Trump Administration moves to ban bump stocks
- Thread starter 2damnold4this
- Start date
johnwilliamson062
Moderator
I don't have details on what form it will take, but...
Companies will go under, current will be destroyed, possibly ban acceptance will increase, long before the legal challenge prevails.
Changing the regulation on current bump stock is moving what has, until now, been a pretty clear line on what makes an automatic weapon. I don't see where it could be moved and be as clear. This could affect quite a bit beyond bump stocks.
Companies will go under, current will be destroyed, possibly ban acceptance will increase, long before the legal challenge prevails.
Changing the regulation on current bump stock is moving what has, until now, been a pretty clear line on what makes an automatic weapon. I don't see where it could be moved and be as clear. This could affect quite a bit beyond bump stocks.
Bartholomew Roberts
Moderator
Once A Machinegun, Always A Machinegun and Bumpstocks
This is the current CFR (federal regulations, not actual law) defining “machinegun.”
If a bumpstock is treated as a machinegun or a part that makes a machinegun, then what happens to all the frames or receivers that can be “readily restored” to take a bumpstock?
This is the current CFR (federal regulations, not actual law) defining “machinegun.”
If a bumpstock is treated as a machinegun or a part that makes a machinegun, then what happens to all the frames or receivers that can be “readily restored” to take a bumpstock?
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. 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. Today, the ATF fudges a word or two in existing law to get "the will of the people" and just bump stocks (likely owned by less than .01% of the population) banned, but it sets a precedent. 5 years from now, that precedent may affect a custom trigger job with no approval from congress. I don't like it.
To be clear the link in the OP is to the notice of the rule making procedure, not to the ban itself.
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.
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.
5Whiskey said:
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.
5Whiskey said:
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.
The process is administrative, but at least that is provided for in the law. 21 U.S.C. 811, a federal law, outlines who can alter the scheduling of controlled substances. It clearly defines the regulatory rules and agency that can do so. The NFA does not give authority for the ATF to make broad regulations that are contrary to the text of the law. I understand your overall point, and I am not for broad bureaucratic regulatory powers, however this is more of an apples/oranges comparison.
No, I don't expect congress to use any manner of common sense. I also foresee similar silly regulations to arise as a result. I am not itching for congress to do anything with any form of gun legislation, unless they decide to repeal laws already on the books. But alas, if it's going to be done let it be done according to the proper procedure prescribed by law and not by stretching legal authority to exceed it's originally intended bounds.
Nor do I
You are correct that in the case of drug schedules the authority was delegated by congress. My only intent was to illustrate the distance between an adminstrative regulatory act and a political consensus.
The other side of that argument is that a reg with a flimsy foundation is more easily repealed by later fiat, whereas properly passed legislation may be very difficult to reverse, being susceptible only to further legislation or court decision.
If things have cooled politically when the review period ends, what are the odds that Sessions announces that the rule will not be promulgated?
5whiskey said:
The other side of that argument is that a reg with a flimsy foundation is more easily repealed by later fiat, whereas properly passed legislation may be very difficult to reverse, being susceptible only to further legislation or court decision.
If things have cooled politically when the review period ends, what are the odds that Sessions announces that the rule will not be promulgated?
Furthermore I just read the proposed regulation and I must say that it must have inspired great labor pangs to draft it in such a manner to seek the ultimate legal conclusion that it came to. For anyone who wants a demonstration in just how broken our government can be, read the document and see for yourself. A great many logical leaps and non-sequitor arguments were taken to reach the conclusion that the ATF can now treat bump-stocks as NFA items.
stonewall50
New member
My thoughts? 44% of the voting republicans are finding out why this guy is not a real conservative and is a populist loser not interested in our right and perhaps might be a wake up call to the rest of the party.
At any rate? I don’t support any piece of garbage legislation regarding firearms until we come up with some realistic solutions to our abysmal handling of mental disorders, drug laws, and other major contributing factors to our murder rate that don’t require trampling rights OR require review of how to handle issues while not violating due process.
But hey. I may have an(R) next to my name for voter registration, but I am really a libertarian.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
stonewall50
New member
Hopefully someone will shut down the ATF before they bungle another criminal issue and start killing women and children again.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk