Bump Stock Ban

[bj139]

Information on fighting unconstitutional regulations.
https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2018/12...-about-it/

[stanc]

Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker signed the new rule Tuesday morning. This is notable considering the fact that the Obama administration did not believe that federal law allowed it to ban bump stocks.

Are increased age restrictions next?

[video=youtube;jCUZSNxl7zY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jCUZSNxl7zY[/video]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jCUZSNxl7zY

[Keef]

Terrible. The first push down the slippery slope. Its sad that "we" are so scared and worried the democrats are going to ban stuff, that "we" don't even seem to notice or care if a republican does it? Maybe I'm wrong. Seems like a perfect example that Donkeys and Elephants aren't really that different.

[bj139]

On other sites people are talking about this regulation being ruled on by the Supreme court.
A ruling that the ban is unconstitutional would be locked into legal precedent and prevent future bans.
This may be smarter than it looks.
Tactics.

May be why Obama didn't try it.

[Keef]

Maybe. What's the time frame for finding out? and what if it's found constitutional? Interesting idea!

[rebby]

Maybe. What's the time frame for finding out? and what if it's found constitutional? Interesting idea!

Exactly my concern. They've found even more egregiously unconstitutional laws to be constitutional in the past.

[Drift]

What is the point in passing a law that the people will not comply with?

[stanc]

Terrible. The first push down the slippery slope. Its sad that "we" are so scared and worried the democrats are going to ban stuff, that "we" don't even seem to notice or care if a republican does it? Maybe I'm wrong. Seems like a perfect example that Donkeys and Elephants aren't really that different.

That seems especially true of this POTUS, who for many years was a registered Democrat, and is on the record as supporting the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban.

On other sites people are talking about this regulation being ruled on by the Supreme court.
A ruling that the ban is unconstitutional would be locked into legal precedent and prevent future bans.
This may be smarter than it looks.

I'd have to say anyone who actually believes that is suffering from denial and/or wishful thinking.
There are already legal precedents which indicate this ban is unlikely to be ruled unconstitutional.
Suggested reading: https://www.brennancenter.org/blog/do-no...eapon-bans

What is the point in passing a law that the people will not comply with?

It allows the Administration to proudly proclaim they have "done something" about mass shootings.

"The President once again fulfilling a promise he made to the American people..."

[video=youtube;llyw2om6DO0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=llyw2om6DO0[/video]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=llyw2om6DO0

[KentuckyBuddha]

I hadn't considered this might all be nuance and erudition. Interesting premise.

[stanc]

[video=youtube;yzdlL5eqq8U]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yzdlL5eqq8U[/video]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yzdlL5eqq8U

[stanc]

[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]

[video=youtube;ONBxR4YSrrQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ONBxR4YSrrQ[/video]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ONBxR4YSrrQ

[Sticks]

It's obvious, both sides (Repub & Dems) are both actively working to disarm the populace. Dems are outright attacking any point they can. Repubs are white washing it as "Compromise" when they do it.

Somebody please tell me when the last time a firearm "Ban" of any sort was repealed by the next set of lofty seats when there was a political shift in power (D to R).

[jaybee1669]

It's obvious, both sides (Repub & Dems) are both actively working to disarm the populace. Dems are outright attacking any point they can. Repubs are white washing it as "Compromise" when they do it.

Somebody please tell me when the last time a firearm "Ban" of any sort was repealed by the next set of lofty seats when there was a political shift in power (D to R).

The closest we saw was not extending the 94 Clinton Ban when the sunset date came and went.

oddly enough, i bought my first AR and AK47 during the ban. The AR is long gone, horrible Olympic Arms, but i still have my Arsenal SAM7. It's one of the few guns i've bought that has increased in value.

[montana]

The AR is long gone, horrible Olympic Arms,

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.

[bj139]

Remember, Trump is disliked by most of the employees of the Federal agencies.
This is the so called "shadow government" working against Trump's effort to drain the swamp.
Trump is not your typical Republican or RHINO for sure.
The video points out that the ATF cannot create law which is what they are doing.
When this is overturned Trump will just say, "Oops, I guess I don't have the authority to do this under the Constitution" and it will then be clear.
Maybe I am too trusting of a political outsider. I am definitely not trusting of any political insiders.

[LRRPF52]

The unelected bureaucracies have been creating laws ever since they were given power by Congress, while Congress seems fine letting agencies do so without any checks and balances.

With bumpstocks, it was a bureaucratic move away from ATF trends towards more restrictions.

In contrast, Binary Triggers are explicitly protected by ATF and NFA definitions, and are far more easy to use than bumpstocks could ever hope to be.

So in 2018, you can have a pistol-braced, Binary Triggered compact pistol that will outrun the cyclic rate of a full auto easily, not that you'll be hitting much.

[stanc]

Remember, Trump is disliked by most of the employees of the Federal agencies.
This is the so called "shadow government" working against Trump's effort to drain the swamp.

This is NOT the work of a "shadow government." This was done at Trump's direct order.
Here is what he said ten months ago:

[video=youtube;s-DChrnr4Po]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-DChrnr4Po[/video]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-DChrnr4Po

[montana]

The unelected bureaucracies have been creating laws ever since they were given power by Congress, while Congress seems fine letting agencies do so without any checks and balances.
.

This is nothing more than a political move by Trump and the NRA to look reasonable to the gun ignorant masses. Perception and plausible deniability, "not reality" has always been the winning factor for retaining political power. Bureaucracies always follow those in charge of their funding, but they can also be the scapegoats if things go south or the political winds change. China uses N. Korea for the same purpose.

[LRRPF52]

I have yet to see any of the bureaucracies held accountable, even when they blatantly target political groups like the IRS did, allow millions of gallons of contaminated mineshaft water to be released like the EPA ordered in CO, or when the FBI participates in a palace coup attempt that seems to be ongoing.

In this case, it's a matter of the ATF giveth and the ATF taketh what little is left of the 2A when enough political pressure is put on them.

Meanwhile, like I said, you can have something far superior to a bumpstock if you want to hose rounds downrange without any funky external modification of the firearm.