if you think that Congress, even if completely controlled by conservatives would protect your RKBA you're wrong. Here is how: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z__MetkNTTc
Bypass Congress to take your guns, here is how:
- Thread starter JERRYS.
- Start date
- Status
Frank Ettin
Administrator
Yet there is absolutely nothing in the video describing in detail what sort of "executive action" is actually contemplated nor why or how any such "executive action" would survive a court challenge.
There's mention of expanding the classes of firearms included under the NFA. Exactly how would that be done without legislation?
There's mention of expanding the classes of firearms included under the NFA. Exactly how would that be done without legislation?
by using the batfe to categorize certain firearms as needing extra tax stamps. what legislation was needed for the bump stocks?
Frank Ettin
Administrator
JERRYS said:
Except ATF can't do that by itself. The classes of firearms subject to the NFA are defined by statute. ATF can't change those definitions. It would take Congress amending those statutes to change those definitions.
how did they ban bump stocks without Congress?
I really want to be wrong on this since President Trump's ship has sailed by the refusal of the SCOTUS..... it isn't looking good for the Senate either the way Georgia has faltered so far. The White House, the House of Reps, and most like the Senate will all be under one thumb.
Frank Ettin
Administrator
They really haven't yet "done it with bump stocks." ATF did adopt regulations, but there is litigation in process.
so a bump stock already owned is still legal to use or not?
tell me what law can stop the White House from authorizing the batfe from recategorizing certain firearms (AR15 et al.) to require additional tax stamps?
not all semiautos, just AR15s and AK47s, for starters.
I will say this again, right now there is NOTHING but talk.
Also, bump stock are not firearms, and so some rules apply differently.
Additionally, as noted court challenges are underway.
All the proposals at this time are trial balloons, which greatly please the anti gun folks and irritate us. They are not law, they are not proposed law, or even regulatory changes, and may never be.
Until then, be aware, be vigilant, express your desires to your LEGISATORS, and remind them that an unelected agency doing as it pleases is an affront to THEIR AUTHORITY and position in our system of governance.
Cool your jets until there is something real underway, IF there ever is.
The Obama administration didn't push gun control, they had other priorities. The Biden administration might well do the same.
One can hope...
Also, bump stock are not firearms, and so some rules apply differently.
Additionally, as noted court challenges are underway.
All the proposals at this time are trial balloons, which greatly please the anti gun folks and irritate us. They are not law, they are not proposed law, or even regulatory changes, and may never be.
Until then, be aware, be vigilant, express your desires to your LEGISATORS, and remind them that an unelected agency doing as it pleases is an affront to THEIR AUTHORITY and position in our system of governance.
Cool your jets until there is something real underway, IF there ever is.
The Obama administration didn't push gun control, they had other priorities. The Biden administration might well do the same.
One can hope...
I don’t see any world where “assault rifles” can be added to the NFA through executive order. This is a far cry different than ATFs ruling on bump stocks. While I agree that the rule change on bump stocks stretched the definitions that have been in the NFA nearly 90 years, no one could argue that the spirit of the NFA was to require a tax stamp for full auto. Bump stocks aren’t the legal definition of full auto, but they mimicked it pretty darn well with some practice.
ARs and AKs can not be added through EO, not and there be a shred of “rule of law” left afterwards. It requires legislation. Bumpstocks, as improper as that ruling was, is not at all the stretch that adding semi autos to the NFA would be.
What we should be concerned with is the ammunition supply chain. This has been exposed to us as being quite vulnerable repeatedly in the past. California has caught on, the feds have not really yet. The real discussion is how to block and/or fight legislation on that end because I’m afraid it’s only a matter of time before the anti-gunners notice just how vulnerable that end of the chain really is and attack it. Not to mention, I believe there are some EO actions that could be taken to impact ammo supply. Think EPA restrictions on lead, etc.
Sure, yes, reload. I do reload, and I have a good current supply of components. I don’t have a lifetime supply though, I’m good for a couple years max.
ARs and AKs can not be added through EO, not and there be a shred of “rule of law” left afterwards. It requires legislation. Bumpstocks, as improper as that ruling was, is not at all the stretch that adding semi autos to the NFA would be.
What we should be concerned with is the ammunition supply chain. This has been exposed to us as being quite vulnerable repeatedly in the past. California has caught on, the feds have not really yet. The real discussion is how to block and/or fight legislation on that end because I’m afraid it’s only a matter of time before the anti-gunners notice just how vulnerable that end of the chain really is and attack it. Not to mention, I believe there are some EO actions that could be taken to impact ammo supply. Think EPA restrictions on lead, etc.
Sure, yes, reload. I do reload, and I have a good current supply of components. I don’t have a lifetime supply though, I’m good for a couple years max.
Last edited:
FrankenMauser
New member
I won't click the link without more explanation.
More meat. Less bait.
More meat. Less bait.
dogtown tom
New member
No, it entailed rewriting the definition of "machine gun" in ATF regulations to include bumpstocks.
Federal law did not change. Hence, the litigation.
Because there isn't any such world. Assault rifles (by correct definition) are ALREADY NFA weapons and always were.
Welcome to the language trap created by, and for the anti-gunners.
Assault RIFLE is a translation of the German term Sturmgewehr (storm rifle /assault rifle) coined by Adolph Hitler when he endorsed the MP43/44 series rifle.
Assault rifle was the term used and defined as SELECTIVE FIRE, magazine fed, and firing an intermediate power cartridge. (more powerful than the standard pistol round, but less than the standard infantry rifle round)
This definition was in use from 1944 on...
Actual "assault rifles" are legally machine guns under US law, and always have been.
The anti gunners created the term Assault WEAPON in the early 90s. This term covered SEMI AUTO firearms with certain features. NO FULL AUTO GUNS were covered, ONLY certain semi autos, which could be rifles, pistols or shotguns.
Your semi auto AR or AK or what ever CANNOT BE an assault rifle unless it fires full auto. Period.
What it can be (and is called) is an "assault weapon" (under the legal definition) and is also a rifle. Since it is an assault weapon and a rifle, people get sloppy and just call it an assault rifle (which by corrrect definition, it is NOT) and that further confuses the issue, particularly to people who are not aware of the correct established definitions.
this confusion was something the anti gun people counted on and deliberately crafted the term "assault weapon" to be as close to assault rifle as possible in order to "trap" people into using their terms.
Like Frank explained, Biden cannot use executive action to reclassify semi-autos into something that needs to be registered as an NFA. The law must be changed, otherwise, the executive action would be directly contrary to the law and could easily be ignored.
Not only that, but BATFE would need a huge amount of additional funding to process hundreds of millions of Form 1's, and this can only be done through congress.
Not only that, but BATFE would need a huge amount of additional funding to process hundreds of millions of Form 1's, and this can only be done through congress.
In 1994 AR15's and other similar rifles were extremely rare firearms. I honestly didn't know a single person who owned an AR in 1994. Only a handful with SKS rifles. That made it easy to attempt to ban the rifles. In reality the 1994 ban didn't ban much of anything, it just meant that an AR couldn't have a bayonet lug or a flash hider until the law expired in 2004.
Since 1994 there have been twice as many AR's sold in this countries as 30-30's since 1895. They are the most popular, most commonly owned rifle in the country. They are even owned by many liberal minded folks.
In short, this isn't 1994. I don't think the sky is going to fall. And even if a Democratic controlled Washington wants to address guns I don't see anything big happening any time soon. The Obama/Biden Whitehouse didn't attempt anything in 8 years. And even they know that now is not a good time.
You also have to consider the make of of today's Supreme court as well as numerous conservative federal judges that weren't on the bench in 1994.
Since 1994 there have been twice as many AR's sold in this countries as 30-30's since 1895. They are the most popular, most commonly owned rifle in the country. They are even owned by many liberal minded folks.
In short, this isn't 1994. I don't think the sky is going to fall. And even if a Democratic controlled Washington wants to address guns I don't see anything big happening any time soon. The Obama/Biden Whitehouse didn't attempt anything in 8 years. And even they know that now is not a good time.
You also have to consider the make of of today's Supreme court as well as numerous conservative federal judges that weren't on the bench in 1994.
I wouldn't say they were extremely rare in 1994, but I would say they weren't extremely common. The AR-15 (and for that matter the FAL) had been on the market for about 30 years.
I sold my last AR back then, when the buying panic raised the price from $450 to $900.
Prior to the govt making them forbidden fruit, AR-15s weren't terribly popular, though they had been getting more popular before that, due to the proliferation of aftermarket parts and accessories. They were expensive, the .223 wasn't (and still isn't) legal for deer hunting in most states, and until the advent of the free float barrels AR's weren't as accurate as decent varmint rifles.
When the Clinton's 1994 AWB said (essentially) "you can't have one" then demand literally exploded overnight. And hasn't stopped since...
Tennessee Gentleman
New member
What about Shockwaves and the Remington version? Those were based on BATFE rules which Bdien could change?
- Status