Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 41 to 62 of 62
Like Tree47Likes

Thread: Bump-Fire ban is signed

  1. #41
    Obs's Avatar
    Obs
    Obs is offline "Convert Emotion to Willpower"
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    16,483
    You put a lot of work into this thread and it is very thorough.
    It is appreciated.

  2. #42
    Obs's Avatar
    Obs
    Obs is offline "Convert Emotion to Willpower"
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    16,483



    In case any of you don't realize the legalities, trump basically just made every semi auto illegal with a shit written law.
    Couchlockd likes this.

  3. #43
    i_SLAM_cougars's Avatar
    i_SLAM_cougars is offline Associate Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    342
    That's okay, when they come to my door trying to take my shit away I'll make sure I have enough Tren and Halo in me that bullets won't take me down
    Obs likes this.

  4. #44
    Obs's Avatar
    Obs
    Obs is offline "Convert Emotion to Willpower"
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    16,483
    Quote Originally Posted by i_SLAM_cougars View Post
    That's okay, when they come to my door trying to take my shit away I'll make sure I have enough Tren and Halo in me that bullets won't take me down
    Thats the thing though... They wont come take them and you will have to keep it hid away and if you are ever caught with it they will arrest you and you will go to prison for a couple years.

    In a link beetle posted LE had aknowledged there would never be a confinscation. "We will just catch them during domestic incidents etc"

    The only good a gun you cant shoot is good for is if there is an uprising against the government.

    There will never be an uprising against the US government because people blindly follow their candidate and political party.

    All the people who voted trump in are busy celebrating a wall that will waste billions of dollars and be torn down by liberal idiots in the next democratic presidency.
    Last edited by Obs; 12-24-2018 at 07:22 PM.
    Couchlockd and i_SLAM_cougars like this.

  5. #45
    Beetlegeuse's Avatar
    Beetlegeuse is offline Associate Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    421
    Di-Fi agrees. The ATF lacks the authority to ban bump-fire stocks. Period.



    Followed by words I never thought I'd find myself typing, ....

    ... Thank you, Senator Feinstein.


    EDIT:
    I just noticed something. Di-Fi even used the correct name. The inventor and manufacturer (Slide-Fire) called them "bump-fire" stocks. They sold them as "bump-fire" stocks and "bump-fire" was what was printed on the box they came in. The first time they sent a sample to the BATF for comment, in his reply, the jack-off from the ATF called it a "bump stock." Probably too fucking lazy to type the other five characters. So that's the term the "antis" have glommed onto.
    Last edited by Beetlegeuse; 12-28-2018 at 12:23 PM.
    Obs likes this.

  6. #46
    Couchlockd's Avatar
    Couchlockd is online now Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    aka m.hornbuckle
    Posts
    4,206
    I dunno, bump fire was the first skill I learned with my mini 14.

    I can shoulder bump a mini accurately enough to dispatch any threats inside 50 yards.


  7. #47
    Beetlegeuse's Avatar
    Beetlegeuse is offline Associate Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    421
    Now there's a petition at White House -dot- gov you can sign for everyone to ignore. Currently at a little more than 3500 signatures.

    There's a great quote in the narrative to the petition from Rob Pincus, “There are many reasons to fight a bump stock ban… but, Bump Stocks themselves are not one of them!”

    The author continues,

    The underlying concern is that this ban opens the door to the restriction of any and all gun PARTS on the basis that they can be misused by criminals. We can't afford to simply let this one go or look the other way.

    The ban unconstitutionally rewrites existing law defining what constitutes a 'machine gun'. If anything can make a semiauto firearm shoot faster, will they ban all those things? Will they ban firearms altogether, since they can be bump fired without accessories??

  8. #48
    Beetlegeuse's Avatar
    Beetlegeuse is offline Associate Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    421
    From the keyboard of Massad Ayoob:

    THE BUMPY ROAD OF BUMP STOCKS
    December 27, 2018

    So, bump stocks are now forbidden, and those who own them are ordered to turn them in or destroy them. Period. The ninety-day countdown is already underway.

    Many thousands of law-abiding Americans criminalized with the proverbial stroke of the pen.

    Not even an amnesty period in which to declare the oh-so-recently legal goods..

    No compensation that I can see, for many, many millions of dollars’ worth of product. Owners are ordered to destroy them or turn them in to authorities. No other options.

    In theinterest of perspective: bump stocks were used in exactly ONE atrocity, the Las Vegas massacre of 2017. I do not own one and never saw a need to. I see the bump stock as a novelty product in the firearms world, a range toy as it were.

    But it’s not about the bump stocks.

    It’s about the precedent this order sets.

    The bumpstocks had been approved by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives during the Obama administration. People bought them in good faith because the United States Government said they could.

    Quite apart from the Second Amendment, I think there should be other succor to be found in the Bill of Rights, because this action is about confiscation without compensation of property legally purchased and responsibly owned.

    What’s next? Only a naif would ignore the likelihood of the same action being taken against arm braces for AR15-style handguns. Or for shotshell-using firearms of the Mossberg Shockwave persuasion, probably more sooner than later if the bump stock ban stands. And, of course, the semiautomatics…

    Predictably the other side in this culture war will say, “Screw you gun nuts, we hate you and you shouldn’t have guns anyway.” And to them I would say, “Do you not see the same precedent being applied to your swimming pools where children drown every year, and to your gas-guzzling vehicles, and to your wood stoves that fill the air with polluting smoke?”

    Slippery slope. Unintended consequences. Insert additional clichés as necessary. The bump stock ban, in the long run, isn’t about bump stocks nearly so much as it’s about terrifying precedents which are anathema to a society based on freedom and justice.

    We’re seeing something similar in New Jersey with its new, complete ban on any magazine holding over ten rounds, and we’ll discuss that next time.

    All the grim details of the ban order are here.
    Obs likes this.

  9. #49
    Beetlegeuse's Avatar
    Beetlegeuse is offline Associate Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    421
    A fourth litigant has entered the anti-anti-bump-fire stock ban fray. A Mississippi lawyer by name of Stephen Stamboulieh (who has had some successful high-profile pro-2A actions in the past) has challenged the ban on the grounds that the "acting" US Attorney General lacks the authority to sign the ban into law. He cites 28 U.S. Code § 508, which stipulates who may act as the AG, and an "acting" AG isn't mentioned anywhere.

    EDIT:
    Stamboulieh also argues that people who already owned bunp-fire stocks should have been grandfathered in because the BATF itself had given assurances not once but twice that the devices were legal. The obvious objection to that is that would violate the 1986 Hughes Amendment (the bizarrely-named Firearm Owner's Protection Act) which set the date of its passage as the cut-off for registering any new machineguns. BATF argues that it is not possible to make exceptions to Hughes without an act of Congress but Stamboulieh argues there already has been an exception made in at least one case and a 'new' machinegun was registered by BATF after the Hughes cut-off date. And if one exception was made, that sets the precedent for other exceptions.



    And vendors are beginning to back out of the April NRA show in Indianapolis in protest over their failure to oppose the bump-fire stock ban. Hopefully enough will follow suit that they'll wake up and smell the bacon, but I doubt it.
    Last edited by Beetlegeuse; 01-07-2019 at 04:09 PM.
    Obs likes this.

  10. #50
    Obs's Avatar
    Obs
    Obs is offline "Convert Emotion to Willpower"
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    16,483
    Time to wake up.
    The idiots thinking guns will be confinscated are living in the dark ages. No one will ever (door to door) collect guns. That would be absolute suicide and all politicians know it. Anyone with an IQ over 80 knows it.
    They will legislate them away slowly and if you are ever caught with a firearm that is not in compliance you will be facing ten years. There will be no uprising because people are too soft and just like to talk tough and never act.
    New Jersey has banned any magazine over 10 rounds now. Many states will follow suit. The interesting shit will happen when trump is gone. When the next Dem gets in office and uses a sloppily written law to literally classify semi autos as illegal based upon bumpfire capability. You dont need a gay ass stock to do this and likely the Democrats will realize that it is too big of a stretch to ban all semi autos because that could cause an uprising. Likely we will see nationwide magazine restrictions instead.

    "From my cold dead hands," will be arranged if you resist arrest when you are caught with a non compliant firearm. Even if you don't resist you will get to finally learn how wonderful our judicial system is. It will ruin your life for many years.

    What good is a gun you have to keep hidden away?
    GUNS WILL BE TAKEN ONE AT A TIME.

    To blow off trumps ban and New Jerseys ban is playing right into their hand. There needs to be zero tolerance for encroaching legislation that will slowly rob you of freedom. "From my cold dead hands" is outdated. They can take your non compliant firearms and all your freedom if you posess one, one at a time. You won't be going to the range or ever firing a non compliant weapon or you will be toe tagged or sent to prison.
    There is no question if guns were attempted to be confinscated on a mass level the blowback would be so severe that the government would be taken down. SO THEY WON'T!
    They will legislate you into being a criminal and you won't be using those firearms.

    It would be so convinient if the government operated off black and white constitutional laws and rights but they don't. They turn it all grey and slowly criminalize all.
    So what are you going to do when the police have a warrant because of a suspected N/C firearm or are there on a domestic call etc and find your non compliant hi capacity semi auto? Are you going to fight them to death or go to prison? I can assure you your fellow citizens won't be pulling out their non compliant firearms and coming to your aid. After all the warrant is only for your house and as long as they keep quiet they can keep their non compliant firearms and imagined freedom. Sooooo... They will.

    This ain't 1950. The government knows how to take your guns without blowback.

    WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO ABOUT IT?

    IGNORE FIREARMS LEGISLATION PASSED BY POLITICAL CANDIDATES WE LIKE?
    EDCG19 and KennyJ like this.

  11. #51
    Beetlegeuse's Avatar
    Beetlegeuse is offline Associate Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    421
    What's wrong with a bump-stock ban?

    The end goal of gun prohibitionists is total elimination of private firearms ownership.

    They have a national history that goes back four score and five years to the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA 1934).(*1) Being unable to succeed in their goal in one fell swoop, they have implemented bans on various firearms; and created a slowly growing list of prohibited persons who may no longer legally possess firearms.

    Here is a short list of just some of their actions, both nationally and in various states and localities:

    1911 - Sullivan Law in New York
    1981 - Morton Grove, Illinois gun ban
    1982 - Chicago gun ban
    1990 - Mayland Saturday Night Special ban
    1986 - Hughes Amendment gun ban
    1997 - Lautenberg Amendment people ban
    2018 - A proliferation of Red Flag laws, including one proposed in Tennessee.

    Additionally, we saw the Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994, which banned firearms with certain cosmetic features. A partial list includes semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and with two or more of the following:

    Folding or telescoping stock
    Pistol grip
    Bayonet mount
    Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
    Grenade launcher

    This Federal ban, which had a ten year sunset, could have been called a lipstick and eye-shadow ban because of the fact that it had no effect on the functionality of a firearm. It also included a ten round magazine capacity limit. A number of states and municipalities passed similar bans which are still in effect. Recently, there has been a spate of similar Goldilocks bans passed around the country.

    With that bit of history, we come to bump stocks.

    Bump stocks were reported to be found at the site of the Las Vegas massacre. Eventually the NRA issued this statement: "The NRA believes that devices designed to allow semi-automatic rifles to function like fully-automatic rifles should be subject to additional regulations."(*2)

    Then, President Trump ordered the ATF to make a rule banning bump stocks.

    Several lawsuits have been filed following the ATF's issuing their rule. Some interesting things of note in these proceedings. According to the complaint filed in the suit by David Codrea et al,

    The FBI refused to let ATF examine the guns that were found in the Vegas hotel.

    Codrea has legal possession of an Akins Accelerator, which should assure he has standing in the suit.

    The deceased person identified as the perpetrator in that incident was reported to have had enough wealth to have legally purchased any number of fully automatic weapons. These weapons are still readily available to those who have sufficient funds. Note, the NFA 1934 was not an outright ban, but imposed a $200 tax meant to be prohibitive.

    The FBI has refused a FOIA request for data stating bumpstocks were actually used in the Vegas massacre.

    Much appreciation to David Hardy for the heads up on this particular lawsuit.

    The United States has a government with three branches, the Legislative, the Judicial, and the Executive. We have seen a dangerous history of one branch usurping power from another. While I agree with the president on many of his policies, which are proper for his position, on this he stepped over the line into legislation. From Hardy:
    "ATF has ruled at least ten times that a bumpstock is not an MG..." -but now they are by executive fiat.

    This legislating from the Oval Office sets a bad precedent for future presidents who really will renew efforts toward the end goal of total disarmament.
    -------------------------------------------
    *1) I leave off discussion here of antebellum slave codes which far predated NFA 1934.
    *2) Never mind that videos are readily available on the web that show how to use a rubber band or belt loop to simulate fully automatic; nor the fact that fully-automatic weapons are readily available (legally) to someone with a multi-million dollar salary.
    Obs likes this.

  12. #52
    Beetlegeuse's Avatar
    Beetlegeuse is offline Associate Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    421
    I've been asleep at the frickin' wheel, this is from nine days ago:

    Judge sides with gun owners' groups, overrules Cincinnati's ban on bump stocks

    CINCINNATI — Hamilton County Judge Robert Ruehlman sided Monday with gun owners’ groups that sought to overturn a city of Cincinnati ordinance banning bump stocks, a type of gun attachment that can allow a semi-automatic firearm to be fired at nearly the rate of a fully automatic weapon.

    When City Council voted 7-2 to pass the ordinance in May 2018, seven months after a bump-stock-equipped shooter killed 59 people and injured hundreds of others at the Harvest music festival in Las Vegas, Councilman P.G. Sittenfeld argued: "No city should tacitly condone a device which is specifically intended to maximize carnage."

    He also referred to laws that permitted bump stocks as “some perverted interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.”

    The Buckeye Firearms Association and Ohioans for Concealed Carry filed suit June 21, 2018, arguing that the ordinance violated a state law preventing individual cities and counties from creating policies that conflict with their state and federal counterparts. A judge granted their motion for a temporary injunction preventing the ordinance from taking effect.

    Court records indicate the case persisted through the rest of 2018, the city continuing to argue that bump stocks were firearm accessories and could therefore be regulated without infringing on state law or gun owners’ rights.

    In November, both the city and the gun owners’ groups filed motions for summary judgment in their favor. Ruehlman granted the latter Monday.

    “This ban was completely unjustified and a great concern for gun owners,” Buckeye Firearms Foundation executive director Dean Rieck wrote in a news release, adding later: “These bans are not about public safety. They are merely political theater and an excuse for City Councils to 'virtue signal' for publicity and personal aggrandizement.”

    The local victory is likely to be overwhelmed by a national loss by the start of summer. On Dec. 18, 2018, the Trump administration announced a federal ban on bump stocks set to take effect the following March.

    Its policy reclassified bump stocks as “machine guns,” all of which are illegal for private United States citizens to own unless manufactured before 1986. Anyone who owned one of the estimated thousands of bump stocks in the country was ordered to destroy theirs or turn them in to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives by the March 18 deadline.

    Gun owners’ organizations such as Gun Owners of America promised a lawsuit as soon as the policy was announced, meaning members of the Buckeye Firearms Association could soon see their fight reenacted on a national stage.

  13. #53
    Beetlegeuse's Avatar
    Beetlegeuse is offline Associate Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    421
    This sounds like you can count of Gorsuch to side with the plaintiff. The Chevron doctrine is like saying Bill Klinton wasn't being a smartass when he said "It depends upon what the meaning of the word 'is' is." It gives unelected bureaucrats the right to parse the the meaning of words like “automatically” and in the doing arbitrarily alter the intent of a law to their liking.

    Bump Stock Case Expedited by Court of Appeals in DC

    U.S.A. –-(Ammoland.com)- The appeal by the Plaintiffs against the BATFE in the bump stock ruling has been expedited. The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has ordered the parties to submit briefs by March 4th of 2019. That is extraordinarily fast by U.S. appeals court standards.

    The original ruling by the Circuit court hinged on the notion that ordinary words are ambiguous, and an agency can reverse previous rulings when the agency decides to do so. From the opinion:

    Most of the plaintiffs’ administrative law challenges are foreclosed by the Chevron doctrine, which permits an agency to reasonably define undefined statutory terms. See Chevron v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, 467 U.S. 837 (1984). Here, Congress defined “machinegun” in the NFA to include devices that permit a firearm to shoot “automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger,” 26 U.S.C. § 5845(b), but it did not further define the terms “single function of the trigger” or “automatically.” Because both terms are ambiguous, ATF was permitted to reasonably interpret them, and in light of their ordinary meaning, it was reasonable for ATF to interpret “single function of the trigger” to mean “single pull of the trigger and analogous motions” and “automatically” to mean “as the result of a self-acting or self-regulating mechanism that allows the firing of multiple rounds through a single pull of the trigger.” ATF also reasonably applied these definitions when it concluded that bump stocks permit a shooter to discharge multiple rounds automatically with a single function of the trigger. That this decision marked a reversal of ATF’s previous interpretation is not a basis for invalidating the rule because ATF’s current interpretation is lawful and ATF adequately explained the change in interpretation.
    The Chevron doctrine gives enormous power to the administrative bureaucracies. An agency is not required to be consistent. An agency can change its interpretations of the law arbitrarily, as long as it can conjure up some justification of reasonableness.

    One of the major challenges to the bump stock ban is that it reverses long-standing interpretation of the statute by the BATFE.

    Both of President Trump's appointees to the Supreme Court, Justice Gorsuch, and Justice Kavanaugh, have been critical of the Chevron decision and its consequences. From eenews.net:

    The Chevron doctrine, which is named for a 1984 Supreme Court case, played a big role in the confirmation battle for Gorsuch, who wrote a scathing concurring opinion slamming the doctrine shortly before he was nominated for the high court. Senators focused several questions on the doctrine during Gorsuch's multiday hearing.

    While Chevron is unlikely to make front-page news during the Kavanaugh confirmation process, the debate over the future of the doctrine remains strong, particularly in conservative legal circles.
    The Chevron decision gives enormous power to unelected officials. It undercuts the rule of law, as interpretations of a rule can be reversed at any time, arbitrarily, and without any change in the law by Congress.

    When the Chevron decision was made, it was the D.C. Circuit court that was undercutting the democratic process, by applying the court's interpretation of regulations, which often seemed at odds with what Congress had intended.

    Chevron was meant to stop the abuse of power by the D.C. Circuit but unintentionally gave enormous power to the bureaucracy.

    It is difficult to accurately assign motivations to an appeals court or to the Supreme Court based on the timing of appeals.
    Obs likes this.

  14. #54
    Beetlegeuse's Avatar
    Beetlegeuse is offline Associate Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    421
    I keep updating this thread in the hope that with all the lawsuits against the bump-fire stock ban that at least one of them will find a judge who actually has read the Constitution and will overturn Trump's EO.

    Gun Owners of America Gets Its Day In Court On Bump Stocks

    USA – -(AmmoLand.com)- As I write this letter to you, I am on a plane, returning from western Michigan. The “lake effect” has dropped more snow than I’m used to seeing during this time of year. So for me, I’m looking forward to returning home to dry land.

    I’ve left the federal district court in Kalamazoo, Michigan, where Gun Owners of America delivered its oral arguments on Wednesday in opposition to the ATF’s bump stock ban.

    As you know, GOA is suing the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) over its illegal ban on bump stocks. This ban is so poorly written that it threatens the legality of AR-15s and other constitutionally-protected firearms.GOA’s attorney Rob Olson did a fantastic job representing gun owners in court. And he repeatedly hammered the ATF for exceeding its authority and for capriciously reversing itself in banning firearms-related items that were once legal to own.

    Olson also made it clear that hundreds of thousands of innocent bump stock owners are now in danger of becoming felons after March 26. So given this looming deadline, GOA is requesting an injunction from the judge, which would stop ATF from enforcing the ban when the turn-in period ends.

    Judge Appears Wary of ATF Overreach

    During oral arguments, Olson had to vacillate between fine points of legal doctrine to countering the government’s talking points that could have come from Moms Demand Action.

    For example, much of the discussion with the judge centered around a doctrine known as “Chevron deference.”

    If you’re not familiar with this guideline, you might wonder what this has to do with bump stocks. But, in fact, it has quite a bit to do with the subject at hand. “Chevron deference” is a doctrine that essentially gives a federal agency tremendous latitude in interpreting and applying a federal statute.

    Olson consistently made the point that the ATF did NOT deserve deference … that the agency was misapplying the federal statute regarding bump stocks … and, more importantly, that the ATF was effectively changing the statutory definition of what a machine gun is.

    This argument seemed to resonate with the judge, who appeared unwilling to grant deference to the ATF.

    Why a Bump Stock is NOT a Machine Gun

    Another much-discussed topic centered around the very nature of a bump stock.

    The judge asked GOA’s counsel if a bump stock allows an uninterrupted automatic cycle of fire — as a machine gun would. Olson said NO. He explained that a bump stock allows for repeated SEMI-automatic fire in a rapid manner, where each function of the trigger produces one bullet out the end of the barrel — albeit occurring in rapid, repeated succession.

    The government took the contrary view, claiming that a bump stock starts in motion a continuous chain of successive fire.

    More to the point, Olson noted that while an untrained shooter could fire an automatic weapon with one hand — by simply pulling the trigger back — no person could repeatedly bump fire a semi-automatic weapon with just one hand.

    Even the ATF has had to concede in its written regulation that bump firing a weapon requires the shooter to use both hands.

    And this gets to the core distinction between a bump stock and an automatic weapon. The U.S. code defines a machine gun as a firearm that can shoot “automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.”

    One can fire a machine gun with only one hand because the internal mechanism in the weapon will produce automatic fire with a “single function” of the trigger. But to bump fire a semi-auto, the shooter must use two hands, and in most cases, spend time learning how to actually perfect his individual technique for each different bump stock firearm. Anyone who has ever bump fired a semi-auto knows there is a learning curve in determining the appropriate amount of force with which to push forward on the firearm using the non-trigger hand.

    So in other words, it’s the shooter who creates the bump fire effect. Because “bump firing,” first and foremost, is a technique, and not a product that is sold over-the-counter.

    But that’s not the case with a machine gun. A person who has never touched a gun could easily fire an automatic weapon because it’s the internal mechanism that actually allows repeated rounds to be fired “automatically.”

    The back-and-forth between Olson and the judge on this point was crucial and could play a critical role in the judge’s decision-making process.

    No Evidence that Bump Stocks are a Threat to Safety

    One of the government’s lawyers brought up the Las Vegas shooting from 2017 as a reason to ban bump stocks. He claimed that the inherent dangerousness of bump stocks necessitated a ban for the sake of “public safety.”

    Of course, if this logic were to prevail, the government could justify banning all weapons — handguns, rifles, shotguns, etc. — given that all these weapons are inherently “dangerous.”

    GOA’s attorney countered by telling the judge there is no actual proof of one recorded instance where bump stocks have been used in a crime. Olson even cited the lack of FBI and ATF statements, studies or reports to demonstrate that there is no conclusive evidence that a bump stock was actually used by the Las Vegas shooter. This was something of a “mic drop” moment, because when given the chance to respond, the government’s lawyer could not — in fact, he refused to — counter Olson’s statement on this point.

    Thus, the oral arguments in the Western district federal court on March 6 established unrebutted testimony that, to date, there is no proof of any documented case where a bump stock was used in a crime.

    Even if it is one day determined conclusively that the Las Vegas shooting was the first case where a bump stock was used in a crime — it would still remain the ONLY case.

    And this ONE case would hardly then represent an imminent “danger to public safety.” Especially when one considers that “bump firing” a weapon can be achieved without bump stocks, and that these items have been used by hundreds of thousands of gun owners in a perfectly safe manner.

    Bump Stock Regs Open Door to Banning AR-15s

    Finally, one of the most crucial moments centered around a discussion involving the potential threat to AR-15s.

    GOA has repeatedly warned that the ATF’s ban on bump stocks can be easily used by a future anti-gun administration to ban most, if not all, semi-automatic rifles. Olson repeated this warning to the judge and noted that the threat to AR-15s would inextricably follow from these regulations.

    While the government lawyer hotly contested this assertion, Olson noted that there are other common, household items that can be used to bump fire an AR-15 — such as, rubber bands, belt loops, etc.

    So what happens if a homeowner has several AR-15s and a box of rubber bands? Olson noted that the ATF has already successfully prosecuted people who owned unassembled parts that could later be used to (theoretically) convert a firearm into a machine gun.

    In other words, the ATF has already shown its true colors on this point. So if these regulations are eventually allowed to stand, gun owners need to beware.

    Don’t be surprised if the ATF — say, under a President Kamala Harris administration — deems that any homeowner who possesses both AR-15s and rubber bands has committed a felony because he or she has “constructively intent” to build a machine gun.

    You can be sure that, if this were to occur, the ATF will be called upon to provide “the best understanding of the law” at that particular time. And all of its prior promises and representations — that the rule does not apply to semi-autos — will be worthless.

    Judge Questions ATF for their Change in Position

    ATF officials are well-known for changing their positions “on a dime.” And they are guilty of doing this in regard to their position on bump stocks. In court, the government claimed their prior opinions approving possession of bump stocks in the past were correct based on what they knew, but now they are “not the best understanding” of the law.

    And this led to another “mic drop” moment, when the judge called them out on their past behavior.

    The judge dryly wondered, out loud, why he should believe the ATF’s position today.

    The ATF claims that judges like him must adopt the agency’s current interpretation on bump stocks. But ten years ago, the judge noted, the ATF was arguing the complete opposite, claiming that bump stocks were totally legal under federal law. It was a great point. And we can only hope the judge will take this point to heart — that it’s ATF’s arbitrary interpretations that have changed over the years, and not federal law.

    Judges typically will not immediately issue their rulings, and this one was no exception. We can probably expect a decision within a week.

    What I’ve shared with you here is only the tip of the iceberg from our day in court. But it certainly represents the highlights of what took place.

    I want to thank you for helping keep Gun Owners of America on the frontlines.

    Your support of GOA is what allows us to continue the fight for freedom.

    In Liberty,

    Erich Pratt
    Executive Director
    Obs and almostgone like this.

  15. #55
    Beetlegeuse's Avatar
    Beetlegeuse is offline Associate Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    421
    Yahoo is reporting that Chief Justice Roberts has rejected the request for SCOTUS to hear one of the challenges to Trump's bump-fire stock ban. The idiots at Yahoo only identify the submission as one that came from the District of Columbia and I can't figure out the specifics of their filing from that,

    Yahoo also states that a another bump-fire stock ban filing (of unspecified origin) is on the desk of Justice Socialistmayor and awaiting her decision.

    Proof yet again of the validity of the Peter Principle. Everyone always rises to the level of their own incompetence.
    Last edited by Beetlegeuse; 03-27-2019 at 11:05 AM.

  16. #56
    Beetlegeuse's Avatar
    Beetlegeuse is offline Associate Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    421
    The Bump Stock Ban: MUCH More At Stake Than Most Realize

    March 28, 2019 by L.A. Paredes

    Banning bump stocks – what’s next? Rubber bands? Bungee cords? Belt loops?

    As pleased as we’ve been with having a huge 2nd Amendment advocate in the White House, and an even greater show of support with two new solid pro-gun jurists on the Supreme Court, we remain deeply frustrated with the federal ban on bump stocks. The ban is pointless – it’s nothing more than a ridiculous solution in search of a problem that has absolutely nothing to do with guns. And that’s why Gun Owners of America (GOA) is waging a robust battle against it.

    GOA is our federal counterpart, and they have taken the lead on getting this policy reversed (officially in place as of March 26, 2019). This week they requested the Supreme Court issue a stay of enforcement of the ban, which meant the ban would not have gone into effect until such time that the court could rule on the initial case which challenged the ban on Constitutional issues. That case is still in district court. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court denied the stay and the ban is in full effect. To be clear – the case regarding the ban is still very much alive, but our efforts to delay the ban until a final judicial resolution is in place was not successful.

    “Gun Owners of America is disappointed that the Supreme Court has refused to issue a stay while our challenge to the administration’s illegal bump stock ban is being considered by the courts.”

    Gun Owners of America (GOA) legislative counsel, Michael Hammond, in response to the Supreme Court’s denial of a stay on the enforcement of the bump stock ban.

    Talks about banning bump stocks began in earnest following the horrific 2017 Las Vegas massacre. GOA has consistently spoken in opposition to the prohibition because it wouldn’t make a dent in gun crimes nor would it have prevented that monster from committing his atrocious act two years ago. GOA’s Executive Director Erich Pratt says the ban represents “an arbitrary and illegal reversal by a federal agency which for years has ruled bump stocks to be legal firearm accessories. Federal law is clear and does not apply to bump stocks.”

    Pratt cautions “the regulation as written endangers the legality of semi-automatic rifles, as the ATF’s new regulations open the door to further legal manipulation to ban these common rifles in the future, and “Finally, the ban violates the Constitution’s Takings Clause, forcing the destruction of property of law-abiding individuals without compensation.”

    Without question, these are logical concerns and point to why the ban should be repealed, but as we’ve seen in the media, bump stocks generate a lot of opinion and raw emotion, no matter how illogical.

    That being said, though, the implications are far more significant than most realize, and could impact every single American – gun owner or not. The most serious and underlying question is whether the government should be able to change long-standing, clear and unambiguous definitions and regulations in order to achieve a politically motivated goal.

    Of course not, says the sensible American.

    This, however is precisely what the Department of Justice’s bump stock ban has done – it has swapped out existing definitions that have been trusted, cited and quoted by the courts and the federal governments for decades. If a switcheroo is possible for distinct, legally applied and explicit definitions, there is no telling to what extreme some bureaucrat could take this.

    To quote GOA’s petition to SCOTUS, “As Applicants have noted, were the government to claim that the statute is now confusing or unclear, that would conflict with numerous past court opinions that have said otherwise and could put countless past criminal prosecutions in jeopardy.”

    This is positively frightening.

    California, ahead of the game when it comes to suppressing Constitutional rights, has had it’s own bump stop ban, even prior to the Las Vegas shootings. That did not stop the wide-eyed anti-gunners from introducing a bill in response to Las Vegas that was already state law. Wait – already state law? It was a ridiculous effort, but that’s how we roll here sometimes. Politicians are big on recreating the wheel just to get their name in the press…

    Even if GOA is successful in reversing the ban, California’s heavy anti-gun handed bump stock ban will still stand. Unfortunately.

    To stay up-to-date on GOA’s bump stock court case, click here.
    Obs and almostgone like this.

  17. #57
    Beetlegeuse's Avatar
    Beetlegeuse is offline Associate Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    421
    A website that calls itself The Citizens' Voice argues that the momentum the hoplophobes gained in the bump-fire stock debacle should be used as fuel to implement even more gun grabs.


    "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste."

    -- Rahm Emanuel

  18. #58
    Beetlegeuse's Avatar
    Beetlegeuse is offline Associate Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    421
    The sheriff of Boundary County Idaho is refusing citizens' efforts to surrender their bump-fire stocks to him. He tells them to take them to the ATF.
    Obs and almostgone like this.

  19. #59
    Beetlegeuse's Avatar
    Beetlegeuse is offline Associate Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    421
    A Fort Worth gun dealer is suing the government for losses they incurred when executing the federally-ordered destruction of 72,400 bump-fire stocks.

    The BATF gave the public their assurances ON SIX SEPARATE OCCASIONS that bump-fire stocks were legal.

    And then there's that whole pesky constitutional Due Process thing.
    Obs likes this.

  20. #60
    Beetlegeuse's Avatar
    Beetlegeuse is offline Associate Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    421
    RW Arms Sues Federal Government for Losses from Bump Stock Ban

    Ammoland Inc. Posted on April 22, 2019 by Dean Weingarten

    Arizona -(Ammoland.com)- The repercussions of the BATFE rule change classifying bump stocks as fully automatic firearms continues. RW Arms is a company located in Ft. Worth Texas. The company distributes firearms parts and accessories in the United States. RW Arms had a large inventory of over 73,000 “bump stocks”, when the BATFE changed the regulations and classified bump stocks as automatic firearms. RW Arms joined with retailer The Modern Sportsman to sue the federal government for an uncompensated taking of their formerly legal product under the Fifth Amendment of the the U.S. Constitution. From rwarms.com:

    Fort Worth, Texas (April 8, 2019)–Fort Worth based retailer RW Arms, Ltd has filed a federal lawsuit seeking monetary damages for the fair market value of the 73,436 bump stocks it destroyed in compliance with the Bump Stock Ban that went into effect on Tuesday, March 26th. The ban, which was enacted by the Trump administration, reclassifies bump stock devices as machine guns, and therefore subject to regulation as part of the Gun Control Act of 1968. The rule requires that previously lawful owners destroy or surrender the device without compensation or be subject to a penalty of up to 10 years in federal prison and $250,000 in fines for each violation.

    RW Arms joins retailer The Modern Sportsman in suing the federal government for this taking without just compensation. The lawsuit alleges that the regulation, which forces lawful owners to destroy or surrender the device, is a physical taking of their property without just compensation in violation of the 5th Amendment of the United States Constitution. Their case captioned The Modern Sportsman et al., v. United States, was filed on March 29th in the Court of Federal Claims, Washington D.C..

    “Without legislation, the government was able to overturn the previous ruling on bump stocks effectively turning law abiding gun owners into felons overnight if they were not turned in or destroyed,” said Michael Stewart of RW Arms. “This is an injustice, overreach, and infringement on our 2nd amendment and 5th amendment rights. We appreciate the work of Gun Owners of America and Firearms Policy Coalition for continuing to fight for our rights. We at RW Arms have been working behind the scenes preparing for this fight and have now filed lawsuit against the government to protect our rights and the rights of our customers from being infringed any further.”

    RW Arms is a wholesaler, distributor and retailer of firearms accessories and components, including high capacity magazines, performance triggers, scopes and parts for semi-automatic rifles. We appreciate the support that we have received and thank you for your business. As a small 100% veteran owned and operated company, we value your loyalty and cherish the 2nd amendment. RW Arms will continue to bring leading and innovating products to the marketplace.
    The lawsuit has a better than usual chance of success, because a regulation was changed, instead of legislation being passed by Congress and signed into law by President Trump.

    Another lawsuit, Codrea v. Barr, is in the works as well. That lawsuit challenges the Chevron Doctrine. Both of President Trump's Supreme Court appointees have expressed skepticism about the Chevron Doctrine, which gives enormous power to the unelected bureaucracy.

    GOA has also filed a lawsuit challenging the bump stock ban on the basis of BATFE overreach by effectively changing the law, with a regulation, rather than keeping the existing interpretation, which has been the same for decades.

    RW Arms clearly has standing. It suffered a clear financial loss of several million dollars.

    The courts have been mixed on applying the Takings Clause. The Takings Clause has a greater chance to apply in this case, because the BATFE did not offer to “grandfather” existing bump stocks, as it has historically done when it ruled that formerly legal items were now prohibited.

    Machine gun owners were allowed to register their previously legally owned machine guns in 1934. When the 1968 Gun Control Act was signed into law, an amnesty period was granted for people to register machine guns and other NFA items that had not been previously registered. Owners of drop-in auto sears were allowed to register their items as machine guns when the BATFE ruled that they were machine guns, at least before 1986. The NRA called for an amnesty coincident with the bump stock ban.

    An amnesty is no longer a choice for RW Arms, because their property has been destroyed.

    We do not know how the courts may rule on these lawsuits.

    Much may depend on whether or not President Trump appoints another Supreme Court justice before the cases are settled at the Circuit Court level.
    Obs likes this.

  21. #61
    Beetlegeuse's Avatar
    Beetlegeuse is offline Associate Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    421
    I am in general very slow to buy into conspiracy theories, but almost from the outset there has been an "internet myth" that the Las Vega shooter didn't have bump-fire stocks at all, that he was using a full-auto FN M-249 5.56 NATO "squad automatic weapon" (SAW). For instance there are smartphone videos of the event on YouTube and the accompanying narratives claim that the cyclic rate indicated by the timing of the reports from whatever the shooter was using happens to match that of the SAW, 650-850 rpm, and was too "regular" to be a bump-fire stock. Even if true, that could be a combination of coincidence and a well-trained bumpfire stock user, so that alone does not gibve me reason to believe it was a SAW.

    And almost since the beginning there also has been a story circulating that the ATF agents on the scene -- who the FBI allowed only a passing glance at the shooter's collection of weapons -- didn't see a single one with a bump-fire stock. And they weren't allowed opporunity for closer examination to determine if any of them had been 'converted' to full-auto. And supposedly the FBI spirited the cache of arms away and no one in the ATF has seen them since.

    But that's purely "word of mouth" ...or keyboard. None of those accounts I've seen offer any 'proof' whatsoever.

    Regardless, the shooter somehow had acquired the 24 rifles found on the scene. Presuming he wasn't an accomplished thief who never got caught, that means he bought or swapped or borrowed to get them. So I would argue it's reasonable to presume that he had adequate resources to acquire a fully-automatic weapon.

    But now there's this. It purports to be the response to a Freedom Of Information request. It's the account of a man who says he crossed paths with the Las Vegas shooter at a gun range in Texas. The Vegas shooter and his companions were shooting fully-automatic ARs and an AK, which they told the witness were converted by an Athens, Texas man. There is no discussion of whether this conversion was legal but the man who the witness claims was the Vegas shooter offered to sell him one.

    This is beginning to smell a little ...off ...to me.
    cylon357 likes this.

  22. #62
    cylon357's Avatar
    cylon357 is online now Associate Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    287
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Beetlegeuse View Post
    I am in general very slow to buy into conspiracy theories, but almost from the outset there has been an "internet myth" that the Las Vega shooter didn't have bump-fire stocks at all, that he was using a full-auto FN M-249 5.56 NATO "squad automatic weapon" (SAW). For instance there are smartphone videos of the event on YouTube and the accompanying narratives claim that the cyclic rate indicated by the timing of the reports from whatever the shooter was using happens to match that of the SAW, 650-850 rpm, and was too "regular" to be a bump-fire stock. Even if true, that could be a combination of coincidence and a well-trained bumpfire stock user, so that alone does not gibve me reason to believe it was a SAW.

    And almost since the beginning there also has been a story circulating that the ATF agents on the scene -- who the FBI allowed only a passing glance at the shooter's collection of weapons -- didn't see a single one with a bump-fire stock. And they weren't allowed opporunity for closer examination to determine if any of them had been 'converted' to full-auto. And supposedly the FBI spirited the cache of arms away and no one in the ATF has seen them since.

    But that's purely "word of mouth" ...or keyboard. None of those accounts I've seen offer any 'proof' whatsoever.

    Regardless, the shooter somehow had acquired the 24 rifles found on the scene. Presuming he wasn't an accomplished thief who never got caught, that means he bought or swapped or borrowed to get them. So I would argue it's reasonable to presume that he had adequate resources to acquire a fully-automatic weapon.

    But now there's this. It purports to be the response to a Freedom Of Information request. It's the account of a man who says he crossed paths with the Las Vegas shooter at a gun range in Texas. The Vegas shooter and his companions were shooting fully-automatic ARs and an AK, which they told the witness were converted by an Athens, Texas man. There is no discussion of whether this conversion was legal but the man who the witness claims was the Vegas shooter offered to sell him one.

    This is beginning to smell a little ...off ...to me.
    The off smell is pretty typical of the gubbernment. Remember Waco? Ruby Ridge? We will likely NEVER know the whole truth of those encounters.

    Just like in a war, the victor gets to write 'the truth', regardless of how false it might be.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •