The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old November 29, 2018, 12:45 AM   #1
Metal god
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 10, 2012
Location: San Diego CA
Posts: 4,477
Trump administration to announce final bump stock ban

https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/28/polit...ban/index.html

I thought they already had . So this is looking like they plan to use regulations to ban the bump/slide fire stock . There seems to be two problems with going this route rather then legislatively . First would be that this issue had already come up several years ago and the ATF deemed them to be legal . How ever now they seemed to have changed there minds . I'd assume when the law suite is filed they will use the ATF's own words against them as to why they should not be regulated

Quote:
the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives ……... to conclude that it’s merely a gun accessory or firearm part, not subject to federal regulation.
The other thing that comes to mind and I figure we'll need to actually see the text but the article indicates the current legal owners of these items will be forced to turn them in or destroy them .

Quote:
Under the new rule, bump stock owners would be required to destroy or surrender the devices to authorities. Members of the public will be given 90 days to turn in or otherwise discard their bump stocks, according to a source familiar with the final rule.
This would seem like another reason to file a law suite on 4th amendment grounds ?
__________________
If Jesus had a gun , he'd probably still be alive !

I almost always write my posts regardless of content in a jovial manor and intent . If that's not how you took it , please try again .

Last edited by Metal god; November 29, 2018 at 02:01 AM.
Metal god is offline  
Old November 29, 2018, 01:03 AM   #2
JohnKSa
Staff
 
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 21,978
Now we wait to see what the collateral damage will be.
__________________
Do you know about the TEXAS State Rifle Association?
JohnKSa is offline  
Old November 29, 2018, 02:06 AM   #3
Metal god
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 10, 2012
Location: San Diego CA
Posts: 4,477
CA has a law tied up in the courts right now banning magazines that hold more then ten rounds . The ban it self , although bad IMO , also requires the legal owners of such items to turn them in , destroy them or sell them out of state some how ( internet I assume ) . This is being challenged on 4th amendment grounds and along other grounds I'm sure .
__________________
If Jesus had a gun , he'd probably still be alive !

I almost always write my posts regardless of content in a jovial manor and intent . If that's not how you took it , please try again .

Last edited by Metal god; November 29, 2018 at 04:24 PM.
Metal god is offline  
Old November 29, 2018, 08:54 AM   #4
USNRet93
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 23, 2018
Location: Republic of Boulder, USA
Posts: 398
Quote:
President Donald Trump vowed to outlaw the devices soon after the tragedy, and some lawmakers on Capitol Hill urged him to back a permanent legislative fix.
But opposition from lawmakers and the National Rifle Association ultimately made a regulatory change the only realistic path forward to accomplishing the President's goal.
The devices make it easier to fire rounds from a semi-automatic weapon by harnessing the gun's recoil to "bump" the trigger faster -- an operation that caused officials at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives during the Obama administration to conclude that it's merely a gun accessory or firearm part, not subject to federal regulation.
Quote:
At Trump's direction, however, the Justice Department submitted a proposed final rule earlier this year that upended the Obama-era interpretation, and concluded that bump-fire stocks, "slide-fire" devices, and devices with certain similar characteristics all fall within the prohibition on machine guns by allowing a "shooter of a semiautomatic firearm to initiate a continuous firing cycle with a single pull of the trigger," and therefore, they are illegal under federal law
Seems surprising to me...
__________________
PhormerPhantomPhlyer

"Tools not Trophies”

Last edited by USNRet93; November 29, 2018 at 09:45 AM.
USNRet93 is offline  
Old November 29, 2018, 09:40 AM   #5
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 19,745
Not surprising at all. Let's stick with the decision and it's implication.

Discussing the pros and cons of the Donald outside of the legal issue - I don't want to moderate that. Plenty of other fora to do that.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Old November 29, 2018, 10:12 AM   #6
BumbleBug
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 11, 2013
Location: Near Heart of Texas
Posts: 847
I assume the law would cover binary-triggers also. Bump stocks are about $100 but binary-triggers are $400+

That's a big monetary determent for compliance, especially for BT's.
__________________
Visit my fictional blog "The dr Chronicles" about a laid-back Texan named dr - Enjoy!
BumbleBug is online now  
Old November 29, 2018, 10:19 AM   #7
FITASC
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 6, 2014
Posts: 4,734
So where would those crank devices you used to see for Ruger 22s fit in? Or the Gatling gun version of the two Ruger 10/22s?
__________________
"I believe that people have a right to decide their own destinies; people own themselves. I also believe that, in a democracy, government exists because (and only so long as) individual citizens give it a 'temporary license to exist'—in exchange for a promise that it will behave itself. In a democracy, you own the government—it doesn't own you."- Frank Zappa
FITASC is offline  
Old November 29, 2018, 12:07 PM   #8
Wag
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 22, 2010
Location: Rio Rancho, NM
Posts: 728
The structure of our government is that the President enforces law but doesn't create law. It's really the job of the legislature to deal with this, not the President.

Or maybe I'm too simple-minded to understand why it's okay for the Executive Branch to take this kind of action......... Unless it's to direct the bureaucracy of the BATF to do THEIR job.

--Wag--
__________________
"Great genius will always encounter fierce opposition from mediocre minds." --Albert Einstein.
Wag is offline  
Old November 29, 2018, 12:45 PM   #9
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 18,967
Quote:
"shooter of a semiautomatic firearm to initiate a continuous firing cycle with a single pull of the trigger," and therefore, they are illegal under federal law
Anyone else see the gaping flaw in this???
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old November 29, 2018, 02:37 PM   #10
BumbleBug
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 11, 2013
Location: Near Heart of Texas
Posts: 847
A semi-auto with a bump stock fires only once with each pull of the trigger. A binary-trigger semi-auto fires when the trigger is pulled & then when it is released. Still only one pull of the trigger. That's why the BATF said they were okay to begin with.
__________________
Visit my fictional blog "The dr Chronicles" about a laid-back Texan named dr - Enjoy!
BumbleBug is online now  
Old November 29, 2018, 04:15 PM   #11
Metal god
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 10, 2012
Location: San Diego CA
Posts: 4,477
Quote:
Anyone else see the gaping flaw in this???
I'd think maybe this word

Quote:
"shooter of a semiautomatic firearm to initiate a continuous firing cycle with a single pull of the trigger," and therefore, they are illegal under federal law
And the fact you can't have a semiauto firearm shoot continuously with one pull of the trigger by definition . But hey CA does not seem to care what the definition is of things . They simply change what the definition is then ban the new definition .

The problem I see with changing the definition of automatic weapon . They may instantly change many firearms into NFA items with out even realizing it .
__________________
If Jesus had a gun , he'd probably still be alive !

I almost always write my posts regardless of content in a jovial manor and intent . If that's not how you took it , please try again .

Last edited by Metal god; November 29, 2018 at 04:22 PM.
Metal god is offline  
Old November 29, 2018, 05:03 PM   #12
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 18,967
I look at it a bit differently. Its not the "semiautomatic" part that bothers me, its "initiate a continuous firing cycle".

Now, just what the hell is that???

It seems to ignore the simple and obvious fact that the trigger is pulled EACH time, for each shot.

The chief defining factor in the legal definition of an automatic weapon is being able to fire more than one shot with a single trigger pull/operation.
Bump fire DOES NOT DO THAT! The trigger is pulled for each and every shot.

There are two cases I have heard of (though I cannot cite them, and they may just be urban legend, but the logic still holds, even if they are...) involving home made Tommy guns. The first was a guy who made a perfect replica Tommy Gun, all the parts including the chambered and rifled barrel were made of wood. Only the springs were metal.

Charges brought, illegal full auto firearm...
Defense was simply the legal definition, being able to fire more than one round with a single trigger pull. Case dismissed, as a wooden gun will not survive firing the first round, and so cannot fire MORE than one round for a single pull of the trigger.

Second case was a genius modeler. Made a Tommy Gun, wood and metal, perfect scale replica of the original, the entire gun was about 4 inches long.

Again, (and against all reason it seems) charges were brought, but dismissed, because the gun could not fire more than one round, no ammo small enough exists!

Re-classifying a semi auto into a full auto "that initiates with a single trigger pull" is just wrong. Seems like re-classifying a car into boat because both initiate by turning an ignition key or pushing button...

Much as I hate to give the Obama administration credit for anything, their ATF got it right when they said bump fire stocks were not regulated under existing NFA law.

The "right" way to do it, if it must be done, is for CONGRESS to write a specific law (or specific change to existing law) and get it passed through the normal legislative process.

Banning them through a regulatory definition change is the WRONG way to do it. It's actually bad government.

And, don't we have more than enough of that, already??
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old November 30, 2018, 08:49 AM   #13
Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 7,732
Making this change by regulation is a bad government practice. Regulatory agencies doing flip flops on legal interpretations makes it difficult for people to follow the law and decreases respect for those laws. Additionally, it opens up potential for abuse in an area of law that is already beset by vague, poorly drafted statutes, and awkward technical details.

And of course, when you get down to it, the problem is they are asking ATF to ban devices that assist people in pulling the trigger on a semi-automatic firearm too quickly, without defining what “too quickly” is. That’s a camel’s whole hind end in the tent, not a nose.
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old November 30, 2018, 07:01 PM   #14
L2R
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 5, 2010
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 315
kiss your AKs and ARs good bye.

It doesn't take a bump stock to rapid fire one.
Before bump stocks, people were hooking their belts to the trigger and then of course,
if you push the rifle with the fore grip you can rapid fire a stock AR with no modification at all... they will easily connect the dots and accurately claim that every semi- IS an automatic by this definition.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7RdAhTxyP64
__________________
L2R


Evil cannot be reduced thru Legislation!
L2R is offline  
Old November 30, 2018, 08:06 PM   #15
rickyrick
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 15, 2010
Posts: 6,926
After all these years of gun ownership and supporting gun rights and all of that, I’m just going to stop having any concern about it all. ARs and other semiautomatic firearms will be banned at some point in the future. I will obey all laws to the best of my ability and get rid of anything I’m required to get rid of. I don’t want to inadvertently break the law just because some moved the goal posts.
Most of our power structure is against us owning guns. A few more election cycles and it will be done. One state at a time, radical extremists are winning elections. Won’t be long until flyover country is taken over too.
I hear lots of “come and take it” and “cold dead fingers” and “the constitution” along with every other 2nd amendment slogan... but the reality is that most people will simply comply or hide their guns rendering them essentially useless anyway.
I’ll vote the way I vote, but I will also comply with any laws that come out in the future.
rickyrick is offline  
Old November 30, 2018, 09:11 PM   #16
Ruga Booga
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 2, 2017
Location: SE Kansas
Posts: 105
Good for you
Ruga Booga is offline  
Old November 30, 2018, 09:37 PM   #17
Metal god
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 10, 2012
Location: San Diego CA
Posts: 4,477
rickyrick , is there anything else us law abiding citizens can do . The law is the law , we’ll need are reps or local officials to stand with us like the sheriff in that Washington small town is doing and declaring a sanctuary city for gun rights .
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/san...-2nd-amendment
__________________
If Jesus had a gun , he'd probably still be alive !

I almost always write my posts regardless of content in a jovial manor and intent . If that's not how you took it , please try again .
Metal god is offline  
Old November 30, 2018, 09:53 PM   #18
BumbleBug
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 11, 2013
Location: Near Heart of Texas
Posts: 847
Quote:
Originally Posted by rickyrick
After all these years of gun ownership and supporting gun rights and all of that, I’m just going to stop having any concern about it all. ARs and other semiautomatic firearms will be banned at some point in the future. I will obey all laws to the best of my ability and get rid of anything I’m required to get rid of. I don’t want to inadvertently break the law just because some moved the goal posts.
Most of our power structure is against us owning guns. A few more election cycles and it will be done. One state at a time, radical extremists are winning elections. Won’t be long until flyover country is taken over too.
I hear lots of “come and take it” and “cold dead fingers” and “the constitution” along with every other 2nd amendment slogan... but the reality is that most people will simply comply or hide their guns rendering them essentially useless anyway.
I’ll vote the way I vote, but I will also comply with any laws that come out in the future.
I agree with you rickyrick & I've said as much to my friends & family. I argue against it. I don't like it. I don't want it to be true. But federal gun control is coming to America & it's just a matter of time. So enjoy it while you can. I hope that this basic American freedom will at least last the rest of my lifetime. But at 67 years old, I won't bet on that.
__________________
Visit my fictional blog "The dr Chronicles" about a laid-back Texan named dr - Enjoy!
BumbleBug is online now  
Old November 30, 2018, 10:22 PM   #19
Dano4734
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 6, 2014
Posts: 703
I had to turn in my 12 round Glock magazines because of NY ten round max limit
Dano4734 is offline  
Old December 2, 2018, 05:28 PM   #20
fl_rich
Member
 
Join Date: October 27, 2015
Posts: 92
Time to storm the streets?
__________________
NRA Life Member -- CZ P01 Tactical -- CZ-Bren CZ805 pistol --Springfield - XDM 45 Comp -- Springfield - XDS 45 -- FNH - FiveSeven -- FNH - FNX45T -- Sig Sauer P365 ...and shotguns
fl_rich is offline  
Old December 2, 2018, 06:01 PM   #21
hot chili powder
Member
 
Join Date: October 16, 2014
Location: Green Bay ( Titletown) WI
Posts: 20
More bump stock thoughts

Never had one, don't want one & honestly why does anyone need one? I will fight for the 2nd Amendment but are we pushing the envelope to far? Just because it can be added to a firearm does it have to be? I support the NRA but we gun owners need to apply common sense AND defend our gun rights, just sayin' my thoughts guys!!
hot chili powder is offline  
Old December 2, 2018, 09:22 PM   #22
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 18,967
Quote:
are we pushing the envelope to far?
No, they are.

it's not the fact that the bump fire stock is a "gadget" a fun toy (for some) with no real use other than entertainment, it is the fact that we wish the government to play by their own rules, and be consistent about it.

It's not a firearm, but they want to ban it under a specific firearm TAX law.

They want to change law via a regulation change. This is NOT the proper thing to do. It is not the Executive branch's authority to change (make) law. They may even be trying to redefine what legally constitutes a full auto weapon.

Again, entirely by regulation /definition change, entirely within the Executive branch. I could go so far as to say banning bump fire stocks this way is unconstitutional, and NOT because of any 2nd Amendment issue. It's unconstitutional because they are not obeying the Constitution's established separation of powers in government.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old December 3, 2018, 09:42 AM   #23
rwilson452
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 10, 2004
Location: Tioga co. PA
Posts: 2,619
Quote:
More bump stock thoughts
Never had one, don't want one & honestly why does anyone need one? I will fight for the 2nd Amendment but are we pushing the envelope to far? Just because it can be added to a firearm does it have to be? I support the NRA but we gun owners need to apply common sense AND defend our gun rights, just sayin' my thoughts guys!!
hot chili powder is offline Report Post Quick reply to this message
Need? Need? It's never about need.
__________________
USNRET '61-'81
rwilson452 is online now  
Old December 3, 2018, 10:26 AM   #24
zukiphile
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 3,203
Quote:
Originally Posted by hot chili powder
I will fight for the 2nd Amendment but are we pushing the envelope to far? Just because it can be added to a firearm does it have to be? I support the NRA but we gun owners need to apply common sense AND defend our gun rights,...
Emphasis added. Those "but"s are part of a weak position on the issue. One can't really fight for a constitutional order so vaguely understood. A right one holds against the government is less effective if it is fundamentally about envelopes of public acceptance and the sense of the community.

There is also a broader constitutional issue in legislation through regulation:

Quote:
Originally Posted by 44amp
it's not the fact that the bump fire stock is a "gadget" a fun toy (for some) with no real use other than entertainment, it is the fact that we wish the government to play by their own rules, and be consistent about it.

It's not a firearm, but they want to ban it under a specific firearm TAX law.

They want to change law via a regulation change. This is NOT the proper thing to do. It is not the Executive branch's authority to change (make) law. They may even be trying to redefine what legally constitutes a full auto weapon.
This is a firearms issue, but not only a firearms issue. People with puddles in their yards can find those puddles regulated as navigable waters or wetlands. Congressional legislation can certainly threaten one's rights, but at least there is some accountability for those acts. Delegating these legislative changes to less accountable government bureaus puts an individual who is already over matched at an additional disadvantage.

The bump-stock issue isn't really about a hokey gizmo; it's about whether our rights yield every time they meet publicly expressed discomfort. Yield on this and you invest public pearl clutching with greater authority.

Last edited by zukiphile; December 3, 2018 at 02:00 PM.
zukiphile is offline  
Old December 3, 2018, 11:48 AM   #25
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 11,382
Quote:
Originally Posted by zukiphile
There is also a broader constitutional issue in legislation through regulation:


This is a firearms issue, but not only a firearms issue. People with puddles in their yards can find that those puddles regulated as navigable waters or wetlands. Congressional legislation can certainly threaten one's rights, but at least there is some accountability for those acts. Delegating these legislative changes to less accountable government bureaus puts an individual who is already over matched at an additional disadvantage.

The bump-stock issue isn't really about a hokey gizmo; it's about whether our rights yield every time they meet publicly expressed discomfort. Yield on this and you invest public pearl clutching with greater authority.
I agree. Personally, I have no need or desire to own or use a bump stock. (Or a binary trigger, for that matter, which I've been told is in the crosshairs of my state's legislature. ) That doesn't mean that I shouldn't object to kneejerk efforts to regulate those toys out of existence. It's the "slippery slope" argument -- or "creeping incrementalism."

I suggest a review of Lawdog's blog on the cake: https://thelawdogfiles.blogspot.com/.../a-repost.html

There are definitions that establish what constitutes a "machine gun" or fully automatic firearm. There is a definition of what constitutes a semi-automatic firearm: one pull of the trigger fires a single round. Once we allow the regulators to muck around with the definitions, blurring the lines, we make it that much easier for them to tweak the definitions a bit more when they're ready to come after the next group of firearms they want to eliminate.
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:50 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2018 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.14218 seconds with 8 queries