View Single Post
Old March 26, 2018, 08:23 AM   #5
zukiphile
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 3,719
To be clear the link in the OP is to the notice of the rule making procedure, not to the ban itself.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 5Whiskey
That is why I am adamantly opposed to this happening through executive order or ATF administrative review. IMO it flouts the rule of law as I don't see how they can stretch the current NFA to include bump stocks the way it is written.
Emphasis added. That suggests to me that you aren't single mindedly determined to stretch it.

I am not an advocate of marijuana legalization. However, the administrative process for changing its classification seems a similar sort of administrative hyjinks. This kind of law by fiat is distasteful in itself.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 5Whiskey
If the ban is going to happen, I would much rather see a narrowly tailored bill from congress. Opening this can of worms concerns me.
It concerns me legislatively as well. If congress gets into this very directly, do you think it will be narrowly tailored and only pertain to bump stocks? I think it would include a ban on smiling while you shoot and a ban on lead bullets unless everyone at the range is wearing a hazmat suit and ventilator (or something else only tangentially related).

Your complaint is valid. I don't have a workable solution.
zukiphile is offline  
 
Page generated in 0.03135 seconds with 8 queries