Bump-Fire Stock Ban

[Wingshooter]

2 hours ago, Oh Shoot said:

How could they be regulated any differently, assuming they follow, you know, the actual NFA law, which is why ATF found them to be legit in the first place?

"The term “machinegun” means any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger."  -- 26 U.S. Code § 5845 - Definitions

 

- OS

Maybe the public gets the perception that action is being taken as it goes to an ATF hearing and then fades away into the night like the M855 debate. Maybe Congress knows the ATF can't do anything about it, but they'll give the issue the DC shuffle to take the heat off themselves (for a while anyway).

Or... maybe I'm giving them too much credit 

[GlockSpock]

9 hours ago, Wingshooter said:

Maybe the public gets the perception that action is being taken as it goes to an ATF hearing and then fades away into the night like the M855 debate. Maybe Congress knows the ATF can't do anything about it, but they'll give the issue the DC shuffle to take the heat off themselves (for a while anyway).

Or... maybe I'm giving them too much credit 

I hope so. Honestly that would be pretty ok, push it off on the ATF while knowing they cannot interpret "Machine Gun Language" any differently and then it fades away six months from now after everything has died down.

 

With that being said, assuming that the bill is actually just a bill and was presented to actually pass, I guess I'm just numb to the whole thing in a big way now. With Legislative and Executive branches both Republican controlled, I guess that ANY legislation that is passed will come across as a betrayal to me. I never falsely believed that Republicans were truly 100% Pro-2nd Amendment, but a lot of them present themselves as that way. However, when it comes down to it, a lot of "Pro-2nd Amendment" people are simply the "hunting rifle don't touch my six-shooter, I don't own any of that military type stuff and I think it should be banned variety".

In all honestly, I think I generally like 100% anti-gun people more than the pseudo gun loving hypocrite described above. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, I just happen to find a lot of error the in the extremely strong "Pro-Gun Anti-Scary Gun" type of people out there.

[Chucktshoes]

13 minutes ago, CZ9MM said:

I never falsely believed that Republicans were truly 100% Pro-2nd Amendment, but a lot of them present themselves as that way. However, when it comes down to it, a lot of "Pro-2nd Amendment" people are simply the "hunting rifle don't touch my six-shooter, I don't own any of that military type stuff and I think it should be banned variety".

In all honestly, I think I generally like 100% anti-gun people more than the pseudo gun loving hypocrite described above. 

An honest enemy is always preferable to a false friend. 

[mikegideon]

38 minutes ago, CZ9MM said:

I hope so. Honestly that would be pretty ok, push it off on the ATF while knowing they cannot interpret "Machine Gun Language" any differently and then it fades away six months from now after everything has died down.

There is another issue that may not matter to us. The NRA is constantly under attack. Steering this thing away from congress, and into a black hole can be interpreted, by folks with less knowledge, as an show of "common sense". If I lived in a swamp, I may use tactics like that.

[DaveTN]

On 10/11/2017 at 7:36 PM, Oh Shoot said:

How could they be regulated any differently, assuming they follow, you know, the actual NFA law, which is why ATF found them to be legit in the first place?

"The term “machinegun” means any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger."  -- 26 U.S. Code § 5845 - Definitions

 

On 10/11/2017 at 9:39 PM, Oh Shoot said:

Whatever regulatory wackiness the BATFE may be guilty of through the years, they can't revise the wording of an enacted federal law.

Keeping emotion out of this I don’t foresee the courts, both state and Federal, having any problem finding that putting a bump stock on meets the definition of a machine gun.

The problem with the ATF regulating them (As in Class 3) is that they don’t have anything to authorize them to okay a machine gun made after 1968 for private ownership.

What we heard in the video, as a few here stated, was an automatic weapon. You can make all the arguments that you want about whether or not we should be able to have automatic weapons, but the argument that that those weapons weren’t automatic won’t stand.

Thats just my opinion on the law. The ATF can say anything they like, but the courts can overrule them. I don’t believe the higher courts will support them on this.

Now, as far as whether or not you should be able to own a machine gun; the intent of the 2nd amendment is not so that you can hunt, target shoot, or even protect yourself and your family. It’s to keep the people from being disarmed and not have the ability to stand against a tyrannical government. That is it’s only purpose. Common sense tells me that we would need fully automatic weapons to make that stand.

[Omega]

2 hours ago, DaveTN said:

 

Keeping emotion out of this I don’t foresee the courts, both state and Federal, having any problem finding that putting a bump stock on meets the definition of a machine gun.

The problem with the ATF regulating them (As in Class 3) is that they don’t have anything to authorize them to okay a machine gun made after 1968 for private ownership.

What we heard in the video, as a few here stated, was an automatic weapon. You can make all the arguments that you want about whether or not we should be able to have automatic weapons, but the argument that that those weapons weren’t automatic won’t stand.

Thats just my opinion on the law. The ATF can say anything they like, but the courts can overrule them. I don’t believe the higher courts will support them on this.

Now, as far as whether or not you should be able to own a machine gun; the intent of the 2nd amendment is not so that you can hunt, target shoot, or even protect yourself and your family. It’s to keep the people from being disarmed and not have the ability to stand against a tyrannical government. That is it’s only purpose. Common sense tells me that we would need fully automatic weapons to make that stand.

 Just because it looks or sounds like a machinegun does not make it one, at least not unless they change the legal definition. If I show anyone, that is not accustomed to the messed up ATF rules, my 300 Blackout pistol, they will swear up and down that it's a rifle, yet currently ATF says it is not.  The courts have made bad decisions in the past, but for the most part they try and keep it within the letter of the law, so I doubt they can rule any other way. The unknowing public will just have to get over it.

 

[JAB]

On 10/12/2017 at 9:06 AM, CZ9MM said:

... a lot of "Pro-2nd Amendment" people are simply the "hunting rifle don't touch my six-shooter, I don't own any of that military type stuff and I think it should be banned variety".

There is a derogatory term for such a person.  The term is that the person is a 'Fudd' - as in Elmer Fudd.

Personally, my own 'likes' lean more toward shotguns, lever rifles and revolvers and I don't own an AR or AK variant but I don't want to see things banned even if, like bump stocks, I have no personal interest in owning them.

Edited October 13, 2017 by JAB

[Johnny Rotten]

bump stocks are not MG, MG are not bump stocks, by the second time I heard a video I already assumed it was a BS the ROF was to choppy, if a really MG was used the outcome would have been much worse.

Not sure what the ATF would do if they out law them, Id wager they would be grandfathered in or confiscate, who knows!!

I'll also wager BF and Slide Fire will get sued at some point and they'll go away because there pure evil in the publics eyes.

[Omega]

7 minutes ago, Johnny Rotten said:

bump stocks are not MG, MG are not bump stocks, by the second time I heard a video I already assumed it was a BS the ROF was to choppy, if a really MG was used the outcome would have been much worse.

Not sure what the ATF would do if they out law them, Id wager they would be grandfathered in or confiscate, who knows!!

I'll also wager BF and Slide Fire will get sued at some point and they'll go away because there pure evil in the publics eyes.

I could swear there is already a lawsuit filed, I'll have to dig up a link..

Yup our Brady "friends" at it again: https://www.dallasnews.com/news/guns/2017/10/10/texas-bump-stock-maker-faces-lawsuit-following-las-vegas-mass-shooting

 

[Mindless-Focus]

https://www.firearmspolicy.org/oppose_sb_1472_bump_stock_ban?utm_campaign=1026tnbumpstock&utm_medium=email&utm_source=firearmspolicycoalition

[Omega]

34 minutes ago, Mindless-Focus said:

https://www.firearmspolicy.org/oppose_sb_1472_bump_stock_ban?utm_campaign=1026tnbumpstock&utm_medium=email&utm_source=firearmspolicycoalition

This needs it's own thread, another TN Democrat anti-gunner is trying to get one over on us, and with this Governor it may just pass if we don't seriously raise a stink about it.

[Mindless-Focus]

It is now. 

[drewski]

The proposed ATF rulings through the federal register are accepting comments until 01/25.  This is an opportunity we have to voice our personal opinions about the proposed regulations.  no matter your view of "bump fire stocks", the verbiage used in this ruling paves the way for complete ban on semi auto firearms.  the GOA has a link to the federal register comment page for this regulation.  

https://www.gunownersamerica.com/atf-speak-up-now/?email=citestlist5000@gmail.com

[Dolomite_supafly]

We MUST come together, if we don't we shall all be criminals at some point.

[Ugly]

This proposal is a liberal wet dream! 

Even my over under with a single trigger would make me a criminal, geez.

We need to stop this.

[GlockSpock]

56 minutes ago, drewski said:

The proposed ATF rulings through the federal register are accepting comments until 01/25.  This is an opportunity we have to voice our personal opinions about the proposed regulations.  no matter your view of "bump fire stocks", the verbiage used in this ruling paves the way for complete ban on semi auto firearms.  the GOA has a link to the federal register comment page for this regulation.  

https://www.gunownersamerica.com/atf-speak-up-now/?email=citestlist5000@gmail.com

 

33 minutes ago, Dolomite_supafly said:

We MUST come together, if we don't we shall all be criminals at some point.

I passed my comments along to them. Not that doing so will make any difference, in my opinion.

Any other thoughts on what to do? Since it is theoretically an ATF ruling to begin with, does anyone think writing your US Representatives/Senators would help in the slightest?

[Garufa]

1 hour ago, drewski said:

The proposed ATF rulings through the federal register are accepting comments until 01/25.  This is an opportunity we have to voice our personal opinions about the proposed regulations.  no matter your view of "bump fire stocks", the verbiage used in this ruling paves the way for complete ban on semi auto firearms.  the GOA has a link to the federal register comment page for this regulation.  

https://www.gunownersamerica.com/atf-speak-up-now/?email=citestlist5000@gmail.com

That link is to submit an email to some gmail account.

This is the actual proposed rule as published in the Federal Register:  https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/12/26/2017-27898/application-of-the-definition-of-machinegun-to-bump-fire-stocks-and-other-similar-devices.

Edited January 19, 2018 by Garufa

[Dolomite_supafly]

I came out early saying the NRA was throwing us to the wolves. I was mocked, ridiculed and told I wasn't smart enough to know what was going on. I was told it is just a stock, what does it matter. Well now we are going to see how broad this is going to be because the NRA got involved.

The NRA wants turmoil in the gun community because it generates revenue. That is why they asked the ATF to review this, because it generates turmoil and income. Time and time again the NRA has taken a side counter to their members. If you are a member of the NRA, leave. Join another group because the NRA is no longer pro gun, they are in business to make money and turmoil in the gun industry makes them money. The NRA has been instrumental in every single law passed restricting our gun rights and this one is no different.

Those we have elected have no desire to represent those who elected them. They refuse to listen to us and do not care what we have to say. They will not take a stand either way because they want any vote they can get, even at the cost of OUR Constitutional rights. We have a super majority yet we cannot get one single thing done that is positive for gun owners. National reciprocity, I can promise you that is never going to happen and to be honest why do we want the federal government involved in state issues. All they are doing is passing laws to further restrict our rights. Those we have elected are nothing more than 80's Democrats. They are weak kneed pansies and should be ashamed of themselves for allowing this to happen to our country. Imagine if our founding fathers were so week kneed.

Send emails and makes calls to your representative to let them know you are going to vote them out of office. They only care about remaining in office so when you threaten that they will act. If they do not listen then back up your threat and vote for anyone other than an incumbent.

WE MUST COME TOGETHER OR WE WILL BE LEFT STANDING ALONE.

We are getting closer to the tree of liberty having a growth spurt.

Edited January 19, 2018 by Dolomite_supafly

[mikegideon]

1 hour ago, Dolomite_supafly said:

We MUST come together, if we don't we shall all be criminals at some point.

Once they turn us into criminals, they have to catch us. They suck at that. Could be liberating.

[DWARREN123]

People voted these politicians in and seem to like what they are doing since many get reelected.

[GlockSpock]

It might not be much but I thought I would try this agreement:

 

[Dolomite_supafly]

1 hour ago, DWARREN123 said:

People voted these politicians in and seem to like what they are doing since many get reelected.

I doubt that. I believe that most people who vote republican these days vote only because of the "R" next to their name on the ballot, not because they like what they are doing. And if conservative voters do not like what a candidate is doing they just stay home, and pout like a two year old, instead of actually doing something to effect change. Very few voters know anything about those they elect or where they stand on the issues, again they vote according to the letter next to their name. The representatives we have elected have no desire to do anything to help gun owners. They could easily do things to help gun owners and conservative values but they won't because they just want to lay low until after the mid terms. They will not take a chance on loosing votes from both conservative as well as from liberal voters. I recently read an article where the republicans were trying to figure out a way to win over liberal voters and I think this is one of the things they are doing to get more liberal voters to keep them in office. But it really doesn't matter because, as I said earlier, Democrats and Republicans are different sides of the same coin. They both want to control us and will use force to ensure they have that control.

In New Jersey citizens are going to become felons overnight for possessing a bump stock and that was put in place by Chris Christie, a person that a lot of people propped up on a pedestal as a conservative Republican. But he is not the only one, Paul Ryan is also a turn coat who refuses to do anything to forward our gun rights or conservative values at all. I could keep going down the list of members of Congress and say the same for the majority of those who claim to be conservative.

If I could make one change to our voting system it would be to remove party affiliation from the ballot. That way people would hopefully vote for those that best represent them and their individual values instead of voting along party lines. But most people would be against that because they are too stupid or too lazy to actually research those they are voting for.

Do you think it is a coincidence that any ban that will go into effect will go in effect AFTER mid terms? They did it intentionally so voters will have already voted and so most voters will have forgotten about, or gotten used to the idea of, the ban by the time the 2020 elections come around. The time frame was planned to gather the largest amount of votes.

Look at how easily definitions are going to be changed, without a vote, to turn a law abiding citizens into criminals overnight because they own a firearm accessory. Any, and every, law can be changed by changing the definition of what it affects and they can do so without so much as a vote.