Trump administration moves to ban bump stocks

[ed bernay]

I know people are disappointed in Trump regarding the bump stock ban but could this be a blessing in disguise? We might be able to get a court case up to SCOTUS that results in some good precedent against ATF regulations and how they apply ATF policies and procedure around the NFA. I don't know, maybe I'm dreaming.

 

[Moon]

I know people are disappointed in Trump regarding the bump stock ban but couldn't this be a blessing in disguise? We might be able to get a court case up to SCOTUS that results in some good precedent against ATF regulations and how they apply ATF policies and procedure around the NFA. I don't know, maybe I'm dreaming.

Not with Roberts and Kavanaugh seated. They are horrible justices.

 

[Bertfish]

I know people are disappointed in Trump regarding the bump stock ban but couldn't this be a blessing in disguise? We might be able to get a court case up to SCOTUS that results in some good precedent against ATF regulations and how they apply ATF policies and procedure around the NFA. I don't know, maybe I'm dreaming.

There is a case before SCOTUS next session which may accomplish just this but not on 2A grounds.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/townha...e-a-huge-win-for-gun-owners-n2537371?amp=true

 

[Odarlin1]

I’m not directing this towards anyone specifically as it applies to many. Searching the history of this forum about bump stocks, it looks like the first interest was in 2010 and there’s been little interest overall until the Vegas shooting. I don’t know anyone who owns one or had any interest in buying one.

I understand everyone’s angst for the government banning anything firearms related but I don’t agree with most opinions here. If the stuff hit’s the fan, bump stocks won’t do very much.

With the border wall, illegal immigration, trade wars, China, Russia, Mueller, Deep State, severe deficit, possible stock market crash and corrupt media, this President can’t waste a single penny of political capital. I don’t blame Trump one darn bit for not getting distracted by this.

If Trump doesn’t win the border wall and illegal immigration alone, he’s likely a one term president and the entire country changes. You want to worry about something 2A related, think of Bernie Sanders as the next President?

So many get on their high horse when Daddy Trump doesn’t fight and win their battles for them. Trump is in it by himself and I don’t see any Republicans, nor do I see the American public backing him up.

Sadly, the Yellow Vests in France are giving Trump more political capital than we are doing for him here in America. If America had the same kind of public outrage that’s in France, most of this crap were seeing goes away. Before you point your finger at Trump, look in the mirror and ask yourself what you’ve done to help in your own fight?

Banning Bump stocks without a grandfather or some type of compensation is simply wrong. It is private property. It sets a terrible precedent for future administrations to simply come and take private property. Doesn't the fact it is unconstitutional bother you?

 

[Inigoes]

Banning Bump stocks without a grandfather or some type of compensation is simply wrong. It is private property. It sets a terrible precedent for future administrations to simply come and take private property. Doesn't the fact it is unconstitutional bother you?

You mean like civil forfeiture, without due process?

 

[East2West]

You mean like civil forfeiture, without due process?

Doesn't Civil Asset Forfeiture come after a conviction?

 

[Inigoes]

Doesn't Civil Asset Forfeiture come after a conviction?

No

See the thread timbs v indiana

 

[Odarlin1]

You mean like civil forfeiture, without due process?

Well Yes. It assumes guilt as they do not need to prove a crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Because it is a "civil" action The level of evidence is merely a preponderance of the evidence meaning there is a caveat that says they have to prove the assets being seized are connected to some sort of criminal activity such as drug trade. I don't agree with it either.

 

[Rack&Roll]

I’m not directing this towards anyone specifically as it applies to many. Searching the history of this forum about bump stocks, it looks like the first interest was in 2010 and there’s been little interest overall until the Vegas shooting. I don’t know anyone who owns one or had any interest in buying one.

I understand everyone’s angst for the government banning anything firearms related but I don’t agree with most opinions here. If the stuff hit’s the fan, bump stocks won’t do very much.

“If the stuff hits the fan” it would probably happen quickly, so all those unmilled 80% lowers sitting in
boxes are just “throwing stars” so we can just let the Infringers take them to as their pound of flesh correct?

Isn’t what I have just described “Cafeteria Constitutionalism?

 

[kaliroger]

Just a reminder from a former New Yorker:-(
When Trump was a business man in NY, he was being "successful" by funneling tons of money into Democratic Part coffers, the same folks who took all rights away form the law abiding folks in NYC!!! If you want to know where the gun laws are most restrictive look at NYC...

So excuse me but I do not believe we can count on Pr. Trump to protect any of our 2nd amendment rights, if he needs to win second term and thinks he has to sell us to do it, guess what he will sell us....

He probably never owned a gun, he ain't no Charlton Heston. Just remember to keep renewing your NRA membership, sadly there are few other options for us....

 

[Aventus]

“If the stuff hits the fan” it would probably happen quickly, so all those unmilled 80% lowers sitting in
boxes are just “throwing stars” so we can just let the Infringers take them to as their pound of flesh correct?

Isn’t what I have just described “Cafeteria Constitutionalism?

Jeff, I rarely respond to comments about my posts because it typically results in futile, online arguments. I know some here get off on that (not saying you do), but I have bigger fish to fry so this is a one and done.

With that said, I don’t disagree with you, but it has little to do with my point. My meaning is Trump has limited political capital to spend. I don’t want him wasting it on bump stocks and run out of capital for the wall, immigration or his reelection. I don’t care about bump stocks if it means sacrificing the White House for Bernie Sanders and AR’s get banned?

Isn’t it interesting there was no significant interest either way in bump stocks until the Vegas shooting? Suddenly the left wants them banned and 2A advocates wants them protected and we are at each other’s throats. All the while, the Vegas shooter is long forgotten, the focus is now a hunk of plastic, but nobody cares anymore what even started this. Personally, I believe it’s far more nefarious then the single shooter story.

I sure hope Santa gives me another tin foil hat for Christmas because this one is worn out.

 

[Rack&Roll]

Jeff, I rarely respond to comments about my posts because it typically results in futile, online arguments. I know some here get off on that (not saying you do), but I have bigger fish to fry so this is a one and done.

With that said, I don’t disagree with you, but it has little to do with my point. My meaning is Trump has limited political capital to spend. I don’t want him wasting it on bump stocks and run out of capital for the wall, immigration or his reelection. I don’t care about bump stocks if it means sacrificing the White House for Bernie Sanders and AR’s get banned?

Isn’t it interesting there was no significant interest either way in bump stocks until the Vegas shooting? Suddenly the left wants them banned and 2A advocates wants them protected and we are at each other’s throats. All the while, the Vegas shooter is long forgotten, the focus is now a hunk of plastic, but nobody cares anymore what even started this. Personally, I believe it’s far more nefarious then the single shooter story.

I sure hope Santa gives me another tin foil hat for Christmas because this one is worn out.

Thank you for your thoughtful reply.

I continue to urge folks to see bump stock ban regulations as a Trojan Horse that the Left is rolling in to capture so much more.

A Glock lower is just a hunk of plastic, too.

Obviously it is a waste of time to appeal to the exploding Snowflake heads that it is legal. Our fight goes to the courts where the SAF, GOA, Firearms Policy Coalition and other legal warriors—FUNDED BY US—fight this issue.

Send in your check and stop debating the legality or usefulness. It will never be settled here with blah blah blah, but by paid advocates in a court of law.

See you in the courtroom’s cheap seats.

 

[Badger1]

Link?

I know someone already linked you to a couple of clips put together by HuffPost, but just to see a bit more context, Pence brings up due process, and then Trump says he thinks due process would be too slow:



Also, in case the link above goes down, a clip from CSPAN showing about the same part of the discussion (with Nancy Pelosi in frame):
https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4716589/trump-take-guns-first-due-process-second

 

[Rack&Roll]

Politicians used to stand for “White Only” water fountains. Over time, politicians stand for all sorts of things. There is no civics test for politicians to run for office so “due process” can be fuzzy.

But ultimately, the courts have the final say. Not Trump, not Pelosi, not Schumer....the courts.

 

[Schipperke]

Jeff, I rarely respond to comments about my posts because it typically results in futile, online arguments. I know some here get off on that (not saying you do), but I have bigger fish to fry so this is a one and done.

With that said, I don’t disagree with you, but it has little to do with my point. My meaning is Trump has limited political capital to spend. I don’t want him wasting it on bump stocks and run out of capital for the wall, immigration or his reelection. I don’t care about bump stocks if it means sacrificing the White House for Bernie Sanders and AR’s get banned?

Isn’t it interesting there was no significant interest either way in bump stocks until the Vegas shooting? Suddenly the left wants them banned and 2A advocates wants them protected and we are at each other’s throats. All the while, the Vegas shooter is long forgotten, the focus is now a hunk of plastic, but nobody cares anymore what even started this. Personally, I believe it’s far more nefarious then the single shooter story.

I sure hope Santa gives me another tin foil hat for Christmas because this one is worn out.

Not all gun owners are 2A advocates, and not all 2A advocates care about bump stocks. If 2A advocates want to label gun owners not so animated on this issue, as not real 2A advocates, then I'm afraid the number of "real" 2A advocates gets smaller all the time.
https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/355376-poll-82-support-a-ban-on-bump-stocks

There was absolutely no political capital on this, let the attorneys fight it out.

 

[Odarlin1]

Politicians used to stand for “White Only” water fountains. Over time, politicians stand for all sorts of things. There is no civics test for politicians to run for office so “due process” can be fuzzy.

But ultimately, the courts have the final say. Not Trump, not Pelosi, not Schumer....the courts.

You are right, Jeff. And that's a shame. Because as a Constitutional Republic, We the People should have the final say - agree?

 

[Odarlin1]

Jeff, I rarely respond to comments about my posts because it typically results in futile, online arguments. I know some here get off on that (not saying you do), but I have bigger fish to fry so this is a one and done.

With that said, I don’t disagree with you, but it has little to do with my point. My meaning is Trump has limited political capital to spend. I don’t want him wasting it on bump stocks and run out of capital for the wall, immigration or his reelection. I don’t care about bump stocks if it means sacrificing the White House for Bernie Sanders and AR’s get banned?

Isn’t it interesting there was no significant interest either way in bump stocks until the Vegas shooting? Suddenly the left wants them banned and 2A advocates wants them protected and we are at each other’s throats. All the while, the Vegas shooter is long forgotten, the focus is now a hunk of plastic, but nobody cares anymore what even started this. Personally, I believe it’s far more nefarious then the single shooter story.

I sure hope Santa gives me another tin foil hat for Christmas because this one is worn out.

What about Magazines? What about those bans? I understand what you are saying, but I disagree. It just one ban after another. The Frog still cooks slowly.

 

[Bob A]

[/B]

You are right, Jeff. And that's a shame. Because as a Constitutional Republic, We the People should have the final say - agree?

No.

Our republic is constructed to reduce the problem of "tyranny of the majority". Upon consideration, you might come to believe that this is in fact a good idea.

 

[Occam]

No.

Our republic is constructed to reduce the problem of "tyranny of the majority". Upon consideration, you might come to believe that this is in fact a good idea.

Exactly. We’re not a PTA meeting or an HOA. The beauty of the this nation’s founding charter is that - at many levels and in many ways - it saves us from the mob. Look at the bullet the electoral college helped this union of 50 states dodge in 2016. Simple majorities should never triumph over liberty-centric founding principles, not when the founders pretty well had their philosophical act together, considering the realities of the time.

 

[smokey]

https://www.ammoland.com/2018/12/trumps-bump-stocks-ban-bigger-danger-2a/#axzz5aTi4s4mD
This explains a bit why the bump stock ban has broader implications for all semiautomatic firearms. Basically if your new test for full-auto is body movement of the person firing the gun, rather than mechanical movement of the trigger, basically all semiautomatics could be banned by this(see my other posts of people bump-firing as a technique rather than as the result of a bump fire stock)