Bump stock ban news

[kidicarus13]

https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/28/polit...ban/index.html

[kidicarus13]

Bump



Obviously no one reads the Legislation and Politics sub-forum

[MattR]

I just went through and read the "rule" at least they made it crystal clear that all this covers is bump stocks and not anything else like binary triggers, or whatever. It was eye opening to read that the support was 2 to 1 for it. And everything somebody brought up as against they just said no you're wrong, lol. I found it funny that they specifically say the founding fathers wouldn't want things like this to be legal because they couldn't imagine anything like this then they reference a ruling from the 1880s as support for the atf rule. Because a ruling for a state government vs a farmer in the 1880s is relevant to this.

[SouthPaw]

http://www.armslist.com/posts/892050...fire--ssar-15-

[Irving]

Bump



Obviously no one reads the Legislation and Politics sub-forum

Apparently not. :/ https://www.ar-15.co/threads/171864-...e-(Bumpstocks)

[Eric P]

Boom...

Take your bump stock ban and shove it up your azz ATF

https://americanmilitarynews.com/202...-machine-guns/

[kidicarus13]

Nice!

[Gman]

I still take exception to the clarification as to why a bump stock isn't a machine gun. It's not that it allows firing one shot per trigger pull. The damn thing has no trigger, no receiver, no barrel, etc. To classify a piece of plastic furniture as a "machine gun" is ludicrous.

[Irving]

Do you feel the same about a lightning link? No right or wrong answer, just curious.

[00tec]

I would argue that any weapon restriction is against 2A

However, a lightning link/swift link does not actuate the aftual trigger in an AR platform, so the ATF definition plays a role. Their definition is as flexible as play-doh, so here we are.


Shall not be infringed, apparently, isn't legible.