The Firing Line Forums

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old December 4, 2018, 09:10 AM   #26
USNRet93
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 23, 2018
Location: Republic of Boulder, USA
Posts: 343
Quote:
Originally Posted by 44 AMP View Post
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.
Just a question cuz I'm new here..who is 'they'? Cuz this administration is GOP.
Agree with second bolded part..
__________________
PhormerPhantomPhlyer

"Tools not Trophies”
USNRet93 is offline  
Old December 4, 2018, 09:32 AM   #27
Metal god
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 10, 2012
Location: San Diego CA
Posts: 4,467
Quote:
Just a question cuz I'm new here..who is 'they'? Cuz this administration is GOP.
Agree with second bolded part..
They in this context is always the government with no party affiliation . It's to bad really since it should be "we" the people

An example of why it's government rather then party is how it's represented . A few years ago at the time it was the ATF that said bump stocks are legal but now it's the Trump admin saying they are not . Why at the time was it not the Obama admin saying bump stocks are legal ?

You see this in politics all the time depending on who's making the talking points . Depending on the topic and what side you're on . It's either the EPA , NSA , FDA or ATF said or regulating this , or It's what ever admin is in office at the time is saying or regulating that . The media plays a big roll in that and how it's represented to the public . Go back and look at the news reports from 2006 through 2012 . You will see how the boarder patrol , ICE or homeland was using pepper spray on people entering the US illegally , Now it's the Trump admin doing it . He who controls the narrative controls the …….

The only reason you are now hearing but not at the time "the Obama admin" said anything is because it plays into the narrative that they should not be regulated . If an anti gun president was not for regulating them how could a pro gun president be ?

This is why it's they and not a specific admin . At the time I thought the government got it right when saying the stocks should not be regulated . Now I'm saying "they're" wrong in there new position . The constitution doesn't care what party you are affiliated with .
__________________
If Jesus had a gun , he'd probably still be alive !
Quote:
Originally Posted by Troop362
I've seen Metal God shoot...….I seen him shoot groups so tight you would swear only one round was fired. He once lit a wooden match at 15 feet for a birthday cake.
Which scared the crap out of the kids , toddlers what ya guna do

Last edited by Metal god; December 4, 2018 at 10:49 AM.
Metal god is offline  
Old December 4, 2018, 04:29 PM   #28
zukiphile
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 3,200
Quote:
It's to bad really since it should be "we" the people
Maybe it is "we", and that's part of the problem. People get all sorts of ideas about what the state should do. The COTUS is a hint of a framework for saving us from ourselves. If we don't take the hint, no one is going to force us to take it.
zukiphile is offline  
Old December 6, 2018, 08:49 PM   #29
RC20
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 10, 2008
Location: Alaska
Posts: 5,498
Quote:
Time to storm the streets?
Not for me, I am a practical person, its what it does and that is turn it into a machine gun (yep, I heard the tapes and I was thinking, well that is the first time a machine gun has been used)

Quote:
We The People
That has changed dramatically over time.

I think other rights are vastly more in danger than this one.
__________________
Science and Facts are True whether you believe it or not
RC20 is offline  
Old December 18, 2018, 09:23 PM   #30
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 12,307
The final ruling has been registered. President Trump has directed the acting Attorney General to sign it.

In short, bump stocks are now classified as machine guns, and owners have until March 21 to either destroy or turn them over yo law enforcement.

Since these are post-86 machine guns, it's safe to say there's no way to legally register them. I suggest having a lawyer present when surrendering it to law enforcement. I am not exaggerating or kidding.

Yes, the GOA have pledged a lawsuit, but unless they can get a quick injunction, I can't recommend holding on to a bump stock in hopes of a legal resolution.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Tom Servo is offline  
Old December 19, 2018, 02:00 AM   #31
rickyrick
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 15, 2010
Posts: 6,916
Apart from social media posts, how are they going to know where the bump stocks are?

I don’t have one, I must say, never did. Thought they were impractical.
rickyrick is offline  
Old December 19, 2018, 02:38 PM   #32
Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 7,716
Good read on tbe subject by Ilya Shapiro and Matthew Larosiere:
https://www.cato.org/blog/bump-stock...t-constitution
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old December 19, 2018, 07:09 PM   #33
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 18,915
Anyone here actually have or have used one of these "bump stocks"?

I am curious about the fact that the administration says it fires more than one shot for a single pull of the trigger by harnessing the recoil energy "so that the trigger resets and continues firing without additional physical manipulation of the trigger by the shooter."


This is not my understanding of how bump fire works. My understanding is bump firing does "pull" the trigger for each shot, the weapon essentially bounces back and forth during recoil, and "bumping" the trigger finger with the trigger (which is a single trigger pull/trigger action) rapidly.

If this isn't correct, and the administration defining it wrong, please, educate me.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old December 19, 2018, 07:18 PM   #34
rickyrick
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 15, 2010
Posts: 6,916
While the world will not be worse having eliminated bump-stocks. The fact that they are banned and the way it was done is a danger to all gun rights I think.
rickyrick is offline  
Old December 19, 2018, 07:36 PM   #35
L2R
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 5, 2010
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 315
---
__________________
L2R


Evil cannot be reduced thru Legislation!

Last edited by L2R; December 19, 2018 at 09:32 PM.
L2R is offline  
Old December 20, 2018, 08:54 AM   #36
Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 7,716
No, you are correct 44AMP. The bunp stock just facilitates holding your finger in one place. You apply forward pressure with the offhand and the recoil resets the trigger while the forward pressure pushes the trigger back into your finger to fire the next shot. You can use a belt loop for that matter.

You really want to read the commentary on the regulation (pg. 83) I believe where ATF explains why binary triggers aren’t illegal but bump stocks are.

If ever there was an ATF regulation designed to fail in spectacular and unpredictable ways by forcing judges to rule on something they have no understanding of, I think this is it.
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old December 20, 2018, 11:04 AM   #37
Skans
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 20, 2008
Posts: 10,761
Quote:
My understanding is bump firing does "pull" the trigger for each shot, the weapon essentially bounces back and forth during recoil, and "bumping" the trigger finger
I see that even you put "pull" in quotes. The reason for this is because people using a bumpstock are not actually pulling the trigger on each round, are they. The gun cycles back and forth allowing the trigger to bump into a stationary index finger. It's really the same thing as the Akins Accelerator. It's just that the makers of the bump stock(s) have perfected them to the point where the spring the AA device used was no longer necessary.

Remember the hell-fire trigger? BATFE didn't give a hoot about those things because they simply didn't work to simulate full-auto fire. The pull-release triggers are a bit trickier to simply declare a machine gun. I believe a change to the existing laws would be necessary to do this. And, if the laws are changed to outlaw a device that was previously legal, there will either have to be a registration process or compensation paid for it.

Personally, I think all of these devices should be legal and available. But, when I first saw that the bump stocks actually worked, I knew they were living on borrowed time. I bet most folks here knew that too. And, then when some dope when nuts with one, that was all it took.
Skans is offline  
Old December 20, 2018, 01:45 PM   #38
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 18,915
Quote:
I see that even you put "pull" in quotes. The reason for this is because people using a bumpstock are not actually pulling the trigger on each round, are they. The gun cycles back and forth allowing the trigger to bump into a stationary index finger
Yes, I did put "pull" in quotes in this statement,

Quote:
My understanding is bump firing does "pull" the trigger for each shot, the weapon essentially bounces back and forth during recoil, and "bumping" the trigger finger
And that's because after the first shot, the trigger finger isn't pulling, the rifle is being pushed against it. Same result, (firing) just different method of movement.

However, "pulling the trigger" is the most common phrase used. BUT, note that the law refers to "operating" the trigger, and pulling it.

Which is why I find this language disturbing."so that the trigger resets and continues firing without additional physical manipulation of the trigger by the shooter."

Even if its not actually a rearward pull, I think the rifle bumping the trigger finger EACH SHOT is actually an " additional physical manipulation of the trigger by the shooter."

SO, in addition to the question of possibly illegal abuse of powers (making law by regulation, not legislation), the new "law" also incorrectly defines what bumpfire stocks are, and why they are now under NFA jurisdiction.
AND, I also note what seems to me to be petty and vindictive rule, as the law doesn't just say "you can no longer legally use them" it says "you can no longer legally possess them, and you must destroy or surrender any that you have" and without compensation of any kind, for what was formerly a legal and unregulated item.

Also, I'm curious about the people who made them, now being put out of business, because of an administrative regulatory change, not a law passed by Congress.

One would think there is a legal case here, based on the principles, but we shall have to wait and see if someone has both the standing and resources to pursue it.

Bump stocks may be a gadget, a range toy, just an accessory you or I don't use or care much about, but the principles being used to turn this formerly legal item into an illegal item which must be destroyed or surrendered by their owners is something we must not grant to the Executive branch of government without challenge.

Because if we do, it's a certainty someone will, in the future try to use that "established authority" to ban something we DO care about.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old December 20, 2018, 02:01 PM   #39
Skans
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 20, 2008
Posts: 10,761
Quote:
Because if we do, it's a certainty someone will, in the future try to use that "established authority" to ban something we DO care about.
I'm not disagreeing with you. I think BATFE has taken a creative way of interpreting the law that exists to prohibit a device that was once perfectly legal. And, until someone challenges that law.....and wins in the Supreme Court, I see how BATFE is getting away with this.
Skans is offline  
Old December 20, 2018, 04:02 PM   #40
RC20
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 10, 2008
Location: Alaska
Posts: 5,498
Well the Constitution never said machine guns were banned either, but effectively they are so regulate and post banned that you could now own one unless you sell your house (if you own it) and all your children (if you have any)

We are in the realm of human logic (which is to say we are probably functionally insane) - I sell my integrity every day at work, its called politics.

So, getting down the nuances of this is not that etc is the same as people thinking AR stands for Assault Rifle. Well hard to argue as the AR looks exactly like the M16/M4 and the variants.

Like most gun owners, I see middle ground in all this though I do find it hilarious the timing of the change.

So there we go and like all the other stuff it will work its way through the courts.

Keep in mind its these same courts that concluded that Microsoft did not have a monopoly on operating systems and you had to have Internet Exploder to make it work. (Bwahhhhhahhahaha)

Sorry folks, they are legal beagles not mechanics, or techs and if you assume legal has anything to do with logic let alone justice you are badly mistaken.
__________________
Science and Facts are True whether you believe it or not
RC20 is offline  
Old December 20, 2018, 06:04 PM   #41
Mainah
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 9, 2007
Posts: 758
Populism and individual liberty don't mix well.
Mainah is offline  
Old December 20, 2018, 06:37 PM   #42
Metal god
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 10, 2012
Location: San Diego CA
Posts: 4,467
I believe the firearms policy coalition sent me an email saying this is already being challenged by an owner of a bump stock along with a few other plaintiffs , I deleted that email though .

I have not read the article but thought I should provide a link from where I got the quote
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/bethba...-know-n2537738
Quote:
Originally Posted by in link above
Bump stock owner Damien Guedes and three pro-gun groups – Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC), Firearms Policy Foundation (FPC) and the Madison Society Foundation (MSF) – filed a lawsuit against the Department of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). They are seeking a preliminary injunction, which would keep the ATF from enacting the new bump stock regulation while the court's
Here's a link to the Gun owners of America ( GOA )
https://gunowners.org/goa-file-bump-stock-suit.htm



Also CA has a case ( Duncan V Becerra - CRPA suit on large cap mags 5/18/17 (injunction sustained 7-17-18) ) working it's way through the courts right now which is pretty much the same thing .
http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/..._Complaint.pdf

An injunction was upheld 7/17/18 stopping it's implementation . The lawsuit is over a ban on magazines that hold more then 10rds . It requires the owner to turn in , dispose of/destroy or sell out of state . I believe it's all about the 4th amendment in that case as it will likely be in this case . Along with the fact in this case the same government trying to ban them now said they were legal just a few years ago .
__________________
If Jesus had a gun , he'd probably still be alive !
Quote:
Originally Posted by Troop362
I've seen Metal God shoot...….I seen him shoot groups so tight you would swear only one round was fired. He once lit a wooden match at 15 feet for a birthday cake.
Which scared the crap out of the kids , toddlers what ya guna do
Metal god is offline  
Old December 20, 2018, 08:50 PM   #43
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 12,307
Quote:
I think BATFE has taken a creative way of interpreting the law that exists to prohibit a device that was once perfectly legal.
Creative? Oh, no. That isn't the half of it. They literally redefined the phrase "single function of the trigger" to get this to work:

Quote:
Specifically, the NPRM proposed to amend the definitions of"machinegun" in §§478.11 and 479.11, define the term "single function of the trigger" to mean "single pull of the trigger," and define the term "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." 83 FR at 13447-48. The NPRM also proposed to clarify that the definition of"machinegun" includes a device that allows a semiautomatic firearm to shoot more than one shot with a single pull of the trigger by harnessing the recoil energy of the semiautomatic firearm to which it is affixed so that the trigger resets and continues firing without additional physical manipulation of the trigger by the shooter (commonly known as bump-stock-type devices).
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old December 20, 2018, 10:49 PM   #44
Metal god
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 10, 2012
Location: San Diego CA
Posts: 4,467
I know this is a big ask but …..

Is it possible the Trump admin wrote these regs with other pro 2nd groups in such a way that it will never pass legal muster on purpose . The whole time saying they are doing something about gun violence while knowing it's going to loose on appeal ?

The NRA sure jumped on bored or may have even suggested this is the best way to go about this . Some are saying by doing it this way , congress does not get to chime in and start compromising to the point we get another assault weapons ban or mag limits or who knows what . By keeping them out of it , this stays narrowly defined and gets overturned later when nobodies looking anymore ??
__________________
If Jesus had a gun , he'd probably still be alive !
Quote:
Originally Posted by Troop362
I've seen Metal God shoot...….I seen him shoot groups so tight you would swear only one round was fired. He once lit a wooden match at 15 feet for a birthday cake.
Which scared the crap out of the kids , toddlers what ya guna do
Metal god is offline  
Old December 21, 2018, 08:39 AM   #45
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 12,307
Quote:
Is it possible the Trump admin wrote these regs with other pro 2nd groups in such a way that it will never pass legal muster on purpose
I'd like to be hopeful, but no. Without pushing this into a more generalized political discussion, there's been this narrative that when President Trump does something his supporters don't like, he's somehow playing an elaborate game of strategic chess.

If that's the case here, he just sacrificed a bunch of gun owners as pawns. If the March 21st deadline comes and an injunction hasn't been successful, thousands of people will be in possession of unregistered machine guns and therefore risking serious jail time. I'm just not feeling the Bobby Fisher vibe in that.

Given his past writings, statements, and actions on gun control, the obvious answer is that he simply doesn't care about gun rights.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old December 21, 2018, 12:17 PM   #46
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 18,915
I forget who's rule it is, but remember the one about not giving credit to a "clever plan" when simple incompetence explains things adequately?

This one seems to hit a number of legal tripwires, and it is tempting to think it was done deliberately, as no one could be that dumb, right??

They can be that dumb.

There are basically 3 options.
#1) clever plan, deliberately done so the law will be tossed (after due process)

#2) They are that dumb.

#3) done deliberately, with the intent of it standing, because they think WE are that dumb...
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old December 21, 2018, 01:21 PM   #47
danco
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 2, 2005
Location: Reno, NV
Posts: 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by Metal god View Post
Is it possible the Trump admin wrote these regs with other pro 2nd groups in such a way that it will never pass legal muster on purpose .
Sorry, but Trump is not that smart...

Still better than Hillary, but not the 2A fan for which we all hoped.
danco is offline  
Old December 21, 2018, 04:30 PM   #48
raimius
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 27, 2008
Posts: 1,882
No, a "smart ban" would have included a registration amnesty that (perhaps temporarily) would have allowed new machine guns to be registered...
The admin not only did not do that, but also failed to grandfather existing bump stocks.

This is not a scheme to help us, it is a knee jerk policy to pretend the law says something it really doesn't in order to look popular.
raimius is offline  
Old December 21, 2018, 05:41 PM   #49
Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 7,716
Well, what happened here is instead of listening to the ATF’s own advice on what the most accurate interpretation of the law was, this administration directed the ATF to find the best legal argument for a specific result that it favored.

I’m no fan of Obama; but to give credit where credit is due, he followed agency advice as opposed to directing them to support his preferred result.

The new regulation is nonsense because there isn’t a good legal argument for it. And you can’t “grandfather” machineguns because the registry was closed by Congress in 1986. Even ATF can’t reregulate that.
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old December 21, 2018, 06:12 PM   #50
Metal god
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 10, 2012
Location: San Diego CA
Posts: 4,467
Quote:
And you can’t “grandfather” machineguns because the registry was closed by Congress in 1986. Even ATF can’t reregulate that.
I think that's the point of the theory here . Do it through regulator means so congress is not involved . Imagine if congress did reopen the registry . That would allow them to add even more items/guns to it . I don't know but the NRA was out front on this from the get go If I remember correctly . I think there is something to this in at least as much as keeping congresses hands out of the cookie jar .
__________________
If Jesus had a gun , he'd probably still be alive !
Quote:
Originally Posted by Troop362
I've seen Metal God shoot...….I seen him shoot groups so tight you would swear only one round was fired. He once lit a wooden match at 15 feet for a birthday cake.
Which scared the crap out of the kids , toddlers what ya guna do
Metal god 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 09:31 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 0.14130 seconds with 8 queries