Bump Stock Ban

[montana]

The reason I like Trump is because the Republicans and Democrats both hate him. He must be doing something right.

I have to agree with you on that one lol. He definitely is stirring the pot.

[jaybee1669]

Since Colt AR rifles and parts were the only game in town, it could take months to receive the extremely high priced parts. We were thankful when more and more less expensive Olympic rifles and parts became available. The other advantage with Olympic AR rifles and parts was you got to know your AR rifle intimately, diagnosing and fixing all the problems.

Truth! That gun had the tightest chamber i've ever encountered in an AR. I had it polished twice before it would even get through a mag without a FTE. Then once it would heat up, it was a crap shoot.

[keystone183]

OK Guys:

I have a question.

Why would a ban on bump stocks be a threat to the 2A? Please -- the 'slippery slope' argument is not an answer.

LR55

I shall channel stan and answer your question with a question..........

Why would a ban on flash hiders be a threat to the 2A?
Why would a ban on 'high capacity' magazines be a threat to the 2A?
Why would a ban on semi automatic rifles be a threat to the 2A?

(Ok, 3 questions.)

[LR1955]

Worded correctly (I have not read it, but was an area of concern), it could then be used as a precedent to continue/add to it.

I.E. - Any feature that increases the rate of fire/cyclic rate of a semi automatic firearm shall be included in this ban.

Binary triggers, rotary triggers, your freakin' finger if you have skill.

Who decides what "Rate of Fire" or "Cyclic Rate" actually is? Does some desk jockey that has never fired a gun, decide that the cyclic rate of a firearm shall not exceed 1 round fired every 2 seconds, because that is what a bolt action, pump action, lever action, break action, muzzle loader averages out to when they watch TV and you tube of what they feel is non offensive or excessively violent?

Will this then turn into a blanket "All semi automatic firearms shall be manufactured to not exceed the established cyclic rate"

Sticks:

Man, that was fast. I think you are 100% correct. Much like the 'Cop Killer' bullet and 'Sniper Rifle' rantings of the left in an attempt to ban all bullets and all rifles, this one will be taken by the left as a means to regulate how fast a firearm can shoot. And thus a complete ban on all modern firearms. I have seen bolt gunners shoot their bolt guns as fast as any guy shooting a semi-auto (in competition where scores count). Also guys who are extremely fast and precise with revolvers. So I wouldn't think owning a bolt gun or revolver would be a safe bet. The intent of the left is and always has been to disarm their opponents.

LR55

[rebby]

I see the "allowance" of the bumpstock as an aberration in ATF trends towards more restrictions, moving the needle barely back towards placing the citizenry in the position we were in before the harm of 1934.

The ban now will become a property rights issue with all the lawsuits since the reversal of the ATF "allowance" because the reversal does not provide any means for compensation.

If you read the ATF's directions on how to handle destruction or turn-in of your bumpstock, you'll see that there is no discussion of compensation at all, which is in violation of due process under the Constitution, specifically annotated in the Bill of Rights:



The whole debacle illustrates the fallacy of the NFA 1934, the GCA 1968, the existence of the ATF, and Federal interference in the citizenry keeping and bearing arms.

With all the lawsuits filed, it opens up the case that could potentially backfire on those who seek more restrictions on what little is left of the Second Amendment, especially when it ends up at SCOTUS and they are staring down the double barrel jeopardy of property rights and slapping down a bureaucratic Federal agency run amok for decades, without Congress being able to do a thing about it since they never have used their power to check the SCOTUS in any of our lifetimes that I can recall.

The bumpstock ban effectively presents itself as a big fist to the establishment if it boomerangs, whether anyone intended it to or not.

I’m praying for that boomerang. If SCOTUS has the nerve (and I’m concerned they don’t), this could end up being a huge win. It’s time for the courts to start knocking these unconstitutional laws/regulations down, might as well get started with NFA. No politician will ever consider doing the right thing, it’s time for the courts to start doing their duty.

This could get even more interesting with RPG’s current health situation. Don’t get me wrong, I’d never wish harm upon any individual personally and I hope that she has many years of quality life ahead of her but... let’s be honest, it’s time for her to step down from the court.

[stanc]

Stan:

Let me make this extremely clear to you.

This forum isn't a podium for you to express your obsessive hatred for Trump. We know he proposed a ban on bump stocks so you don't have to tell us repeatedly. And you won't somehow turn us into leftists who will vote for a Communist or Socialist that will ban and confiscate all of our guns if they get power just because Trump proposed a bump stock ban.

And please, don't come back and say you were only advising us where to go to complain about the bump stock ban. We are not liberals or leftists. We have brains and if we want to complain about the bump stock ban, we know the process.

Take it somewhere else.

LR55

Gene:

I am baffled and dismayed by your remarks.

1. I have no hatred for Trump. I do have a low opinion of him, one that seems to be shared by patriotic Americans of far greater repute than I, but I don't hate him.

2. Trump did not just "propose" a ban on bump stocks. He ordered it. I thought it worth repeating simply because some here continued to castigate the ATF while ignoring the responsibility of the man who gave the order.

3. I have no desire to turn anyone into a leftist, and have never attempted to do so.

4. I posted the contact info mentioned in the video as a courtesy, since it could otherwise only be seen by going to the YouTube page. I cannot fathom why you would take it as an insult to your intelligence.

Stan

[stanc]

OK Guys:

I have a question.

Why would a ban on bump stocks be a threat to the 2A? Please -- the 'slippery slope' argument is not an answer.

LR55

It doesn't seem much of a threat to the 2A, but it is an infringement on the RKBA much like the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban in that a firearm accessory is banned.

There are two major differences:

- the '94 AWB was temporary, while the bump stock ban is permanent;
- the '94 AWB was created by the peoples' representatives after open debate, while the bump stock ban was formulated by a political appointee, at the direction of one man.

[stanc]

It seems really risky to me to send something up the legal pipeline hoping it will be struck down.

From everything that's been said by the President and the acting Attorney General, it doesn't sound to me like they expect, let alone want, it to be struck down.

Also, note the comment at 1:07-1:17

[video=youtube;C_Zceu_IxJA]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_Zceu_IxJA[/video]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_Zceu_IxJA

[stanc]

I’m praying for that boomerang. If SCOTUS has the nerve (and I’m concerned they don’t), this could end up being a huge win. It’s time for the courts to start knocking these unconstitutional laws/regulations down, might as well get started with NFA.

Unfortunately, that's a fantasy. SCOTUS ain't about to overturn the NFA or any other such law.
The Heller decision affirmed government authority to "infringe" on the right to keep and bear.

[video=youtube;yNXqQVxgPSk]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNXqQVxgPSk[/video]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNXqQVxgPSk

[stanc]

I see the "allowance" of the bumpstock as an aberration in ATF trends towards more restrictions, moving the needle barely back towards placing the citizenry in the position we were in before the harm of 1934.

The ban now will become a property rights issue with all the lawsuits since the reversal of the ATF "allowance" because the reversal does not provide any means for compensation.

If you read the ATF's directions on how to handle destruction or turn-in of your bumpstock, you'll see that there is no discussion of compensation at all, which is in violation of due process under the Constitution, specifically annotated in the [Fifth Amendment]...

[stanc]

There are many more pages of the Justice Department positions posted at https://www.ar15.com/forums/General/Repo...#i76245106

[rebby]

There is a lot of impressive intellectual gymnastics going on in that document, isn’t there? I don’t disagree with your earlier comment concerning SCOTUS. I don’t fully understand why today’s Court doesn’t believe that they are a co-EQUAL branch of government but they seem content to let the other 2 do whatever they want. Trump should nominate me for RBGs spot when the time comes.

[bj139]

From what Stan posted it seems like we have no rights at all if the government can prohibit everything in the interest of public safety.

[grayfox]

Bj, in Kalifornistan that is soooo true!

[Texas]

I don't know anyone that has a bump stock. The must all have been lost overboard or something

[stanc]

Stan.

Christmas Eve and you got to put up a picture like that?

1. It had nothing to do with bump stocks.

2. It was graphic and offensive.

3. It is not appropriate for a forum whose content is for families.

LR55

[phishfood]

Merry Christmas, Stan!!

And to all a goodnight!

[LR1955]

Stan.

Christmas Eve and you got to put up a picture like that?

1. It had nothing to do with bump stocks.

2. It was graphic and offensive.

3. It is not appropriate for a forum whose content is for families.

LR55

One other thing.

You are not a moderator so do not delete my posts.

LR55

[LR1955]

Guys:

Am locking this thread unless BFT says to open it again.