Bump Fire Stocks Ban Coming Soon

[shooter444]

"#45 Post by knockonit » Today, 1:14 pm
hahah, some fake news sure gets folks going."


Hmmm,... I would say, only the fake political scholars,... imo.

[Joe_Blacke]

Actually,... there is a designated legislated procedure to instituting a regulation,... it is involved and exact in execution!

Any claim of President Trump doing an Obamy,... executive order,... is incorrect!

Factually,... the setting of any foundation, that democrats will leverage the next time in office,... has already been done, by Obamy..

Facts are a funny thing. They are easy to prove.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/20/politics ... index.html

“President Donald Trump said on Tuesday that he has directed his attorney general to propose changes that would ban bump fire stocks, which make it easier to fire rounds more quickly.”

To change the definition of machine gun to include bumpfire stocks is not something the executive branch can arbitrarily perform.

[shooter444]

Facts are a funny thing. They are easy to prove.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/20/politics ... index.html

“President Donald Trump said on Tuesday that he has directed his attorney general to propose changes that would ban bump fire stocks, which make it easier to fire rounds more quickly.”

To change the definition of machine gun to include bumpfire stocks is not something the executive branch can arbitrarily perform.
[/quote]

________________________________________

Hmmm,... are you sure of what you are stating?
Are you sure You know for a FACT that he is going to "ARBITRARILY" CHANGE the DEFINITION of a machine gun?

I doubt that,.... I guess we will just have to wait and see,... right?

I know, and have witnessed President Trump saying things that he shortens for the fake media. I also witnessed him stating on the news that the BUMP STOCK BAN PROCESS had been started weeks before the interview, and that another week or so would be needed.

Now,... that,... didn't sound like an Obamy exec order, since an exec orders go into affect IMMEDIATELY!

Hmmm,... are you ABSOLUTELY SURE of what you are stating?

[Joe_Blacke]

Where did I say this was an Executive Order.

I said the President ordered his Attorney General to do it. The how to implement part he left up to the A.G.

[shooter444]

The lack of concern regarding having a President order his attorney general to ban something, thus bypassing all appropriate due process, is amazing.

He is setting the foundation that democrats will definitely leverage next time in office.

Well, call me presumptuous , but, OBAMY EXECUTIVE ORDERS usually carry the description of "bypassing all appropriate due process".

You most certainly have implied that he was not going to go through proper channels,.... and, your definitive claim of knowing what the President said,... ie "The how to implement part he left up to the A.G.",... is absolutely prophetic!!!

This is one more of your statements I will be waiting anxiously to see if true, or not, in the future.

[Joe_Blacke]

Your posts make absolutely no sense.

No where did I mention this was an executive order. I don’t know why you think this is important.

I did say that Trump ordered his AG to figure out a way to ban these items. There are multiple, easily found articles and videos of Trump saying it.

Nowhere in the Constitution is the president authorized, via his AG, to ban anything. He is setting new precedent here. He is totally bypassing Congress to get this done.

The AG chose the approach of changing the definitions of a machine gun to include bump stocks. Again this is easily researched and verifiable. Trump just spoke and said they are nearing the finish line of implementation.


You’ve bounced around and said the ban doesn’t concern you because bump stocks aren’t something you care about, while also claiming the ban won’t happen. So which is it?

[Joe_Blacke]

This explains it pretty well.

ATF says they have no authority.
Congress says trump has no authority to legislate a bump stock ban.

https://reason.com/archives/2018/06/27/ ... me-gun-rig



ATF Flips on Bump Stock Ban, Some Gun Rights Groups Are Mad

Under Obama the ATF admitted that Congress denied it authority to ban bump-fire stocks on AR-15s, but now the ban seems imminent.

GEORGE FREY/REUTERS/NewscomFor nearly a decade, on precisely 10 different occasions, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) concluded that so-called bump-fire stocks on AR-15s and similar rifles are legal under federal law. Bump-fire stocks use the gun's recoil to increase the rate of fire.

But then came the October 2017 mass shooting of concert attendees in Las Vegas, where police said the shooter possessed bump fire stocks. Within weeks, the ATF abruptly reversed itself, with an endorsement from President Donald Trump and Attorney General Jeff Sessions earlier this year.

Two gun rights groups today filed documents accusing the ATF of acting unlawfully by concealing evidence, exceeding authority granted by Congress, and ignoring the Second Amendment. Today is the last day to file comments on the ATF's proposed ban, which will take effect later this year—assuming it's not withdrawn or prevented from taking effect by a court challenge.

ATF's proposed ban, published March 29, would treat bump fire stocks as machine guns regulated under the National Firearms Act of 1934. "Current possessors of these devices would be required to surrender them, destroy them, or otherwise render them permanently inoperable upon the effective date of the final rule," the ATF's announcement says.

Trump endorsed the federal ban—bump fire stocks are already illegal in California and some other states—in February. "We can do that with an executive order," Trump said at the time. "I'm going to write the bump stock, essentially, write it out. So you won't have to worry about bump stock. Shortly that will be gone." The National Rifle Association's Wayne LaPierre and Chris Cox endorsed Trump's position, saying in a statement that ATF should "immediately review whether these devices comply with federal law."

Today's lengthy filing by the two Second Amendment groups, the Firearms Policy Coalition and Firearms Policy Foundation, is likely to prove embarrassing to the ATF. It lays out a convincing argument that the agency had investigated bump-fire stocks in great detail, and, in sworn testimony and pleadings in federal district court, concluded that they were perfectly legal under federal law.

During the Obama administration, an era not known for its aggressive pro-gun advocacy, the ATF even went beyond that statement—and concluded that Congress had denied it the authority to classify bump-fire stocks as machine guns. A 2013 letter from the ATF to Rep. Ed Perlmutter (D-Colo.) said flatly that "ATF does not have the authority to restrict their lawful possession, use, or transfer." Anti-gun Democrats have echoed this, with Sen. Dianne Feinstein saying on Twitter last fall: "The ATF lacks authority under the law to ban bump-fire stocks. Period. Legislation is the only answer and Congress shouldn't pass the buck."

The filing by the Firearms Policy Coalition and Firearms Policy Foundation points out videos, some available on YouTube, that show how to fire an unmodified AR-15 faster and more accurately than a bump-fire stocks. One technique shows how to achieve "the same result" with a simple rubber band, which is apparently not banned by the ATF's proposal.

Finally, it argues that there is no evidence the Las Vegas shooter used a firearm outfitted with a bump fire stock. The groups acknowledge that the Las Vegas police's preliminary report, released in January, indicates that some weapons found in the Mandalay Bay hotel room were outfitted with devices similar to bump-fire stocks. But, they say, the report never says that those particular guns were used during the crime. (The two groups filed an expedited Freedom of Information Act request with the ATF and FBI on this point, but report that, as of today, neither agency has confirmed the use of a bump-fire stock in the commission of any crime. Both agencies are involved in the Las Vegas investigation.)

"Because of the federal rulemaking process [the Administrative Procedure Act] and the possibility of litigation with procedural claims, we wanted to provide a robust comment in opposition to the ban that was supported by evidence," says Firearms Policy Coalition president Brandon Combs. "What's unique about this issue is how clear, I think, the statutes are."

If Trump wishes to ban bump-fire stocks, the path seems straightforward: Ask Congress to do it. As Reason's Jacob Sullum wrote earlier this year, "the route Trump has chosen is not just indirect and uncertain; it is dishonest and unprincipled." That criticism also applies to Sessions, who presents himself as a conservative committed to defending the Constitution and the separation of powers.

Rep. Thomas Massie, the Kentucky Republican who leads the congressional Second Amendment Caucus, told Reason last fall: "It is the height of legislative malpractice to ask the executive branch to legislate… It will come back to bite us, and it erodes the system of government that the Founding Fathers intended to set up."

You can file comments on the ATF's proposed bump-fire ban, docket ATF-2018-0002, using Regulations.gov until midnight ET.

[storage_man]

Did shooter44 ever read the proposal that was on the ATF web site ?

[ksh480]

.

[Andrew TCB]

I'm so glad we elected a president who would fight for our gun rights. It's a good thing that we didn't nominate any of those other candidates.

[338lapua]

I'm so glad we elected a president who would fight for our gun rights. It's a good thing that we didn't nominate any of those other candidates.

Like Cruz or any other candidate give two shits about our rights. If we didn't get Trump it would have been Hillary. No other candidate had the balls to beat her, if you don't believe this you are stupid.

[Andrew TCB]

That's a cool story you made up, but in the real world, most of the other candidates had voting records that we could review. And a bag of wet dog turds would have beaten Cankles. The only candidate who had the slightest chance of losing to Hillary was Trump. Conversely, any other Democrat would have handily beaten Trump. They were both hated more by their own parties than any other politicians ever.

[shooter444]

At this point in the game,... the only FACT is, Prez Trump has economically turned this country around from being a Socialist/Globalist parasitic host, to the world's leader, once again!

No other president, in my life time, has lived up to his campaign promises like he has,... no other president in my lifetime has called out, PUBLICLY, the anti-constitutional Socialists for what they are, and what they are doing, and backed it up with action,... need I say more!!!

[Tim McBride]

At this point in the game,... the only FACT is, Prez Trump has economically turned this country around from being a Socialist/Globalist parasitic host, to the world's leader, once again!

No other president, in my life time, has lived up to his campaign promises like he has,... no other president in my lifetime has called out, PUBLICLY, the anti-constitutional Socialists for what they are, and what they are doing, and backed it up with action,... need I say more!!!

Which has nothing to do with Trump's lukewarm, at best, approach to the RKBA.

[shooter444]

Well, what is lukewarm to some,... isn't to others.

Not everyone can be accommodated at the level we all wish,...in politics.