says the opposite." Yet "the law hasn't changed, only an agency's interpretation of it," Gorsuch complained. "How, in all of this, can ordinary citizens be expected to keep uprequired not only to conform their conduct to the fairest reading of the law they might expect from a neutral judge, but forced to guess whether the statute will be declared ambiguous.And why should courts, charged with the independent and neutral interpretation of the laws Congress has enacted, defer to such bureaucratic pirouetting?"

Gorsuch just got some company. This week, Judge Brantley Starr, a Trump appointee who sits on the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, issued an opinion in Lane v. United States that basically accused the Justice Department of ignoring basic principles of constitutional governance in its defense of the Trump administration's bump stock ban.

The Justice Department justified the ban as a lawful exercise of the federal police power, Judge Starr observed. But "the federal government forgot the Tenth Amendment and the structure of the Constitution itself," which grants no such power to the feds. "It is concerning that the federal government believes it swallowed the states whole. Assuming the federal government didn't abolish the states to take their police power," Starr wrote, he had no choice but to deny the government's motion to dismiss the case. He then tartly added: "The Court will allow the government to try again and explain which enumerated power justifies the federal regulation."

To say the least, Trump's bump stock ban is not off to a winning start in federal court.

----------


## Beetlegeuse

Tenth circuit orders en banc rehearing in bump stock case

"En Banc" means it's all the judges who sit in that court. It's usually done to reconsider a decision made by the customary 3-judge panel.




> Specific questions the court wants answered:
> 
> The Petition and response were circulated to all non-recused active judges of the court. A poll was called, and a majority of the non-recused active judges voted to rehear this matter en banc. Accordingly, the Petition is GRANTED, the courts May 7, 2020 judgment is VACATED, and this matter is REOPENED. See Fed. R. App. P. 35(a); see also 10th Cir. R. 35.6 (noting the effect of the grant of en banc rehearing is to vacate the judgment and to restore the case on the docket).
> 
> Although this entire case will be reheard en banc, the parties shall specifically address the following question[s] in supplemental memorandum briefs:
> 
> 1. Did the Supreme Court intend for the Chevron framework to operate as a standard of review, a tool of statutory interpretation, or an analytical framework that applies where a government agency has interpreted an ambiguous statute?
> 2. Does Chevron step-two deference depend on one or both parties invoking it, i.e., can it be waived; and, if it must be invoked by one or both parties in order for the court to apply it, did either party adequately do so here?
> 3. Is Chevron step-two deference applicable where the government interprets a statute that imposes both civil and criminal penalties?
> ...


No clue what the "chevron" business is about.

----------

