DOJ rules that bump stocks ARE machineguns

[RED333]

1 hour ago, AuEagle said:

Just my opinion.

Pro Life

Pro 2nd Amendment

Believes & follows the Constitution.  As in before 1930.

Small Govt.

Fiscally Responsible.

Lower Taxes

Encourage Business both small & large.

 

I'm sure I missed some things, thanks for the question.

Fixed that for you.

[Erik88]

11 hours ago, AuEagle said:

Fiscally Responsible.

Lower Taxes

These 2 things are great, but essentially inverse of one another. We're seeing this play out in real time. You cannot lower taxes while simultaneously increasing spending. The GOP is a lot of things, fiscally responsible they are not. They like to claim that they are, so long as they aren't in power. 

The next recession is going to be a real mess. If we thought $1 trillion deficits were huge I can only imagine what's about to come. 

[seez52]

Back to the topic at hand...

If this is the definition they are going to stick with then some of us may consider this a win. With their use of recoil being an integral part of their equation those who have cranks mounted on their weapons would seemingly be ok for now?

[btq96r]

You guys getting tired of all the winning on gun rights yet?

Two years of consolidated power to pass whatever could have come through a Congress that has a lot of favors to repay the gun lobby, and all we got was zip.

[E4 No More]

15 minutes ago, btq96r said:

You guys getting tired of all the winning on gun rights yet?

Two years of consolidated power to pass whatever could have come through a Congress that has a lot of favors to repay the gun lobby, and all we got was zip.

Yes it should have been prioritized over tax reform and other such trivial things that have the economy booming. Don't forget about the RINOs in Main, Alaska, and Arizona in your blame game.

[Erik88]

27 minutes ago, btq96r said:

You guys getting tired of all the winning on gun rights yet?

Two years of consolidated power to pass whatever could have come through a Congress that has a lot of favors to repay the gun lobby, and all we got was zip.

Yep. I pointed this out recently that we were all excited about HPA, NFA repeal, etc. To my knowledge, not a single bill was brought to a vote. You can't blame the RINO's when no one even attempts to pass anything. 

[DaveTN]

9 minutes ago, Erik88 said:

Yep. I pointed this out recently that we were all excited about HPA, NFA repeal, etc. To my knowledge, not a single bill was brought to a vote. You can't blame the RINO's when no one even attempts to pass anything. 

Best I can tell a HPA bill is still working its way through. Although I suspect your Democrats will kill that in the house. I don’t think you could get a repeal of the NFA through either party; certainly not enough to pass.

I’m not big on the Feds and Federal Gun Laws. The states control most of what you can do. Until a SCOTUS decision upholding the right of all Americans to both keep and bear arms; I would like to see it stay that way.

[btq96r]

2 hours ago, SWJewellTN said:

Yes it should have been prioritized over tax reform and other such trivial things that have the economy booming. Don't forget about the RINOs in Main, Alaska, and Arizona in your blame game.

Congress is fully capable of multiple efforts at the same time...especially on different topics.  Gun laws go through the committees that oversee DOJ & ATF, tax reform went through the Ways & Means Committee.  The only time they need to act as a full body is for the voting.  Things they want to happen, will happen.  Clearly this wasn't a priority for the congress or the administration.  Who knows when the chance will come again.

I'm not saying we needed to get everything, but something would have been nice.  Moving SBRs off the NFA list, or approval with a standard background check and a $200 tax stamp the FFL can collect would suffice.  Just ending the wait that's become a infringement via the bottleneck is the ass pain there.  The HPA could of also been passed with a modicum of effort (even tacked onto some appropriations bill), but clearly the President and Congress weren't of a mind to reward gun owners for their loyalty shown in the turnout out for the 2016 election.

Instead, the gun lobby is acquiescing over something they would have fought the Obama administration on. 

Edited November 16, 2018 by btq96r

[btq96r]

2 hours ago, DaveTN said:

Best I can tell a HPA bill is still working its way through. Although I suspect your Democrats will kill that in the house. I don’t think you could get a repeal of the NFA through either party; certainly not enough to pass.

The HPA will have to be re-introduced in the next Congress.  Any bill pending expires after the two year term ends.  Simple enough, just a re-filing by staffers, and updated co-sponsors if they want.

You can talk about the Democrats killing it in the House, but as of today with 23 months of Republican controlled Congress, it's in the exact spot a Democratic block would keep it at, so really, there is no difference in how each party is treating it.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/367

[E4 No More]

8 minutes ago, btq96r said:

Congress is fully capable of multiple efforts at the same time...especially on different topics.  Gun laws go through the committees that oversee DOJ & ATF, tax reform went through the Ways & Means Committee.  The only time they need to act as a full body is for the voting.  Things they want to happen, will happen.  Clearly this wasn't a priority for the congress or the administration.  Who knows when the chance will come again.

I'm not saying we needed to get everything, but something would have been nice.  Moving SBRs off the NFA list, or approval with a standard background check and a $200 tax stamp the FFL can collect would suffice.  Just ending the wait that's become a infringement via the bottleneck is the ass pain there.  The HPA could of also been passed with a modicum of effort (even tacked onto some appropriations bill), but clearly the President and Congress weren't of a mind to reward gun owners for their loyalty shown in the turnout out for the 2016 election.

Instead, the gun lobby is acquiescing over something they would have fought the Obama administration on. 

Calculate the percentage of gun owners that want those things to the rest of the population that either couldn't care less or would be absolutely against it and you have your answer.

 

BTW: Remove the SBR and can from NFA and forget about the stamp is where I'd go.

[Chucktshoes]

2 hours ago, SWJewellTN said:

Calculate the percentage of gun owners that want those things to the rest of the population that either couldn't care less or would be absolutely against it and you have your answer.

Not to mention, no matter how poorly the Republicans treat gun owners by paying lip service and then not following through, what are their other options? They’re not voting for a Democrat who is openly hostile to them. The R’s have gunowners as a captive voting block just like the Democrats have many minority groups. They get all of the benefits without having to do any actual work. 

Welcome to the plantation. 

[BrasilNuts]

I regret that I voted for Trump and all of those other Republicans.

I should have cast my vote for Hillary.

I was but a lowly hillbilly gun owner who knew not of what I was doing.

Thank you for leading me into the light and showing me the error of my ways.

 

Edit:  @Chucktshoes you were spot on target.

Edited November 17, 2018 by BrasilNuts

[jgradyc]

3 hours ago, BrasilNuts said:

I regret that I voted for Trump and all of those other Republicans.

I should have cast my vote for Hillary.

I was but a lowly hillbilly gun owner who knew not of what I was doing.

Thank you to leading me into the light and showing me the error of my ways.

 

Edit:  @Chucktshoes you were spot on target.

Your post made me laugh! As far as bump stocks are concerned, when I first saw one at a gun show, I thought, "How in the world is this not classified as a fully automatic weapon, semantics about pulling the trigger aside. It fires like a full auto." I could see it being banned way back then. The handwriting was on the wall. It was a loophole that would eventually be closed.

My second thought was how often would I want to expend $30-$50 worth of ammo in 3 seconds? My answer was never, so I passed on buying one. 

Edited November 17, 2018 by jgradyc

[Omega]

12 hours ago, jgradyc said:

Your post made me laugh! As far as bump stocks are concerned, when I first saw one at a gun show, I thought, "How in the world is this not classified as a fully automatic weapon, semantics about pulling the trigger aside. It fires like a full auto." I could see it being banned way back then. The handwriting was on the wall. It was a loophole that would eventually be closed.

My second thought was how often would I want to expend $30-$50 worth of ammo in 3 seconds? My answer was never, so I passed on buying one. 

Actually not the point.  The point is that they keep moving the goal posts; if they rule something legal, then how are we to know otherwise.  As far as I'm concerned, if they "change" their minds, the onus is on them to make current owners whole, not make them destroy their property or go to jail.  This is not the first time they have pulled this BS, they should not be allowed to do it again.

[Raoul]

3 hours ago, Omega said:

Actually not the point.  The point is that they keep moving the goal posts; if they rule something legal, then how are we to know otherwise.  As far as I'm concerned, if they "change" their minds, the onus is on them to make current owners whole, not make them destroy their property or go to jail.  This is not the first time they have pulled this BS, they should not be allowed to do it again.

Good luck with that.

[OLDNEWBIE]

If the goal post was no full auto for all this time, then a device was made to mimic full auto....

Now that device is illegal too.

Then I don't see how the goal post was moved.

Good to try not to give an inch though.

It slows up the Prog March to ban semi-auto. 

So shhhhh about the beltloop thing.

[m16ty]

On 11/16/2018 at 9:50 AM, Erik88 said:

These 2 things are great, but essentially inverse of one another. We're seeing this play out in real time. You cannot lower taxes while simultaneously increasing spending. The GOP is a lot of things, fiscally responsible they are not. They like to claim that they are, so long as they aren't in power. 

The next recession is going to be a real mess. If we thought $1 trillion deficits were huge I can only imagine what's about to come. 

The theory is that when you lower taxes, it makes the economy better and the government takes in more taxes. This can work if you do it right. I agree though, both parties spend way too much.

As far as Trump and the bump stocks, I don't like it, but he will still probably get my vote in 2020. What else you going to do, vote for a Bernie or Liz Warren, or are you planning on throwing your vote away to a third party? Sometimes you just have to play the hand you've got. 

You've also got to look at the big picture. Ruth Bader Ginsburg has one foot in the grave, and rumor is another justice may retire. Long term 2nd amendment success depends on a conservative supreme court, because sooner or later the Dems are likely to get back ahold of 2 branches, and it will be scorched earth toward the 2nd amendment. 

[jgradyc]

On 11/18/2018 at 12:14 AM, m16ty said:

The theory is that when you lower taxes, it makes the economy better and the government takes in more taxes. This can work if you do it right. I agree though, both parties spend way too much.

As far as Trump and the bump stocks, I don't like it, but he will still probably get my vote in 2020. What else you going to do, vote for a Bernie or Liz Warren, or are you planning on throwing your vote away to a third party? Sometimes you just have to play the hand you've got. 

You've also got to look at the big picture. Ruth Bader Ginsburg has one foot in the grave, and rumor is another justice may retire. Long term 2nd amendment success depends on a conservative supreme court, because sooner or later the Dems are likely to get back ahold of 2 branches, and it will be scorched earth toward the 2nd amendment. 

Ah... Bernie. I thought he was a merely a delusional, ideological socialist extremist. Then, when he folded into supporting Hillary after she had stolen the nomination from him, I realized that he was something far worse... a politician.

[Omega]

On 11/17/2018 at 10:47 PM, OLDNEWBIE said:

If the goal post was no full auto for all this time, then a device was made to mimic full auto....

Now that device is illegal too.

Then I don't see how the goal post was moved.

Good to try not to give an inch though.

It slows up the Prog March to ban semi-auto. 

So shhhhh about the beltloop thing.

Well, let's look at the anology; the way to execute an extra point or field goal is to get the ball between the goal post uprights.  But if they then change it to where it now has to go between one foot over the horizontal bar and one foot below the top of the uprights, after you have kicked the ball, then would anyone go for that?  It's their charge to give us the left and right limits to stay legal, if they are not up to the job they need to find employment elsewhere. 

[OLDNEWBIE]

4 hours ago, Omega said:

Well, let's look at the anology; the way to execute an extra point or field goal is to get the ball between the goal post uprights.  But if they then change it to where it now has to go between one foot over the horizontal bar and one foot below the top of the uprights, after you have kicked the ball, then would anyone go for that?  It's their charge to give us the left and right limits to stay legal, if they are not up to the job they need to find employment elsewhere. 

That's what they are doing. They finally got around to telling us that the bump stock, (in their opinion), turns a semi-auto into a machine gun and it's not going to be allowed because full auto is no longer allowed. No real law change just a catch up on things availiable now.

We all know that a bump stock does not a machine gun make but it's pretty obvious it is a lame attempt to mimic full auto,

and it works well in the right hands somewhat. I'm surprised no politician caught this earlier. Then again many are gun ignorant on the left.

Now when they start putting vague language in the law that talks about "any alteration that can increase a rate of fire"......

That needs to be nipped in the bud! That can mean trigger jobs and other modest mods to make a gun run smoother and yes, a little faster maybe.

I understood this law specifically mentioned Bump Stocks. I hope it did anyway. If not this law IS the slippery slope you all think it is!

 

 

[Omega]

2 minutes ago, OLDNEWBIE said:

That's what they are doing. They finally got around to telling us that the bump stock, (in their opinion), turns a semi-auto into a machine gun and it's not going to be allowed because full auto is no longer allowed. No real law change just a catch up on things availiable now.

We all know that a bump stock does not a machine gun make but it's pretty obvious it is a lame attempt to mimic full auto,

and it works well in the right hands somewhat. I'm surprised no politician caught this earlier. Then again many are gun ignorant on the left.

Now when they start putting vague language in the law that talks about "any alteration that can increase a rate of fire"......

That needs to be nipped in the bud! That can mean trigger jobs and other modest mods to make a gun run smoother and yes, a little faster maybe.

I understood this law specifically mentioned Bump Stocks. I hope it did anyway. If not this law IS the slippery slope you all think it is!

 

 

BS, they've had since 1934 to figure out what a machine gun is, or is not (I feel that law is unconstitutional too). And these bump fire solutions have been available since what 03' or 04'?  In 2005, they screwed  Adkins out out of his life's savings, not to mention all the buyers of the Adkins accelerator. Now they are fixing to do the same to another company and a bunch of gun owners. Instead of making laws which affect only law abiding citizens, they should make laws that hit those that break current laws, use a gun in a crime, double their time.

[Oh Shoot]

48 minutes ago, OLDNEWBIE said:

....

I understood this law specifically mentioned Bump Stocks....

There is no new law regarding bump stocks.  Just ATF knuckling under to a DJT whim.

- OS

[OLDNEWBIE]

 (I feel that law is unconstitutional too) Bingo!

I wouldn't disagree with you there.

[OLDNEWBIE]

1 hour ago, Oh Shoot said:

There is no new law regarding bump stocks.  Just ATF knuckling under to a DJT whim.

- OS

So it's not specific to bump stocks?

[Oh Shoot]

14 minutes ago, OLDNEWBIE said:

So it's not specific to bump stocks?

"It" is a whimsical ruling, not a law. But to be enforced as if it were an actual passed law, even though it is plain that it does not conform to the actual passed federal law we already have.

Now Florida did actually pass a no-bump-stock law, promoted by that staunch 2A governor, Rick Scott. Who will now be a staunch 2A supporting Senator, where as such he can do a lot more damage in the future.

- OS

Edited November 20, 2018 by Oh Shoot