Suppressors may be next on Trump’s list

[Erik88]

2 hours ago, DaveTN said:

hat is why they are gone; had nothing to do with Trump.

The only load of b.s is this statement. 

[battleop]

The difference with the bumpstock vs. a suppressor is that bumpstocks were not tracked.   They had no serial number and no record of who bought and sold them plus their intent was to exploit a loophole in the law.

A suppressor is tracked, has strict guidelines on who can own them, how they are stored, transported, etc.     The press and their masters in the DNC has not picked up on suppressors like they did bump stocks.    

I never understood how Bumpstocks lasted as long as they did before they were banned.    I wonder how many thousands of people out there have them and don't even know they are banned now.

I do wonder if this guy had a legitimate suppressors or did he buy one of those "solvent traps" from the idiots at a gun show.    I stood there in amazement at one gun show in Chattanooga while the nimrods selling the adaptor to put an oil filter on the end of a gun openly talked about using them as cheap suppressors.   I've not seen them at the last gun show or two.   Maybe their dumbasses are in jail.

 

[Cruel Hand Luke]

2 hours ago, DaveTN said:

 

The other thing here, just like the Vegas shooter, is that this doesn’t appear to be a nut case with nothing to live for, or a violent mental case. If there were any warning signs no one is talking about them yet.

If the latest reports are true he had been getting increasingly violent and actually had recent physical "scuffles" with co workers and was going to be reprimanded for it. So those were the "warning signs" I guess but they were quick and not protracted.

Wonder if there might be a medical reason for the recent violent outbursts? 

Edited June 4, 2019 by Cruel Hand Luke

[Chucktshoes]

26 U.S. Code§ 5845.Definitions

 

(b)Machinegun

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. The term shall also include the frame or receiver of any such weapon, any part designed and intended solely and exclusively, or combination of parts designed and intended, for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun, and any combination of parts from which a machinegun can be assembled if such parts are in the possession or under the control of a person.

 

I’m still waiting for an explanation on how a bump stock meets this definition. Even the ATF ruling (made at the specific direction of the president) didn’t say how, just that it did. 

[GlockSpock]

6 hours ago, Chucktshoes said:

26 U.S. Code§ 5845.Definitions

 

(b)Machinegun

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. The term shall also include the frame or receiver of any such weapon, any part designed and intended solely and exclusively, or combination of parts designed and intended, for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun, and any combination of parts from which a machinegun can be assembled if such parts are in the possession or under the control of a person.

 

I’m still waiting for an explanation on how a bump stock meets this definition. Even the ATF ruling (made at the specific direction of the president) didn’t say how, just that it did. 

Hey! It doesn't!

And since someone beforehand mentioned the spirit of the law, don't all firearm restrictions violate the spirit of the 2nd Amendment?

[DaveTN]

7 hours ago, Chucktshoes said:

I’m still waiting for an explanation on how a bump stock meets this definition. Even the ATF ruling (made at the specific direction of the president) didn’t say how, just that it did. 

Interpreting the spirit of the law or the letter of the law is what lawyers and Judges do; like it or not. The guy that decided a bump stock was legal; was wrong. And he was overturned; its just that simple. It was a very obvious attempt at getting around the machine gun ban. And it worked; until someone showed the world it was a machine gun.

Trump is the type that makes things happen. He obviously used the bump stock ban for political gain. He probably should have waited and let Congress outlaw them; but he didn’t want them to steal his thunder. And since the ATF in this case didn't do their job; Congress will eventually step in and pass a law banning them. If the Democrats ever get control of both the house and Senate again; they will also try to ban AR’s.

40 minutes ago, GlockSpock said:

Hey! It doesn't!

And since someone beforehand mentioned the spirit of the law, don't all firearm restrictions violate the spirit of the 2nd Amendment?

I guess your question would get into a whole 2nd amendment debate. But that really doesn’t matter because your state doesn’t recognize that you have 2nd amendment rights. Do I think a ban on machine guns is a violation of the 2nd amendment? Yes, of course it is if you believe you having one is required for a well regulated Militia, maintaining the security of a free State. But if you believe that, what about Tanks, Fighter Aircraft, Missiles, MOAB’s and Nukes? If you believe the intent of the 2nd amendment was ever to allow the people to overthrow our government; you would need those things also.

The bottom line is, if you abide by the Constitution of the United States, we have a system in place to answer Constitutional questions when they arise. It is the Court System and ultimately the Supreme Court of the United States. Is someone going to spend the money to try to get the bump stock ban to the SCOTUS? Maybe, but doubtful, it’s an obvious outright violation of the intent of the machine gun ban. You could try to get the machine gun ban overturned; that would be great!

[GlockSpock]

31 minutes ago, DaveTN said:

Interpreting the spirit of the law or the letter of the law is what lawyers and Judges do; like it or not. The guy that decided a bump stock was legal; was wrong. And he was overturned; its just that simple. It was a very obvious attempt at getting around the machine gun ban. And it worked; until someone showed the world it was a machine gun.

Trump is the type that makes things happen. He obviously used the bump stock ban for political gain. He probably should have waited and let Congress outlaw them; but he didn’t want them to steal his thunder. And since the ATF in this case didn't do their job; Congress will eventually step in and pass a law banning them. If the Democrats ever get control of both the house and Senate again; they will also try to ban AR’s.

I guess your question would get into a whole 2nd amendment debate. But that really doesn’t matter because your state doesn’t recognize that you have 2nd amendment rights. Do I think a ban on machine guns is a violation of the 2nd amendment? Yes, of course it is if you believe you having one is required for a well regulated Militia, maintaining the security of a free State. But if you believe that, what about Tanks, Fighter Aircraft, Missiles, MOAB’s and Nukes? If you believe the intent of the 2nd amendment was ever to allow the people to overthrow our government; you would need those things also.

The bottom line is, if you abide by the Constitution of the United States, we have a system in place to answer Constitutional questions when they arise. It is the Court System and ultimately the Supreme Court of the United States. Is someone going to spend the money to try to get the bump stock ban to the SCOTUS? Maybe, but doubtful, it’s an obvious outright violation of the intent of the machine gun ban. You could try to get the machine gun ban overturned; that would be great!

I'm still waiting on this:

Repealing the machine gun ban amendment tacked on to the McClure-Volkmer bill will be a high priority.

Guess who!

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/the-nras-flip-flop-on-mac_b_2741689

[FUJIMO]

I see this as a one liner answer from an interviewer attempting, successfully, to get gun owners, a good amount of them Trump supporters, riled up. Has ANYONE been able to confirm it was an actual silencer ? This is like verbal photo shop where you can manipulate anything under the right conditions.

[Johnny Rotten]

13 minutes ago, GlockSpock said:

I'm still waiting on this:

Repealing the machine gun ban amendment tacked on to the McClure-Volkmer bill will be a high priority.

Guess who!

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/the-nras-flip-flop-on-mac_b_2741689

Can't comment I'll violate every COC rules

[DaveTN]

16 minutes ago, GlockSpock said:

I'm still waiting on this:

Repealing the machine gun ban amendment tacked on to the McClure-Volkmer bill will be a high priority.

Guess who!

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/the-nras-flip-flop-on-mac_b_2741689

That was 33 years ago. I hope you aren’t trying to hold your breath.

You obviously won’t get legislation though Congress making machine guns legal now, or in the near future. They only way that could happen would be a Supreme Court ruling.

 

[DaveTN]

11 minutes ago, FUJIMO said:

Has ANYONE been able to confirm it was an actual silencer ? 

I wondered the same thing; but it won’t matter to the media.

I also want to hear Trump expand on his brief comment.

[Chucktshoes]

1 hour ago, DaveTN said:

Interpreting the spirit of the law or the letter of the law is what lawyers and Judges do; like it or not. The guy that decided a bump stock was legal; was wrong. And he was overturned; its just that simple. It was a very obvious attempt at getting around the machine gun ban. And it worked; until someone showed the world it was a machine gun.

Trump is the type that makes things happen. He obviously used the bump stock ban for political gain. He probably should have waited and let Congress outlaw them; but he didn’t want them to steal his thunder. And since the ATF in this case didn't do their job; Congress will eventually step in and pass a law banning them. If the Democrats ever get control of both the house and Senate again; they will also try to ban AR’s.

 

Soooo, you can’t explain how, it just is, right? 

Here’s the thing, the bump stocks aren’t really the point here. It’s the how that’s the issue. When Kamala Harris or someone just like her gets into office and takes executive action against gun owners and manufacturers, will you be praising them as “someone who gets things done?” 

I’m sorry, I can’t get down with the idea of praising a tyrant just because he’s my tyrant. I called out Obama for being wrong when he bragged about his “pen and a phone” and Trump is wrong for the same types of actions for the very same reasons. 

[FUJIMO]

16 minutes ago, DaveTN said:

I wondered the same thing; but it won’t matter to the media.

I also want to hear Trump expand on his brief comment.

Agreed. I feel like they have kept the fires stoked since the day he descended that escalator.

He didn't expand because he doesn't know jack about the subject, which is why he probably moved on once he answered. It would be asinine to believe he stays up to date on every gun law out there and I wouldn't be surprised if when someone told him they are already heavily regulated he would pretend to know that but in reality it would be a surprise.

[GlockSpock]

2 minutes ago, Chucktshoes said:

Soooo, you can’t explain how, it just is, right? 

Here’s the thing, the bump stocks aren’t really the point here. It’s the how that’s the issue. When Kamala Harris or someone just like her gets into office and takes executive action against gun owners and manufacturers, will you be praising them as “someone who gets things done?” 

I’m sorry, I can’t get down with the idea of praising a tyrant just because he’s my tyrant. I called out Obama for being wrong when he bragged about his “pen and a phone” and Trump is wrong for the same types of actions for the very same reasons. 

Trump...who has pro-gunningly "got more anti-gun stuff" done than Obama the Anti-Gunner.

[DaveTN]

12 minutes ago, Chucktshoes said:

Soooo, you can’t explain how, it just is, right? 

Sure I can, I can argue it either way. You won’t agree with me if I make a case on why they banned; so I won’t try. Money can't bring bump stocks back; so it matters not what either of us think.

14 minutes ago, Chucktshoes said:

Here’s the thing, the bump stocks aren’t really the point here. It’s the how that’s the issue. When Kamala Harris or someone just like her gets into office and takes executive action against gun owners and manufacturers, will you be praising them as “someone who gets things done?” 

I don’t agree with the way he did it. I’m just saying the ban was inevitable and he seized the opportunity.

During the Vegas shooting all the so call “gun experts” were saying “That’s automatic weapon fire!” including myself.

So when I heard it was bump stocks, common sense told me they were gone; regardless of what I thought about it.

Kamila Harris or whatever Dem gets in is already going to try an executive order outlawing private sales without a background check. They have already said that and it has nothing to do with what Trump does. They will then try an AR ban; turning all of us that refuse to comply into criminals. I suspect states will step in and that will quickly go to the SCOTUS. I guess how fast could depend on who they appoint AG.

12 minutes ago, Chucktshoes said:

I’m sorry, I can’t get down with the idea of praising a tyrant just because he’s my tyrant. I called out Obama for being wrong when he bragged about his “pen and a phone” and Trump is wrong for the same types of actions for the very same reasons. 

I know you think he a tyrant. But he is the elected President. I said the same thing right here when people called for the impeachment of Obama. He was elected not once, but twice. You can’t impeach a President because you don’t like him. I hated him and I think he did more to hurt this country than any President I have ever seen; and I believe it was intentional. The voters disagreed with me.

However, beyond that, to compare Trump to Obama on gun control is laughable; it can’t be discussed seriously.

[Chucktshoes]

23 minutes ago, DaveTN said:

Sure I can, I can argue it either way. You won’t agree with me if I make a case on why they banned; so I won’t try. Money can't bring bump stocks back; so it matters not what either of us think.

I don’t agree with the way he did it. I’m just saying the ban was inevitable and he seized the opportunity.

During the Vegas shooting all the so call “gun experts” were saying “That’s automatic weapon fire!” including myself.

So when I heard it was bump stocks, common sense told me they were gone; regardless of what I thought about it.

Kamila Harris or whatever Dem gets in is already going to try an executive order outlawing private sales without a background check. They have already said that and it has nothing to do with what Trump does. They will then try an AR ban; turning all of us that refuse to comply into criminals. I suspect states will step in and that will quickly go to the SCOTUS. I guess how fast could depend on who they appoint AG.

I know you think he a tyrant. But he is the elected President. I said the same thing right here when people called for the impeachment of Obama. He was elected not once, but twice. You can’t impeach a President because you don’t like him. I hated him and I think he did more to hurt this country than any President I have ever seen; and I believe it was intentional. The voters disagreed with me.

However, beyond that, to compare Trump to Obama on gun control is laughable; it can’t be discussed seriously.

I’m not asking for you to explain the why, but the how. It’s a very simple and direct question that is always sidestepped, including by the ATF. How does the bump stock meet the legal definition of a machine gun? Its operation and use still requires a full operation of the trigger for every round fired. It does not and cannot cause more than one round to fire for a single trigger pull, so how is it a machine gun. Somebody, anybody, please provide an explanation on that simple technical detail. 

Youre right, whatever Dem gets the White House next will go for executive action  why hand them a head start by not challenging now? Wrong is wrong no matter who’s doing it  

To be clear, I don’t think Trump is a tyrant. I think he’s a childish buffoon who opens his mouth way too often before engaging his brain for sure. Overall though, I’m not in opposed to most of his policies and they are undertaken in a just and appropriate manner. In this case he acted in a tyrannical manner by instructing an executive agency to reverse a legal decision that effectively resulted in the taking of tens of millions of dollars in property from citizens with no compensation. The declaration by fiat that possession of legally acquired property one day is legal and the next day is a felony punishable by 10 years in prison is a pretty textbook definition of tryannical action. 

You’re right, Obama was way better for us. Nothing got banned and millions of acres of federal land were opened up to hunting and for legal carry. It’s laughable to compare the two  

Just like here in TN, a Democrat executive with a Republican legislature results in a net gain while a Republican trifecta results in no gains or even a net loss. I really wish someone could explain how that works to me. 

Edited June 5, 2019 by Chucktshoes

[GlockSpock]

7 minutes ago, Chucktshoes said:

I’m not asking for you to explain the why, but the how. It’s a very simple and direct question that is always sidestepped, including by the ATF. How does the bump stock meet the legal definition of a machine gun? Its operation and use still requires a full operation of the trigger for every round fired. It does not and cannot cause more than one round to fire for a single trigger pull, so how is it a machine gun. Somebody, anybody, please provide an explanation on that simple technical detail. 

Youre right, whatever Dem gets the White House next will go for executive action  why hand them a head start by not challenging now? Wrong is wrong no matter who’s doing it  

To be clear, I don’t think Trump is a tyrant. I think he’s a childish buffoon who opens his mouth way too often before engaging his brain for sure. Overall though, I’m not in opposed to most of his policies and they are undertaken in a just and appropriate manner. In this case he acted in a tyrannical manner by instructing an executive agency to reverse a legal decision that effectively resulted in the taking of tens of millions of dollars in property from citizens with no compensation. The declaration by fiat that possession of legally acquired property one day is legal and the next day is a felony punishable by 10 years in prison is a pretty textbook definition of tryannical action. 

You’re right, Obama was way better for us. Nothing got banned and millions of acres of federal land were opened up to hunting and for legal carry. It’s laughable to compare the two  

Just like here in TN, a Democrat executive with a Republican legislature results in a net gain while a Republican trifecta results in no gains or even a net loss. I really wish someone could explain how that works to me. 

I will try to explain it, as I think about this a lot.

Complacency. By us. I think we are much more vocal when someone such as "Obama and the Democrats" are "out to get our guns". But when we are "winning", time goes by and we forget. Since the Republicans are "our guys", we softly accept their answers of "now is not the time!" or "I tried but it didn't work".

Us. That's the problem.

[DaveTN]

10 minutes ago, Chucktshoes said:

I’m not asking for you to explain the why, but the how. It’s a very simple and direct question that is always sidestepped, including by the ATF. How does the bump stock meet the legal definition of a machine gun? Its operation and use still requires a full operation of the trigger for every round fired. It does not and cannot cause more than one round to fire for a single trigger pull, so how is it a machine gun. Somebody, anybody, please provide an explanation on that simple technical detail. 

The intent of the law was to outlaw machine guns. How much simpler can it possibly be? 

 

 

 

It can be argued that someone got lost in the technicalities by trying to add in unnecessary verbiage. Make the argument that a single pull of the trigger is the deciding factor and run it up the flag pole in court. Get back to us with the results.

Here are other examples of where that happened:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

should be:

The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

or how about…

Any person that can lawfully posses a handgun in this state can posses a handgun in their private vehicle.

 

[DaveTN]

23 minutes ago, Chucktshoes said:

To be clear, I don’t think Trump is a tyrant. I think he’s a childish buffoon who opens his mouth way too often before engaging his brain for sure.

Well dang, ya got me there Chuck. I have to agree.

[Chucktshoes]

1 minute ago, DaveTN said:

The intent of the law was to outlaw machine guns. How much simpler can it possibly be? 

 

 

 

It can be argued that someone got lost in the technicalities by trying to add in unnecessary verbiage. Make the argument that a single pull of the trigger is the deciding factor and run it up the flag pole in court. Get back to us with the results.

Here are other examples of where that happened:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

should be:

The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

or how about…

Any person that can lawfully posses a handgun in this state can posses a handgun in their private vehicle.

 

You’re still sidestepping the question. Yes, the intent was to outlaw machine guns and the statute and regs are quite clear as far as to what constitutes a machine gun. I will refer you to my previous post where I quoted the law in question. 

 

10 hours ago, Chucktshoes said:

26 U.S. Code§ 5845.Definitions

 

(b)Machinegun

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. The term shall also include the frame or receiver of any such weapon, any part designed and intended solely and exclusively, or combination of parts designed and intended, for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun, and any combination of parts from which a machinegun can be assembled if such parts are in the possession or under the control of a person.

 

I’m still waiting for an explanation on how a bump stock meets this definition. Even the ATF ruling (made at the specific direction of the president) didn’t say how, just that it did. 

 

[DaveTN]

31 minutes ago, Chucktshoes said:

You’re still sidestepping the question.

Trump asked the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) to promulgate a new rule banning them. 

Previously, the ATF had said the National Firearms Act did not give the ATF the power it would need to classify them as illegal. Bump stocks “were not classified as machine guns,” ATF determined, because they were “unable to convert a weapon to shoot automatically.” Thus, “ATF does not have the authority to restrict their lawful possession, use, or transfer.”

The newly drafted regulation, however, changes ATF’s interpretation of “automatic” and asserts that bump stocks allow a shooter to fire more than one round “by a single function of the trigger.”

Now, these devices can be regulated under the NFA.

The Supreme Court refused to reverse the ATF ruling.

Chief Justice John Roberts turned down one effort. The second was referred to the full court by Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor, but it was denied without any public dissent.

Suppressors on the other hand would require amending or repealing the NFA to make them legal. Make machines guns legal while that's happening.

Edited June 5, 2019 by DaveTN

[Chucktshoes]

13 minutes ago, DaveTN said:

Trump asked the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) to promulgate a new rule banning them. 

Previously, the ATF had said the National Firearms Act did not give the ATF the power it would need to classify them as illegal. Bump stocks “were not classified as machine guns,” ATF determined, because they were “unable to convert a weapon to shoot automatically.” Thus, “ATF does not have the authority to restrict their lawful possession, use, or transfer.”

The newly drafted regulation, however, changes ATF’s interpretation of “automatic” and asserts that bump stocks allow a shooter to fire more than one round “by a single function of the trigger.”

Now, these devices can be regulated under the NFA.

The Supreme Court refused to reverse the ATF ruling.

Chief Justice John Roberts turned down one effort. The second was referred to the full court by Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor, but it was denied without any public dissent.

Suppressors on the other hand would require amending or repealing the NFA to make them legal. Make machines guns legal while that's happening.

I appreciate the rundown of information that heretofore was only being contested by you. At least you aren’t still trying to maintain that this rule change “had nothing to do with Trump.” I am well aware of the chain of events that led to the reclassification of bump stocks as machine guns. 

It still doesn’t answer the basic question of how does a bump stock fit the legal definition of a machine gun as quoted above. The language used by the ATF to say that it does in the new reg amounts to nothing more than “when the wording of the law says this, it means this other thing” all the while twisting the plain meaning of words to cover bump stocks while ignoring basic details of how they actually function. 

This has been my issue with this whole situation from the beginning. I don’t want or care about bump stocks in and of themselves. I actually think they are kind of dumb. But I take serious issue with the government changing its mind one day and by executive fiat turning citizens into felons with the stroke of a pen. When government officials have to power to say “I don’t care what the law says, it means what I want it to mean and it means you’re a criminal and I will cage you or kill if you don’t obey,” that’s the very definition of tyranny. 

[DaveTN]

19 minutes ago, Chucktshoes said:

I appreciate the rundown of information that heretofore was only being contested by you. At least you aren’t still trying to maintain that this rule change “had nothing to do with Trump.” I am well aware of the chain of events that led to the reclassification of bump stocks as machine guns. 

It still doesn’t answer the basic question of how does a bump stock fit the legal definition of a machine gun as quoted above. The language used by the ATF to say that it does in the new reg amounts to nothing more than “when the wording of the law says this, it means this other thing” all the while twisting the plain meaning of words to cover bump stocks while ignoring basic details of how they actually function. 

This has been my issue with this whole situation from the beginning. I don’t want or care about bump stocks in and of themselves. I actually think they are kind of dumb. But I take serious issue with the government changing its mind one day and by executive fiat turning citizens into felons with the stroke of a pen. When government officials have to power to say “I don’t care what the law says, it means what I want it to mean and it means you’re a criminal and I will cage you or kill if you don’t obey,” that’s the very definition of tyranny. 

When Judges do it; its called legislating from the bench. Making up their own interpretations of the law based on their own feelings. That’s what the ATF is doing.

Whether it happens in the courtroom or in an ATF office; there is recourse. The ultimate recourse is the SCOTUS. Its been to them twice and they have failed to hear it. The only recourse to that is to try again.

 

 

[Chucktshoes]

2 minutes ago, DaveTN said:

When Judges do it; its called legislating from the bench. Making up their own interpretations of the law based on their own feelings. That’s what the ATF is doing.

Whether it happens in the courtroom or in an ATF office; there is recourse. The ultimate recourse is the SCOTUS. Its been to them twice and they have failed to hear it. The only recourse to that is to try again.

 

 

That process is in the works as we speak by folks at GOA and others. It’s a shame the NRA isn’t doing a damn thing to help  

*Tangent* While we agree on almost nothing, Dave, I have to say I really do enjoy our discussions. You help me to not be a lazy debator.

[GlockSpock]

56 minutes ago, Chucktshoes said:

That process is in the works as we speak by folks at GOA and others. It’s a shame the NRA isn’t doing a damn thing to help  

*Tangent* While we agree on almost nothing, Dave, I have to say I really do enjoy our discussions. You help me to not be a lazy debator.

Didn’t you read my previous post? The NRA is working on appealing the Hughes Amendment.