Trump administration officially bans bump stocks
https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/18/polit...ban/index.html
If so, don?t they need to give us compensation ?
Printable View
Trump administration officially bans bump stocks
https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/18/polit...ban/index.html
If so, don?t they need to give us compensation ?
I saw it only there and on Yahoo.
I want this to be true. https://www.foxnews.com/food-drink/p...elphia-airport
Compensation....hmmm, let's see, what would be a good trade value? Oh, I know! How about a bunch of trees decorated with oath-breakers?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sixgun
On a seperate note, seems like enough time has passed that the complete BS narrative from LV is now being presented as just plain and simple fact...awesome.
LmaoQuote:
Originally Posted by Scanker19
I just saw the photo.
Figured this was coming. The Atkins stocks were banned rather hastily by the Bureau of Agents Trampling Freedom Everywhere not long after they hit the market too. Not sure if folks were compensated for those or not.
Reminder that the Republicans don't actually care about your gun rights either, just about giving enough lip service to get your vote.
A horrible overreach of executive power.
Sure they will compensate us, by f***ing us in the ass.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sixgun
Pardon me, but how in the fuck does an "acting attorney general" sign ANYTHING into law? I was pretty sure laws had to obtain the approval of both houses of Congress prior to being tendered to the President to sign or veto.
Another step on the path...
Welcome to executive orders, also known as how to do whatever you want as president. Beloved by the party in office, hated by the party not in office, and the opinions change instantly on inauguration day.Quote:
Originally Posted by TFOGGER
This right here's the kinda shit which will have people just saying "too bad, fuck'em" when the D move to impeach/prosecute (which in all likelihood they will at some point).Quote:
Originally Posted by Eargesplitten
Stupid fukin move, but awesome way to piss people off across the board, even those who could give a rat's-ass about cheezy friggin bump-stocks.
Plenty of people pointed out he was not a friend of the second, but of course that was all 4D chest and we're totally getting the HPA and reopening the MG registry. Any day now.
You mean a coastal urban elite isn't pro-gun? But...but... his security uses guns, nobody would have armed security without being pro-gun, right?
He continues to tarnish his presidency.
No wall.
Obamacare still in effect.
We're still in Afghanistan.
Now this.
Not so. Trump attempted to end Obama's over-reaching EO that allowed illegal immigrants to stay in this country, and the courts stopped him.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eargesplitten
When will the Constitution burning begin and make what's happening a bit more public?
So much for the comment period and, by the ATF's own estimation, an overwhelmingly negative number of comments opposed to the ban. But, it was obviously a done deal...just bureaucrats going the motions.
GOA is already working on a lawsuit challenging the ban. If you'd like to contribute something to help fund the lawsuit you can do so here: https://www.gunowners.com/contribute?src=bumpstocklink
Already working on the ass-chewing I'm gonna hand to my US representative and senators.
Yes, it is. For the life of me, I can't see how this is legal. It seems pretty clear that, at a minimum, this is a violation of at least the 4th and 5th Amendments. I'm failing to see where anyone is getting due process protections prior to having their property seized by the government here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rucker61
I will be anxiously awaiting a SCOTUS ruling on this. At least I think I will.
Donation made to GOA. And I used PayPal. Something satisfying about that.
Actually...the Akins agreement may be the key in all of this. The ATF made a legal agreement that the owners of the Akins would be legal if they removed the spring from the Akins. Now they are going back on that legal agreementQuote:
Originally Posted by Squeeze
If Hillary was president no one would care about bump stocks because everything else would be too fucked up.
I don't think that's accurate at all. Many, many people on here bitch constantly about both republicans and democrats not being gun friendly.
When the original thread came up about the proposed ban I wrote this:
And many others express similar sentiments.Quote:
Why? Why try to explain anything using fact and logic? It doesn't matter and it hasn't mattered for a long time. I (and many like me) no longer have a voice because I believe in the wrong things. It's as simple as that. I've called my elected representatives (and plenty that I didn't help to elect), I've emailed them and I've written letters. I get the same damn canned response every single time with words changed here and there to fit the subject. I've voted for those who tell me they believe much like I do. I've encouraged others to do the same. It's been a waste of time, effort and energy.
Engaging in intelligent conversation using fact and logic no longer matters. Emotion matters. That's the only thing these asshats listen to. The more emotion the better.
I've been engaged politically since Carter was president and I was old enough to vote. And where has that gotten me? No where. Just high blood pressure and more frustration and heartache with what my once proud country has become.
If you're not a loudmouthed, ignorant fucking snowflake these days no one wants to hear anything you have to say. Especially if you sound like you're a right wing, gun-loving, bible-clinging, mid-American, deplorable that doesn't think the way the communists and socialist in the media and most of the government do.
I'm beginning to sympathize with those who say the time to talk is over.
The one thing I will say and will stick to:
On balance, republicans are far less concerned with additional restrictions on guns than democrats are.
Ronald Reagan is the patron saint of small government and individual rights, though. He would never pass any gun control laws. Next you'll tell me he was what set California on the path to become what it is now!Quote:
Originally Posted by foxtrot
Reagan passed the 1986 GCA.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eargesplitten
https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regula...l-firearms-act
Quote:
Firearm Owners’ Protection Act
In 1986, this Act amended the NFA definition of “silencer” by adding combinations of parts for silencers and any part intended for use in the assembly or fabrication of a silencer. The Act also amended the GCA to prohibit the transfer or possession of machineguns. Exceptions were made for transfers of machineguns to, or possession of machineguns by, government agencies, and those lawfully possessed before the effective date of the prohibition, May 19, 1986.
You left off the sarcasm smiley face. Or were you actually serious?Quote:
Originally Posted by Eargesplitten
I see a whole lot of"will not comply" and "frankly DGAFF" coming in response to this...
I thought it came through without the sarcasm face, my bad.Quote:
Originally Posted by Great-Kazoo
How does the ATF intent to enforce this executive order?
I see it as unenforceable as the CO mag limit nonsense.
Is there an actual link to the proposed ban?
You know, so I can read the actual text of the actual document instead of having to take the word of CNN as gospel?
Post #7
- Page 83Quote:
The Department disagrees that other firearms or devices, such as rifles, shotguns, and binary triggers, will be reclassified as machineguns under this rule.
Wait... The ATF "disagrees that other firearms or devices, such as rifles, shotguns, and binary triggers, will be reclassified as machineguns under this rule". Is that anything like the way they disagreed for years that bump-stocks will be reclassified as machine guns? Seriously? We're supposed to buy into that bullshit?
Stalin would be very proud of a lot of our alphabet agencies.
My first thought, too. If they can't ban rubber bands, maybe they'll have to ban semiautomatic rifles.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bailey Guns
Adam Kraut has filed a lawsuit.
Feel free to donate to support it here:
https://secure.anedot.com/firearms-p...bump_stock_ban
I don't think so. The CO mag limit law puts a pretty difficult burden of proof on the state to prove your magazines are illegally possessed...you acquired them after the law went into effect. There's really no way to prove that for most magazines assuming the guns they were made for were around prior to the law taking affect.Quote:
Originally Posted by roberth
With this, it's an outright ban. Obviously (or maybe not so obviously), they aren't gonna go door-to-door searching for bump stocks. But the mere fact you have the stock will be illegal. It won't matter when it was made, etc...it's just illegal. Period. That's a pretty easy standard to meet. Bump stocks are illegal to possess. roberth was found in possession of a bump stock. BAM! Pretty easy burden of proof.
Now, having said that, I don't think the ATF is gonna go out on a national scale search looking for bump stocks. But it gives them additional ammo to fire at you in the event you pop up on their radar.
I foresee something like: Mr & Mrs Jones get into a domestic. Cops are called. Mrs Jones says Mr Jones owns a shit-ton of guns. One thing leads to another and Mr Jones is hauled off to jail. Cops ask Mrs Jones if they can look thru Mr Jones' gun stuff, she willingly agrees, and they find banned bump stock.
It's my understanding violating the ban will be a felony. Even if the domestic doesn't stick now you're looking at a federal felony.
I was surprised when this ban didn't get more pushback when it was first proposed. After the win a couple years ago, everyone on our side kinda sat back and relaxed. All the while more and more states passed some of the strictest anti-gun laws we've seen. CA, WA and others. Colorado will next year. But the Pro 2A population remains quiet and happy. Prices went down, ammo is plentiful, all is good. But it's not. The anti's are gaining ground just much more quietly now.