BREAKING: President Trump Plans Executive Order to Ban Bump Stocks

“President Donald Trump on Wednesday signaled his support for a hodgepodge of policies — from strengthening background checks to raising the minimum age to buy certain guns and taking guns away from the mentally ill — during a meeting with a bipartisan group of lawmakers at the White House on Wednesday,” reports. The President also told the assembled throng that he plans to issue an Executive Order . . .

banning bump fire stocks. Quite how that would work is unknown. One thing’s for sure: if a President can ban one firearms-related accessory by Executive Order, he or she can ban other firearms accessories as well. And, by extension, types of firearms.

There is some good news from the self-professed “fan of the Second Amendment”:

The President once again called for the need to “harden” schools and arming “people with a certified training” to carry guns in schools, though he noted that “some people will oppose” that — and urged those opponents to voice their criticism.

Trump also stressed the importance of strengthening the background check system and once again said he pressed the National Rifle Association over the weekend on the need for action.

“I am the biggest fan of the Second Amendment. I am a big fan of the NRA. I had lunch with (them) on Sunday and I said, ‘It’s time, we’re gonna stop this nonsense this time,’ ” Trump said.

With new legislation! Nixon to China or Yamamoto to Midway? Or something slower and more sinister? Or, as is the way of Trump, nothing?

Trump, seemingly eager to do something where his predecessors have failed, added he was eager to bear the responsibility of rallying Republicans around substantive legislation.

“I like that responsibility,” Trump said. “I really do. It’s time that a President step up.”

Naturally, “step up” can mean a lot of things. Apparently, to our fearless leader, that may mean trampling due process and Constitutional rights:

“The police saw that he was a problem; they didn’t take any guns away. Now, that could’ve been policing. They should’ve taken them away anyway, whether they had the right or not.”

“I like taking the guns early.” […] “Take the guns first, go through due process second.”

With friends like these . . .


  1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

    Trump doesn’t have the statutory authority to execute a ban on bump stocks. Such an EO, if explicitly a ban, would be unenforceable.

    1. avatar dlj95118 says:

      I’m always a bit confuzed about the scope of an executive order.

      Can you elaborate on your comment, and possibly help me understand the matter?


      1. avatar How_Terrible says:

        The scope of executive orders is largely whatever a president wants it to be. The only real check on the power of executive orders is congresses ability to over ride one via legislative action, and the courts ability to declare one unconstitutional.

        1. avatar Indy Jones says:

          That’s not correct whatsoever. The scope is very clear. They’re designed to clarify and help enforce existing federal laws. Anything beyond that is unconstitutional, as he’ll soon discover. Think of it this way. If a president can arbitrarily ban stuff via EO, why didn’t Obama just write an EO banning guns? Or ammo?

        2. avatar Jeremy S. says:

          @Indy, that doesn’t stop all sorts of EOs from going through and being enforced until such time that they’re overturned by the court system, which can be years later or never. And Obama DID pass EOs related to guns and ammo, BTW, including something about lead-free ammunition and banning firearm imports from Russia and more.

        3. avatar Joe R. says:

          “The scope of executive orders is largely whatever a president wants it to be. The only real check on the power of executive orders is congresses ability to over ride one via legislative action, and the courts ability to declare one unconstitutional.”

          The “check” part is correct, the rest is crap. An EO was meant to provide interim authority in times of an absent Congress / Senate (in recess) and to provide immediacy in Presidential authority matters of State, in the interests of time. It doesn’t grant any extra-Constitutional authority, and most needs a bitch-slap. The President definitely needs rebuffing on this matter, and gets a capital FU+ from me on this. He should read his own book “Crippled America” chapter 11.

        4. avatar FB says:

          Hmm… The only problem, there’s a difference between a gun and a bump stock. Guns are 2A protected where a bump stock is not.

        5. avatar Don from CT says:

          That is 100% WRONG. The executive branch has the obligation to enforce the laws. There is room for interpretation of the laws. An executive order simply instructs the appropriate agency on how to interpret a law.

          With respect to bump stocks, the NFA is 100% crystal clear about what a machine gun is. I’ve spoken to one ATF inspector and one ATF special agent. Both agreed that without legislation, you can not ban bump stocks. They are compliant with the NFA. You are still pulling the trigger for each shot. The stocks just facilitate doing that more quickly.

      2. avatar DDay says:

        An executive order cannot be outside of the laws passed. Take the Hughes amendment, it explicitly bans the sale of post ’86 full auto’s. No POTUS could sign an EO allowing their sale because that EO goes against an existing law.

        An EO on bumps would be illegal and the courts would toss it.

        1. avatar Mad Max says:

          If he issues an EO banning bump stocks, lets take it to the 9th Circuit. They’ll have to pick between two parties that they hate (I bet $1 they hate Trump more than gun owners).

        2. avatar Bob says:

          Except he could…. The NFA allows the attorney general (aka at the President’s direction) to create as many 90 day amnesties of the NFA as he wishes. By creating an amnesty, anyone could Form 1 a new machine gun. Congress doesn’t have to get involved at all and has zero power to stop it unless they amend the law and the President signs it.

        3. avatar Don from CT says:

          I agree with you in theory.

          But your example is not a good one. Trump could instruct the ATF not to enforce the NFA or the Hughes Amendment. The ATF works for him. It could be done.

          It would be no different than Obama’s instructions to ICE not to enforce immigration laws.

          What Trump CAN NOT do is instruct a branch of government do to MORE than the law says.

        4. avatar Geoff PR says:

          “The NFA allows the attorney general (aka at the President’s direction) to create as many 90 day amnesties of the NFA as he wishes. By creating an amnesty, anyone could Form 1 a new machine gun.”

          Hold on, here – Is this *true*?

        5. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

          As far as I can tell, it is. That part of the legislation was never codified, so it’s hard to find. TTAG did an article about it.

        6. avatar Jimmy Wright says:

          I agree with your comment, however good luck finding a court or a legislator who has the guts to actually follow the law in this political climate.

      3. avatar Geoff says:

        An EO directs Government Agencies on how to enforce the Law or Regulations.
        It’s simple.

        1. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

          @ stateisevil

          Correct ,evidentially Mr. Trump under the illusion he’s still on the set of the apprentice,he can’t force his will by E/O or fiat.

      4. avatar GunDoc says:

        An Executive Action (which is what this would be, and what Oblablah was fond of using), is essentially a statement issued by the Executive stipulating a policy he would “like” to see implemented. It applies only to members of the Government, and has literally no force of law on those not in the Gov. An Executive Order would be numbered, and has slightly more weight.

        If specifically naming bumpstocks, this would actually be a windfall, since it would have the appearance of “must do something!” that all the retarded fools are agitating for, and would also prevent the slippery slope of banning “any device which…” etc.

        Never mind that the maximum ROF of any weapon is a function of the total mechanism. In fact, there are many devices and accessories specifically designed to REDUCE the ROF (the Vltor A5 system comes to mind immediately). But hey, Leftists and Statists heads explode when exposed to truth, logic, and reason.

      5. avatar Chip Bennett says:

        I’m always a bit confuzed about the scope of an executive order.

        Can you elaborate on your comment, and possibly help me understand the matter?


        The lawful, legitimate scope of an Executive Order is to define the means (strategy, tactics) in executing duly passed laws. The EO must have statutory authority: i.e. there must be some extant law being enforced (executed) by the executive branch. The EO merely gives instructions for how to execute a law, once passed.

        An EO cannot make new law.

        1. avatar dlj95118 says:

          Thanks Mr. Bennett, although I’m still cornfuzed with all the EOs the former president authored/signed. I was under the impression that some of those actions carried the weight of law.

        2. avatar Jeremy S. says:

          “Technically” and “in practice” are different, though. It has not seemed like at least the last few presidents have restrained themselves to only signing EOs that comply with the letter of the law. And their ability to be used to expand or further define existing law has been interpreted quite liberally. DACA is a good example, right? Or Obama’s expansion of Russian sanctions to encompass firearms imports. Or I’m sure tons of other examples probably going back many decades. In the spirit of expanding the scope of any darn law, I’m sure Trump’s lawyers could come up with something.

    2. avatar When Bullets Collide says:

      You care to back this statement of fact up? You usually do a little better on that.

      1. avatar Dan H says:

        Same reason the OA didn’t ban them — the statute says a machine gun is something that fires multiple rounds with a single trigger pull. A bump stock does not give any firearm that capability, since the trigger is actuated with each shot. It is outside the language of the NFA and therefore outside the regulatory authority of BATFE. Not even a 2nd Amendment case, it’s a separation of powers case.

        1. avatar Jeremy S. says:

          I see an EO as a way to get around that. ATF could not ban them because they’re bound by the current law and the definitions therein. The correct way to ban them is for Congress to pass new law. However, Executive Orders have been used as de facto new laws despite it being antithetical to the Constitution and the law. But Trump could sign an EO that bans bump stocks and not mention anything about “machine guns” or change any legal definitions. It could just say, “I, Donald Trump, do hereby make Bump Stocks illegal to sell, buy, transfer, or use” and that’s the extent of it.

          …though I don’t know what capability of including any sort of criminal or statutory punishment (e.g. jail time or a monetary fine or whatever) exists in the scope of an EO.

      2. avatar Chip Bennett says:

        You care to back this statement of fact up? You usually do a little better on that.

        It is for the same reason that ATF cannot simply ban (i.e. classify and regulate) bump-fire stocks: they lack the statutory authority to do so. The ATF classifies (and subsequently claims regulatory authority over) things as “machine guns” by finding ways that said things fall under the statutory definition of “machine gun”.

        An Executive Order cannot make new law; it can only exist within the context and scope of existing law. The president lacks statutory authority to ban any firearm or firearm accessory, outside of the relevant statutes that enumerate authority for the federal government to classify and regulate firearms.

        1. avatar cisco kid says:

          Wrong. The Courts have lately and consistently in the past trashed the Constitution so any law suit against Trumps ban would either be refused to be heard by the courts or ruled in his favor. Its called corruption and the U.S. is one of the most corrupt countries in the world and the number one corrupt country in the Industrialized world.

          The court in its history has only used the Constitution to wipe their asses with not uphold it as they rule according to public opinion to hold on to their power. Ask the 100,000 Japanese Americans who had their constitutional rights raped during WWII or the Black population who was denied for so long the right to vote or to eat in the restaurant of their choice or drink at a whites only drinking fountain or sit at the front of a bus., or to marry anyone of their choice and ditto for Asian Americas as well when speaking of the right to marry. The list of course is endless proving that you may as well take the Constitution and wipe your ass with it. Public opinion rules and right now the majority of Americans do not even own guns so for them its a non-issue i.e. ban all the guns as they believe they will be safer and better off and considering Congress’s failure to even fund any money for school security guards banning guns as far as the general non-gun owning public is concerned is the way to go on the problem.

          When you observe the Supreme Court and its trashing of the Scalia Decision on the Heller Case when they refused to hear the Maryland Assault Rifle Ban and the blessing they gave the Massachusetts Attorney General the right to ban assault rifles “by decree” by re-interpreting a 20 year old law or California’s recent new law to confiscate and melt down all modern semi-auto rifles or their decree that no one but the ruling elite have the right to carry guns for self-defense no one but a Moron would believe that the Second Amendment is anything more than paper to be used to wipe your ass with.

          The Constitution is and always has been a joke as this country was set up not as a Democracy but as a country ruled by the rich and for the rich and its one reason we have a thoroughly corrupt Representative Government rather than a Parliamentary Government that is run and elected by direct vote. The founding Fathers were the original Swamp Rats who feared democracy and made sure all power was with the ruling elite as they even banned many white males from voting if they were not of the rich and ruling elite. The ruling elite control the country and they pay no more attention to the Constitution than they do to dead bodies of starved street people that they step over on their way to the bank to count their money.

          Yes in a way Herr Drumpf was right as there are “shit hole counties” and in the Industrialized World the U.S. is gets 1st place as the “shit hole of the industrialized countries of the world” with more crime and poverty than many 3rd world countries.

          Get used to losing your guns as the ruling elite know the economic situation has become so bad that they know that if they do not take the guns from the people they will not be able to control them much longer or continue to retain the bulk of the wealth of the country in their own greedy pockets.

    3. avatar EWTHeckman says:

      I agree. In fact, such a ban by Trump would be illegal at every level. Not merely that he doesn’t have the actual authority to make law, but also that such law violates Superior law.

      1. avatar Tim says:

        This about 2018 mid-term elections – nothing else. Dems are freaking out because they need people to stop paying attention to their horsesh!t-Russia-non-investigation. Gun control is their distraction. DJT takes that argument away by “doing something” about ‘gun control’.

        1. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

          Yes but at the cost of conservatives/Constitutional minded voters,or perhaps he’s under the illusion that the resistance movement will come to his aid.

          A president without voters.

        2. avatar WARFAB says:

          Interesting take. He must know that a bump stock EO would get overturned. The memo regarding bump stocks that he sent to Sessions admitted as much in a round-about manner.

          I’m wondering how this will all play out in the long run.

        3. avatar Stereodude says:

          @WARFAB: It’s a bad idea to throw the dems a bone with the belief that the courts will take it back later. The same sort of thinking was prevalent when Bush signed McCain-Feingold too. Bush even stated he had questions about it’s constitutionality when he signed it. Of course the courts didn’t do what everyone expected and upheld nearly all of it in the initial challenge (McConnell v. FEC).

        4. avatar Jonathan-Houston says:

          Stereodude: now there’s a man with a memory for politics.

          I was going to make that McCain-Feingold point, myself, and apply it to Trump’s possible strategy here, knowing nobody would think of that angle.

          Well played.

        5. avatar Joe Brown says:

          Trump is literally using your guaranteed natural rights as a negotiating tool and you are supporting it because of your cult-like delusion that he is more than just a lying narcissist. He is slapping you in the face and you’re making excuses for him. It’s called Battered Wife Syndrome and you need to seek help…

    4. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

      @ Chip Bennett

      Correct and only enforceable within the executive branch of government,the president can’t rule by E/O,fiat even if Mr. Trump thinks he can.

      I wonder as the president seems to be planing on running for reelection,who he thinks his voter base is or was,perhaps he is of the opinion that the resistance will carry the day for him.

      Perhaps it’s time to primary a president.

      1. avatar When Bullets Collide says:

        Seriously, go out and find people that actually would care enough about bump fire stocks to vote against Trump next time. The percentage is statistically insignificant. What a stupid issue to defend your hill on.

        1. avatar Asdf says:

          Assuming that the EO isn’t something overreaching, like banning all things that increase firing rate.

        2. avatar Arc says:

          *raises his hand* one right here, although he lost my vote for re-election with his refusal to fire Jeff Sessions. Banning bump stocks may not be the deciding factor for very many people, but its one more straw on the camel’s back and eventually, the camel breaks.

        3. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

          @When Bullets Collide

          This is way beyond bump stocks.

        4. avatar When Bullets Collide says:

          Bull shitt Arc. When you are in the voting booth, and your choices are Trump vs. Kamala Harris or Gavin Newsom, you will vote for Trump.

        5. avatar WARFAB says:

          Agreed. It’s the dropping of national reciprocity and other possible measures they’re talking about that have me more concerned.

      2. avatar Joe Brown says:

        It’ll be exactly like 2016 where we had to choose one New York Liberal over another New York Liberal because it was a “binary choice.” “It’s the lesser of two evils!” “But (insert generic Democrat) is worse!” “He’s changed, we should ignore his entire history because he gave a speech to the NRA where he lied about supporting gun rights and he makes those funny tweets!” Our country is doomed…

    5. avatar Anon in Ct says:

      That’s a feature not a bug.

      He will have “done something” and can then blame the courts.

    6. avatar Arc says:

      Trump lost my vote in the next election via Sessions ramping up of the illegal war on drugs and American civil liberties. This is just icing on the cake.

      The top two reason I voted for him was for #1 border wall, which he seems to be fighting pretty hard for. and #2, gun rights protection via the SCOTUS, which is so-so right now. But now that hes going full anti-gun, anti-drug, anti-freedom, no vote for you! Hes caving, hes compromising rather than bartering, hes lost it.

      I never thought I would see the day I vote democrat but next election, I just might. Bernie almost had me but I thought the safety of the border and personal rights would benefit America more than ending the war on drugs. Maybe its just time to go the other direction and stop wasting time with liberals in libertarian clothing.

      1. avatar Ed says:

        Ol’ hairhat lost my vote as well…at least we know now hes a New York Republican AT BEST! Fuck this asshole and his jerk-off of a A.G.

      2. avatar Phil Wilson says:

        I’m not thrilled with some of what he’s done, either. If the proposed EO goes through, I’ll be less thrilled than I am now. I’d be happy to have another viable option.

        But if it comes down to Trump vs. Kamala Harris? Warren? Biden? Oprah? Michelle Obama (shudder)? Any other Dem that has been discussed? Any Dem period? We most likely will face the same dilemma we faced in the 2016 general election. I agonized over whether to pull the lever for Trump, even with the absolute certainty I would never vote for Clinton. Now, with more time to contemplate the bullet (or perhaps cannon shell) we dodged, I don’t think I’d agonize nearly as much.

        1. avatar Dave says:

          I think they mean agonizing over Trump vs. Cruz vs. Paul vs. Romney etc. in the leadup to the 2020 election. Not the election itself.

        2. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

          Primary him.
          If the party sees there is no support for the candidate even if he is the current office holder they will take action,or perhaps not we are talking about the spineless republican party who is more than happy to go along with the Commiecrats.

          A president without voters.

        3. avatar Phil Wilson says:

          I hope so, Dave. But I don’t think we’ll have that option. Especially if the economy keeps getting better, and nothing else dire happens (both outcomes to be desired). Bump fire stocks won’t be enough to cost him the nomination in 2020.

        4. avatar Joe Brown says:

          Except with this action, Trump will have accomplished more gun control than Obama. At least when a Democrat is in office, we have a united front against them. With a fake Republican in office, we have to fight the left and the Republicans stabbing us in the back. Trump is as bad as any Democrat because he has always been one…

        5. avatar Eric in Oregon says:

          “If the party sees there is no support for the candidate” … they’ll DO SOMETHING

          You guys have an *exceptionally* short memory if you think this. Trump’s own party actively campaigned against him and were entirely ineffective.

        6. avatar SparkyInWI says:

          I would prefer an all out enemy who is at least clear in their intention. Then we can all decide if we want to all out fight and what that means to each of us. Currently we have a “supposed” friend who stabs us as soon as he thinks we are not looking. but them comes back and says well I am better than the alternative, so give me votes and money. Then he stabs some more…. rinse and repeat. I friend who does not have my 6 I do not need. I prefer an outright enemy versus the slow bleed stabbing me in the back. Just my view on this.

    7. avatar Binder says:

      All he has to do is explicitly expand on what exactly means one action of the trigger. Also they can ban based on easily returnable.
      Original configuration was classified as a machine gun. Easily returnable can apply, All you need a butt pad and a spring. Also the energy of the rifle is actively performing part of the operation of the trigger (the reset), so it really really pushes the definition of one operation of the trigger. Even Slide-Fire admits the reset is performed by the action of the Slide-Fire stock and not the trigger finger.
      Lets say that I design a cam in the firing control group of a AR where the trigger is actively pushed forward just as the gun went into battery. You can have the timing work off the bolt like a auto sear. I would then be actively pulling the trigger for each firing of the rifle. I bet I could get it up to the 650-900 RPM of a fully automatic AR-15. I could even call it the AR (Automatic Reset) trigger. But that would not get past the ATF (or it might, look a Sig Braces) as it would not be the Rube Goldberg contraption the Slide Fire is.
      And I would not try and defend the Slide fire too much. I think that a lot of the squawking anti gunners do is stupid. However 12 second aimed 100 round dumps into a crowd is not something I would want to defend. And I really do not want to put all semi-auto guns into the same basket. It is like putting flag burning into the same basket as all political speech. I believe that it is and should be defended, but……

    8. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

      The problem isn’t executive orders. It’s Congress’s abdication of legislative authority in favor of administrative rule making and the court’s acceptance of this.

      A good example is the NFA. All it really says is that people have to pay a $200 tax for certain things, natural persons have to be fingerprinted, the “Secretary” should take steps to make sure the tax stamp isn’t issued to a criminal, and, here’s the kicker, whatever else the Secretary says (that’s a bit of an exaggeration).

      So the Secretary can add all sorts of requirements, like fingerprints for “responsible persons,” responsible persons, all kinds of forms, and so on.

      On the other hand, he could “make sure” your not a criminal by having you swear it instead of having a background check. There is literally no statutory reason the NFA process couldn’t be easier, but still more expensive than, the GCA process.

      Go in, slap your $200 down, sign a paper saying your allowed to buy one, do some registration paperwork, and walk out with your NFA item. That’s all that’s statutorily necessary.

      And on top of that, as mentioned above, the Secretary could declare a 90 day amnesty where you could just register your machine gun, or any NFA item, by sending in an email or post card with the required information.

      So basically, there are almost no legislative bounds on what the NFA branch can do with actual NFA items. It can’t just add items to the NFA, and it must maintain a registry of NFA items. Those are the only absolute bounds.

      Therefore, the NFA is almost a complete abdication of legislative authority in the field.

      And since the President is the Secretary’s boss, he can order the Secretary to take any of the above actions. That order from the chief executive officer of the nation would be an executive order.

      The NFA isn’t the only law like this. Separation of powers my shiny metal ass.

    9. avatar Ed Pekarovich says:

      WTF??? That idiot Obama signed order after order and they were enforced!!!

      1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

        WTF??? That idiot Obama signed order after order and they were enforced!!!

        To my knowledge, Obama did not issue any gun control-related EOs that were unconstitutional/unenforceable. He issued EOs with which I disagreed, and that executed existing law in ways with which I disagreed, but to my knowledge, he did not exceed his statutory authority with any of those EOs.

        Trump could take the same or similar approach – in which case, as with Obama’s EOs, they would have no impact on anyone outside of the

        1. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

          If I recall correctly, Obama had several EOs struck down by a unanimous Supreme Court.

      2. avatar WhosAn"Idiot" says:

        Always cracks me up when ignoramuses like Ed Pekarovich smear folks like Obama as an “idiot”!

        Are you aware he graduated Magna from Harvard Law AND edited the Law Review!?

        I want you to work some sample LSAT(this is the test you need an EXCEPTIONAL score on to win admittance to Harvard Law) questions so you can REALLY FEEL how risiblee it is for a doofus like you to presume to comment on the intellectual capacity of your betters like Obama…

      3. avatar WhosAn"Idiot" says:

        Here you go Ed Pekarovich, (you too TX_Custodian masquerading as TX_Lawyer) thisll help you appreciate how inferior yall are to brilliant Obama!

        Hospital executive: At a recent conference on nonprofit management, several computer experts maintained that the most significant threat faced by large institutions such as universities and hospitals is unauthorized access to confidential data. In light of this testimony, we should make the protection of our clients’ confidentiality our highest priority.
        The hospital executive’s argument is most vulnerable to which one of the following objections?
        (A) The argument confuses the causes of a problem with the appropriate solutions to that problem.
        (B) The argument relies on the testimony of experts whose expertise is not shown to be sufficiently broad to support their general claim.
        (C) The argument assumes that a correlation between two phenomena is evidence that one is the cause of the other.
        (D) The argument draws a general conclusion about a group based on data about an
        unrepresentative sample of that group.
        (E) The argument infers that a property belonging to
        large institutions belongs to all institutions.

    10. avatar TrueBornSonofLiberty says:

      Please contact President Trump directly and tell him NO ON GUN CONTROL, specifically no ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN. Remind him that gun owners and specifically the NRA got him elected. Tell him he won’t have to worry about a re-election in 2020 because with this historical betrayal, he’ll lose the house in 2018, at which time he’ll be impeached.

    11. avatar ProfessorManque says:

      Chip I gave you a documented correction regarding police disproportionately shooting unarmed black folks…

      … and I am shocked that you havent acknowledged this reality…

      … so many geniuses on this site endlessly posting racist proclamations and NEVER acknowledging that the pile of peer reviewed studies do NOT support their racist delusions nor does the proper handling of stats nor do the tenets of logic…

      The only “evidence” yall racist possess is via repetition, endlessly posting racist lies and taking turns propping each other up in these delusions, and dismissing educated reality-based folks like me as “trolls/commies/terrorists/monkeys/” and ignoring the evidence we favor you with : D

      Very sad stuff Chipper, I feel embarrassed for yall

      1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

        I have no clue what you’re talking about. Whatever it is, it appears to have no relevance to the OP. So, I can only conclude that yours is nothing more than a drive-by attempt at ad hominem. Thanks for playing. Buh-bye, now.

      2. avatar Cundalini says:

        It takes one to know one, Eh Professor? I sure hope you aren’t a “real” professor. God help us.

    12. avatar ChipRacistLiarPunkBennett says:

      Chip Bennett says:
      December 13, 2017 at 13:24
      Ballpark, according to FBI UCR data, the rate of black-perpetrated violent crime is eight times the rate of white-perpetrated violent crime. In that context, it is remarkable that the rate of police-involved shootings of black suspects is a mere 2-2.5 the rate of police-involved shootings of white suspects.

      avatarRalphSmartAleckAzzwipe says:
      February 14, 2018 at 17:38
      So DipstickBennett the issue is NOT “police-involved(sic) shootings of black suspects”, the issue is police shooting UNARMED black folks disproportionately.


      AND there is nothing admirable in the extent of the polices disproportionate shooting of unarmed black folks as you stupidly/dishonestly marvel. You see this well-known (to non-racist non-ignoramuses) peer reviewed study documents the reality that differential crime rates do not account for the police disproportionately shooting unarmed black folks (juxtapose this with yall GED racist liars endlessly repeating this evidence-free excuse):

      “There is no relationship between county-level racial bias in police shootings and crime rates (even race-specific crime rates), meaning that the racial bias observed in police shootings in this data set is not explainable as a response to local-level crime rates.”

      The documented reality of police disproportionately shooting unarmed black folks remains no matter how many excuses yall dishonest ignorant racists concoct and repeat ad nauseam:

      “The results provide evidence of a significant bias in the killing of unarmed black Americans relative to unarmed white Americans…”

      Sorry to hold you up Chip Bennett, Ill let you get back Stormfront and Makin Murica Great Agin : D

      “Ballpark, according to FBI UCR data, the rate of black-perpetrated violent crime is eight times the rate of white-perpetrated violent crime. In that context, it is remarkable that the rate of police-involved shootings of black suspects is a mere 2-2.5 the rate of police-involved shootings of white suspects.”

      1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

        Clean up on aisle seven…?

        And no, I’m not even going to address the “substance” (such as it is) of this comment, because it is entirely off-topic.

  2. avatar paul says:

    Whoops, that was the sound of Slide Fire’s website crashing (again) from a surge of buyers.

  3. avatar jwtaylor says:

    Guess that throws the whole “this is really just genius Pro-2A strategy” argument in the garbage, doesn’t it?
    Everyone still drinking the Kool-Aid? Still licking those boots?

    1. avatar When Bullets Collide says:

      I like Trump for a variety of reasons. You appear to have a “Perfect is the Enemy of Good” problem. I don’t. I’ll take good out of Trump. Guys like you go around all day telling people whats wrong with stuff. You conveniently leave out your solution. BTW, if not Trump, who?

      1. avatar jwtaylor says:

        WTF are you talking about? I praise Trump when he is worthy of praise, like just yesterday when I pointed out that he did, in fact get out and stop an assault and that he probably would have done a better job than the Broward County Resource officer. I’ve repeatedly praised his economic policy.

        But he’s been no friend of the 2A.

        My solution? Don’t attempt to remove civil rights by fiat. How’s that for a solution?

        1. avatar When Bullets Collide says:

          You equate bump-fire stocks with civil rights. You think that might sound a touch ludicrous to 99.9% of Americans. I just cannot appear utterly irrational to 99.9% of Americans.

        2. avatar Esoteric Inanity says:

          Indeed, JWT is typically one of the most objective commentators around. The man will give his opinion when asked and typically backs it up with rational assessment. He calls it as he sees it but will readily admit when mistaken and give credit where do.

        3. avatar jwtaylor says:

          When Bullets Collide,
          First, show me the poll numbers to back up your 99.9% stat.
          But if you can’t see how the removal and banning of private property by fiat is a violation of civil rights then I don’t think you have the intellectual capacity to argue with.
          I guess you answered the my question though. Keep licking.

        4. avatar Esoteric Inanity says:

          “You equate bump-fire stocks with civil rights. You think that might sound a touch ludicrous to 99.9% of Americans. I just cannot appear utterly irrational to 99.9% of Americans.”

          Not being able to shoot a gun in a way one pleases isn’t a far cry from not being able to speak in a way one pleases or not being able to do with one’s own property as they wish. Where do things go from here? One already can’t put a stock on a handgun or make a handgun of a rifle without permission from the bureaucracy.

          Bump stocks are gimmicky range toys with little practical use, but damn can they be fun. Not to mention that people in this country have made a lively hood from such a novelty. Designing and selling a product that is legal and in demand is providing legitimate jobs. Are legitimate jobs and a livelihood ludicrous?

        5. avatar Jeremy S. says:

          “the removal and banning of private property”

          I think that’s the way to go at it in the case of bump stocks. If you go 2A on it, far too many people are going to discount you out of hand because they aren’t capable of wrapping a single brain cell around the idea that a thing like a bump stock falls under the protections afforded by the 2A. However, if we go with the confiscation of private property without compensation thing, it’s more understandable to more people as they can envision the government confiscating non-gun-related things also. Then they start agreeing with the concession of grandfathering them if the government isn’t going to provide compensation, or start backpedaling in general. It feels a whole lot more authoritarian and/or fascist when all of a sudden the government is confiscating legally-purchased property and it can be viewed through a lens that separates it from the firearms issue.

        6. avatar Binder says:

          “However, if we go with the confiscation of private property without compensation thing” Good luck with that. I’m sure you will win is you sue the Federal government for damages. The only way that is going to work where it is worth your time is if you class action it, and you will end up with about $50 when you turn it in (after the lawyers get their cut)

      2. avatar Joe Brown says:

        There were 16 other candidates in the primary, 5 of them were very good but we let the dumbest among us force the New York Liberal reality show host into the presidency because he had funny nicknames for people, used Twitter, and they knew him from that one stupid TV show. He lied to our faces at every opportunity and people believed it because they wanted to…

        1. avatar When Bullets Collide says:

          Get over it Joe.

          By the way, Trump was by far the best of the bunch. Whining over bump stocks? Not me. The bigger picture of the direction of this country matter more than that stupid shit. You can’t have everything you want. There is no perfect president.

        2. avatar Gun Free School Zones are a crime against humanity says:

          Those 5 decent candidates couldn’t walk and chew gum at the same time. They couldn’t beat Trump. hillary would have been a sure thing.

          The people voted for the Donald because he wasn’t the same old party shit.

    2. avatar Esoteric Inanity says:

      Oh no, it’s all part of a very ingenious scheme. The NRA, Trump and those in the know, know this.

      In all seriousness, one has to really feel for the legitimate businesses that this will affect, and the lives attached to them.

    3. avatar Mack Bolan says:

      Its an interesting strategy. Definitely a politically calculated risk.

      As mentioned above, he is doing “something” while actually doing nothing. He is leaving it to the courts, or the ATF to actually enact and enforce the EO.

      He has political cover either way.

    4. avatar pwrserge says:

      Do we really want to talk about bootlicking from someone who keeps making apologies for Islam?

      1. avatar jwtaylor says:

        Don’t talk with your mouth full.

    5. avatar Tim says:

      He may not know what the solution is, but anyone with half a brain can tell you that banning bump fire stocks (through executive fiat or not) is clearly NOT the solution.

    6. avatar Quasimofo says:

      “But but but, can’t you see that Trump’s playing eleventy-dimensional chess while the libtards are playing checkers…”

      If some folks still believe that then they are (willfully?) ignorant of Trump’s personality, capability and history. But, at least he usually pisses off the right people, amirite? That seems to be good enough for some folks…

  4. avatar When Bullets Collide says:

    I just can’t get excited about these bump-slide things. One way or the other. I just don’t care if they are banned or not. I’m not using any energy or capital on an opinion or fighting over these stupid things. Anti’s will never be happy either way.

    1. avatar Jeremy S. says:

      At an absolute minimum, because the antis seem to be so focused on Bump Stocks and seem to “care” about them, and will claim a huge win if they do get Bump Stocks banned, I would reasonably expect a meaningful concession if it happens. If it’s going to happen either way, such as Trump doing it via EO, trade something for it. Hearing Protection Act. CCW reciprocity. Something. Handing such a “big” win over to the antis while getting nothing in return is ridiculous and it isn’t necessary. Not by any means. They’d be willing to trade for it.

      * not that I agree with it at all whatsoever in the first place! No erosion. Again, if we’re going to see erosion in one area, though, freaking at least trade for gains in another area.

      1. avatar Lost Down South says:

        “Handing such a “big” win over to the antis while getting nothing in return…”

        Based on his entire history, that would be very un-Trump like. There’s likely something afoot that we don’t know about yet.

        And if not, unfortunately, there’s nothing that I personally can do in the short term to prevent this action.

      2. avatar Esoteric Inanity says:

        Like trading one’s left testicle for a vasectomy.

        1. avatar Jeremy S. says:

          I don’t think that’s how vasectomies work 😉

    2. avatar 300BlackoutFan says:

      So you’re a FUDD. Got it.

      Why do I need a bump fire stock? Because the government has decided that I can’t possess a machine gun for any lawful purpose (unless it’s 32+ years old and previously registered, at a cost of $5000 on up).

      Dangerous Freedom > Peaceful Slavery

    3. avatar How_Terrible says:

      I think bump stocks are a garbage idea in the first place, but I don’t want see them banned because it will only encourage the anti-gun community and cause them to push for more.

      1. avatar When Bullets Collide says:

        Well of course. That doesn’t mean I’m going to fight like hell over every item in the Brownell’s catalog.

        1. avatar Joe R. says:

          I don’t know, whenever I flip through a Brownell’s catalog, I often say, ‘boy, I’d sure kill for one of those’ on (nearly) every page.

      2. avatar TheUnspoken says:

        If bump fire stocks can be banned arbitrarily because some don’t like them, what about arm braces? Red dots? Threaded barrels? Three lug, only mil/le needs that. Flare launcher, too much like a grenade right? Then anything that could be “extra lethal” could be banned. I don’t want any bans on anything, nor turning thousands of legal gun owners into potential criminals if they don’t comply.

        1. avatar Joe R. says:

          “Flare launcher” ?????????????????????? !!!!!!!!!!!

          You effing take it back raight
          n a w.

      3. so just what will the ban do ,you can do the same thing with a few rubber bands or a piece of tin , or just hold the firearm loosely

        1. avatar Joe R. says:

          Right, so then they gotta ban the weapons that you can do that to then???

    4. avatar Divemedic says:

      It isn’t bump stocks per se that I have a problem with. If a President has the power to outlaw something by EO, what stops President Oprah from signing an EO that outlaws all semi auto rifles? Or all magazines that hold more than 2 rounds? Or an EO that simply outlaws the NRA by declaring it to be a terrorist organization?

      There is a reason why only Congress makes law. We do not have a king.

      1. avatar Joe R. says:

        We don’t need or want an [earthly] king.

        ” On the notion of individual sovereignty one individual could say to another “Stand feet
        shoulder-width in your largest foot gear and draw a chalk line around the soles of your shoes.
        The lines alone contain the hallowed ground upon which you are king, until, by you, I am made to move my feet”. ” (J.M. Thomas R., TERMS, 2012, Pg. 77)

      2. avatar Stereodude says:

        IF he had the power to ban bump fire stocks by EO, then he has the power to give us national concealed carry reciprocity and the power to reclassify suppressors by EO also.

        Start writing Donnie!

        1. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

          YuP Mr. trump is a legend in his own mind and finding himself a president without voters.

        2. avatar When Bullets Collide says:

          I will enthusiastically vote for Trump in 2020. There is no perfect president out there. Since when do you get everything you want? You sound like a spoiled brat.

        3. avatar Divemedic says:

          So I am a spoiled brat for expecting the President to abide by the Constitution? This EO violates the Second, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Amendments, as well as violating the Separation of Powers AND Article 2. But don’t worry about that pesky Constitution, it’s just a piece of paper, after all.

      3. avatar George from Alaska says:

        Oh come on now!! It’s not going to Oprah… she has no political experience, just lots of money like POTUS. it’s going to be Maxine Waters because she hates everything and has a bigger mouth.

  5. avatar Accur81 says:

    Well, damn. There was a lot of pro-gun momentum before the Vegas and Parkland shootings. Nothing was done. Now, the anti-gun side has a lot of momentum, and things are moving.

    Hope teachers are allowed to carry, especially since the police chickened out in Parkland.

    Trump is still way better than Hillary, but this sucks.

    1. avatar When Bullets Collide says:

      So this “sucks”? Seriously, a bump fire stock ban? To 99.9% of the country, this matters as much as banning midget porn. Actually, midget porn probably has a greater following.

      Bump fire stocks simply have squat to do with the Second Amendment.

      1. avatar Dan H says:

        True, as a pure matter of 2nd Amendment law, there’s no problem banning bump stocks; they aren’t a fire arm or any essential component thereof. But the executive branch can’t do it on their own since there’s no statutory language that enables it.

        If we wanted to get into some horse-trading here, I’d take a bill in which Congress raised age to pass NICS to 21 and banned bump-stocks, but took SBRs and suppressors out of the NFA and authorized national CCW reciprocity. The “common sense” rules knife cuts both ways.

      2. avatar EWTHeckman says:

        The Second Amendment says “shall not be infringed“. That means “not even the smallest amount, crossing the edges.” Even though that edge (the fringe) was passed back in 1934, that does not make further infringements either right or legal.

      3. avatar jwtaylor says:

        “Bump fire stocks simply have squat to do with the Second Amendment.”

        You win the dumbest thing said on the internet today award. That’s not easy.

        1. avatar When Bullets Collide says:

          I knew you would see it that way. So every item in the Brownell’s catalog is the Second Amendment.

          All we ever hear is what a bad-ass you are.

        2. avatar Chadwick says:

          He’s an anti gun troll. It happens.

        3. avatar jwtaylor says:

          What is the next item in that catalogue on the President’s list to ban? The wording in his executive order may very well ban quite a few. What else does he get to take from American citizens, just because he wants to?
          But more to your point, the banning of the ownership by of private property, legally owned, by fiat of the president is a direct violation of Americans’ civil rights.
          Because it is a specific part relating directly to the use and function of a firearm, that makes it a violation of the second amendment.
          Any such part would be the same.
          Wait…I think you missed a spot of shoe polish.

        4. avatar Hannibal says:

          Was this the only thing on the internet you found today?

          Except for being a novelty, bump stocks are useless. Well, also for mowing down crowds that can’t shoot back I guess.

          Neither of those things applies under the 2nd Amendment. Please show me a military using ‘bump-stocks’. They’d sooner use semi-auto.

      4. avatar Ing says:

        To people who care about the impartial rule of law, the integrity of our constitutional system, and individual rights in general, it is a huge deal.

        I don’t care about bump-fire stocks even a little bit. I don’t want one and I think they’re pointless toys. But I do care about not being subject to confiscatory laws and predatory policy.

        If the president can get away with rewriting laws via executive order — which is what he would be doing here because bump-fire stocks are clearly within the law — then our system of constitutional law is dead. At that point, we only have what the Imperial President hasn’t gotten around to taking away yet. Get ready for the next progressive/leftist in the White House to start acting like ol’ King George circa 1775.

        Even an unsuccessful attempt to ban a legally owned item by executive fiat is an assault on the underpinnings of private property and individual rights. So in that way, yes, you actually could say that the entire Brownell’s catalog is the Second Amendment (or the first, or any number of other parts of the Constitution).

        1. avatar EWTHeckman says:

          Absolutely correct! Very well said!

          This is the why behind banning even something as crappy as bump fire stocks is a problem. It’s not about the stocks, it is about the Rule Of Law vs. Rule Of Man. If the government is not willing to obey the law, they can (and eventually will) do whatever they want to us. That is a case where all bets (and gloves) are off.

  6. avatar Jack Moore says:

    Some random federal judge should tell him he can’t just like they do with immigration

  7. avatar Abu Amiri says:

    He is pro-gun for as long as it takes to get a vote – after that, he’ll bend in any direction the political winds blow. When Obama launches EOs that didn’t ban anything, he was labeled a communist, and that was the nicest thing said about him. Here’s a guy stating he’s going to ban a product and crickets from the NRA and just about everyone else. TREMENDOUS – UGE!

  8. avatar Gun Free School Zones are a crime against humanity says:

    I live in CA. I can’t get a standard cap mag or an AR that makes any sense. The list of handguns I can buy are rapidly going to 0.

    What’s a bumpfire stock, again?

    1. avatar jwtaylor says:

      It’s what the President is trying to ban so that he can get the rest of the states a little closer to where you live.

      1. avatar Chadwick says:

        Well it certainly would make us a little more even. Kind of like socialism for gun laws.

  9. avatar former water walker says:

    Well Donnie IS a NYC liberal…who gives a damn about bumpstocks after the Broward County thing?!?

  10. avatar Garrison Hall says:

    “Universal background checks” and the “gun-show loophole” mean that fathers cannot make a gift or trade a gun to a family member or a neighbor without first going through a licensed gun dealer (and paying a fee). Hearing these elected politicians and the president exploring further restrictions on gun rights just means that the ultimate defense of the 2nd amendment rests with us—and not with politicians. Although I’m a Trump supporter, I don’t think he’s immune to the kind of “moral imperative” demands that have influenced the decisions of other presidents. Politicians love symbolism and Trump is obviously not immune to this tendency. I’m not particularly surprised at this, just wary. This is why we have a constitution with protections that give us legal redress to improper governmental decisions. It’s why I support the NRA.

    1. avatar Garrison Hall says:

      Re: Being labeled “mentally ill”. This is a real slippery slope because many people with affective disorders like depression are not dangers to themselves nor or they a danger to anyone else. Unless we come up with very clear guidelines for determining when a mental illness is dangerous, you can count on government taking guns from everyone who seeks help for something as common as clinical depression or ADD. If this happens, the one thing you do not want to have in your medical records is that you have ever been treated for a “mental illness” of any kind. Just having been treated for something that can be called a mental illness could very well mean that some bureaucrat or police department could decide to keep you from owning or purchasing guns. Above all, don’t go see a psychologist, psychiatrist, social worker, or counselor . . . for any reason.

      1. avatar Mercury says:

        There are only two kinds of mentally ill people who are any danger at all of becoming mass murderers. The first of those are psychopaths (who usually, and much more dangerously, kill people from boardrooms instead,) which can be medicated in extreme cases where the threat of death or imprisonment is not sufficient deterrent. The second is anyone on antidepressants, especially Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors (SSRIs). Not because they’re depressed. Depressed people often lack the motivation to kill even themselves, let alone a bunch of others. No, the problem is anyone on antidepressants, whether they’re depressed or not. Because they “work” by completely detaching you from reality. The principle is that you can’t be depressed if you can’t emotionally associate with your life. But this has the unintended side effect of making things like murdering a bunch of children or moviegoers seem like very reasonable thing to do. Unlike with the psychopaths, the consequences just don’t matter to these people. SSRIs make people into psychopaths with poor judgement.

        Don’t believe me? Take a look at how many of the US’ spree killers were on antidepressants. What you’ll find is that it was virtually all of them. We don’t have a gun problem in this country. We don’t even have a mental health problem. We have a drug problem. Of the prescription variety.

    2. avatar Lost Down South says:

      “Universal background checks” and the “gun-show loophole” mean that fathers cannot make a gift or trade a gun to a family member or a neighbor without first going through a licensed gun dealer (and paying a fee). ”

      It also means that the gun will be papered. If your gun has been in your family forever, or you bought it BEFORE private sales were banned in your state, it was likely invisible.

      Now, suddenly it come up into view. “They” claim not to keep records, like the 4473. I don’t believe that.

  11. avatar Chadwick says:

    I guess he’s not running for reelection then…

    1. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

      I know he doesn’t need to bother with many of his former voters or perhaps he is under the illusion that the resistance will carry the day for him.
      And for what’s it’s worth the republican party will loose whatever viability they had,as they are the other side of the same coin.

      1. avatar When Bullets Collide says:

        Over bump fire stocks?

        BTW, it’s “lose”.

        1. avatar Chadwick says:

          Maybe a snowflake that starts the avalanche. Yeah it signals he’s not into draining the swamp as much as he may have suggested.

  12. avatar KTR says:

    After the video I just saw on YouTube, if he’s wanting to ban bump stocks then he might want to consider banning rubber bands that are 1/4 inch or wider. LOL

  13. avatar Brethren Arms says:

    And just like that Trump lost the 2020 re-election campaign.

  14. avatar NOPE says:

    ” We’re going to protect your Second Amendment , folks BELIEVE ME …100 % ”

    No New Taxes , read my lips ! … ( G.H.W. Bush )

  15. avatar Trollolol says:

    Told. You. So.

    Aren’t we missing a certain National Socialist?

    1. avatar Gun Free School Zones are a crime against humanity says:

      cisco kid? professor manque? dr.schmancy? Which fascist are we missing?

  16. avatar John in IN says:

    If Trump came out in favor of oxygen, a large contingent of Democrats would stop breathing just to spite him. He’s doing this to undermine the do-nothing Democrats.

    I love watching the left eat their own every time Trump commandeers one of their issues. Just like DACA; “I tried, but the Dems obstructed. Turned down a great deal.” That was a spectacular troll job, that was!

    I don’t like it. If it happens, I hope the a court case overturns it. He may even not need to actually do the EO to accomplish his goal. I’ve been around long enough to not trust any politician, even one I think is mostly on my side. (I would so love to see the Democrats start spouting off about executive overreach on this issue. That would be hilarious.)

    That said, we haven’t been screwed yet. We may not get screwed. But if we do, the Dems will get a LOT screwed-er.

    That right there is something I can get behind.

    Just like all of you, I still want my cake back.

    1. avatar Hannibal says:

      You’re dreaming.

      I can’t blame you, I guess. It’s nicer than facing the onrushing political reality of the next 2 years.

  17. avatar CLarson says:

    I would like to know Trump’s reasoning to cave on this issue. It’s a functionally minor but highly symbolic gesture that will embolden the anti-gunners. I can speculate that he wants more fuel to the fire of the gun debate for some reason, perhaps to goad the Dems into overreaching to a point of no return that voters think they are extremists. The frenzy seems pretty stoked already though, and there are some gonzo proposals out there… Maybe he wants his lawyers to come back with a negative on his EO request to prove some kind of point. Or perhaps Trump just really believes banning commercial bump stocks will make a difference being ignorant of the fact they are incredible simple devices any idiot can make. Beats me.

  18. avatar Geoff says:

    An EO only applies to Government Agencies. They CANNOT apply to civilians or business.
    It took an Act of Congress for the 1994 “Assault Weapon” ban.
    The President cannot ban anything.

    1. avatar Phil Wilson says:

      Do you doubt that the ATF would love to bust more innocent, peaceful people? They are low risk and juicy. This EO would give them the cover they need to do that. I used to say “but he can’t do that, it’s illegal!.” Then I lived through 8 years of Obama.

    2. avatar Raoul Duke says:

      Tell that to the 1989 Import ban, 1998 import ban, 7n6 ban, 2005 barrel ban, 2014 Russian bans, and a whole lot of other bans signed by executive fiat that are now law.

    3. avatar Hannibal says:

      An EO applies to whatever the government wants it to apply to until a court strikes it down.

      Something tells me the courts won’t.

  19. avatar st381183 says:

    An executive order banning bump stocks will be as effective as an ATF opinion letter banning the arm brace from touching a shoulder. Like all his other EOs, this one will be overturned because the executive doesn’t make law, they enforce law. The only real thing and EO could do is direct the FBI and DOJ to prosecute to the fullest extent any crime involving a bump stock to the fullest extent under CURRENT law. Honestly, I can live with that because all violent crimes should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Any other attempt to ban and make illegal and the Prez can pound sand.

  20. avatar stateisevil says:

    So, what stops the next Democrat Pres from banning AR’s after a mass shooting? Nothing? Maybe the all wise neocon prswerge can answer what plan the Great Leader has for us.

  21. avatar MDH says:

    Of course the EO will be challenged, and then ruled unconstitutional by the courts.

    The immediate attention and focus of the media is being successfully diverted by a masterful use smoke and mirrors, which when all is said and done will both demonstrate the limits of unconstitutional executive orders, and set legal precedent with regard to any future EOs which seek to illegally limit Second Amendment rights by decree.


    1. avatar TruthTellers says:

      Which court is going to rule it unconstituional? The 9th Circuit? Yeah, right.

      1. avatar MDH says:

        It may go all the way to SCOTUS. Popcorn anyone?

        1. avatar OmnivorousBeorn says:

          SCOTUS doesn’t take gun cases any more. A week ago, Justice Thomas said, “The right to keep and bear arms is apparently this Court’s constitutional orphan.”

          Besides, the courts’ job is to interpret current laws. I’m no lawyer, but I’d say that the NFA makes it hard, especially for good judges (those who don’t bring personal beliefs into the equation), to say that bump fire stocks are fine. The 2A might save it, but only the most conservative of judges would rule to keep it.

          If the NFA doesn’t allow BFS, the “most conservative of judges” run into the problem voiced by another SCOTUS giant, Scalia: “If you’re going to be a good and faithful judge, you have to resign yourself to the fact that you’re not always going to like the conclusions you reach.”

        2. avatar Jeremy S. says:

          There is absolutely nothing whatsoever in the NFA that applies to bump stocks. Or the GCA. The law has very clearly defined what “machine gun” means and a bump stock does NOT meet that definition and there’s absolutely no way to interpret it such that it does. Congress would have to pass a new law that either changes the definition of “machine gun” entirely or they’d just have to pass a law that specifically makes bump stocks illegal.

          I’m probably more upset about this than anything. If we want to change the laws in this country then change the F’ing laws!!! All this BS around effectively trying to get the ATF or DOJ or other Executive functions to legislate is absurd. That’s not their damn job. Let the legislators legislate if they want to change the laws. Otherwise, what’s legal is legal and if you don’t like it tough f’ing shit. Either STFU or change the GD law. But for frick’s sake stop asking or demanding that non-legislative functions of government “do something” that so painfully obviously requires actual changes to the law to do.

        3. avatar OmnivorousBeorn says:

          @JeremyS I think the argument could be made to say that bump fire stocks defeat the purpose of the part of the NFA on machine-guns. Of course, we know that you can bump fire without the stock, which takes the bottom out of that argument, but I digress.

          As far as whose job it is to legislate, I agree. Legislatures should legislate, and bureaucracies should self-destruct.

        4. avatar Binder says:

          Classified as machine gun under easily returnable. Original configuration was a machine gun. Butt-pad and spring and you are there. Also the trigger is being actively manipulated by the energy of the rifle. Even Slide-Fire admits that the reset is performed by the recoil and not the shooter.

      2. avatar Hannibal says:

        This. The reason Trump is much more dangerous than Hillary on guns is because he’ll face almost none of the pressure she will. The GOP won’t stick it’s neck out against him for fear of being primaried. The courts aren’t going to pick a battle on something like bump stocks. The supreme court has shown repeatedly it has no interest in any more gun cases.

        In this judicial atmosphere the only solution was to pick good elected officials.

        Instead we got Trump.

  22. avatar DoomGuy says:

    Ladies and gentlemen, President Bush 41 2.0.

  23. avatar DoomGuy says:

    Oh and this little gem dropped.

    Here’s how much our president respects the constitution:

    F-k him. Trump needs to go now.

    1. avatar jwtaylor says:


      “President Trump on Wednesday voiced support for confiscating guns from certain individuals deemed to be dangerous, even if it violates due process rights.

      “I like taking the guns early, like in this crazy man’s case that just took place in Florida … to go to court would have taken a long time,” Trump said at a meeting with lawmakers on school safety and gun violence.

      “Take the guns first, go through due process second,” Trump said.

      Trump was responding to comments from Vice President Pence that families and local law enforcement should have more tools to report potentially dangerous individuals with weapons.

      “Allow due process so no one’s rights are trampled, but the ability to go to court, obtain an order and then collect not only the firearms but any weapons,” Pence said.

      “Or, Mike, take the firearms first, and then go to court,” Trump responded.

      1. avatar DoomGuy says:

        This idiot is shredding every constitutional principle out there.

      2. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

        Mr Trumps a genuine Constitutional scholar Not !

      3. avatar OmnivorousBeorn says:

        I wonder what Pence defines “weapons” as. Knives? Cars? Pointy Sticks? Sharp rocks?

      4. avatar Jeremy S. says:

        Yeah so now what? Does the left applaud him for taking the guns without due process or do they come over to our side on this one while rubbing it in that they’ve been saying he’s a fascist all along? Seriously though, I’m getting pretty sick of these people screaming on one hand “Trump, do something and take the guns!” and on the other “he’s a dictator/fascist!”

        1. avatar Hannibal says:

          The nutty liberals I see are basically just explaining away his latest statements on the fact that he has no principles and just believes whatever the last person told him. They consider him an idiot that may yet be useful.

    2. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

      He will because he will find himself a president without voters.

  24. avatar OmnivorousBeorn says:

    Trump supporters are some of the most stubborn people on earth.

  25. avatar Nanashi says:

    Your fault NRA.

    1. avatar OmnivorousBeorn says:

      Come again?

      1. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

        They came out after Vegas and suggested the ATF look at regulating bump stocks, so Mr.Trump follows suit.

        1. avatar Binder says:

          Perhaps the ATF screwed up. The original setup was a machine gun. Slide fire (actually it was the Akins Accelerator that did it first) removed a spring and substituted pressure from the shooter. A spring that is fairly easy to replace.
          As for the “one operation of the trigger” Even slide fire admits that the shooter is not resetting the trigger, so the operation of the trigger is only partially performed by the shooter. Now we are getting into gray areas that can fall under executive orders.

      2. avatar Nanashi says:

        NRA said this was OK after Vegas.

        1. avatar Mad Max says:

          Knowing fully well that the the law prevents the ATF from regulating bump stocks…it was a delaying tactic until it fell from public consciousness. It would have worked if it wasn’t for Nikolas Cruz.

        2. avatar Nanashi says:

          Maybe if they spent less money on Wayne and Chris’s salary and more money on risk analysis…

        3. avatar OmnivorousBeorn says:

          Okay, but it’s still my fault if I did it. Same with Trump.

  26. avatar RV6 Driver says:

    Trump just said on National TV he wants to take guns away from people without due process. That’s all you need to know…

    1. avatar Mad Max says:

      If you read the quote carefully, he may or may not have meant it the way it sounds.

      If someone is in the process of committing a crime or poses an immediate threat to himself or others, law enforcement can seize the guns, take the suspect into custody, and then go to court.

      Trump didn’t elaborate on how law enforcement determines when it needs to seize someones guns.

      From what I have read (if it is actually true), the Florida shooter presented an immediate threat to himself or others on multiple occasions in the past year. Everyone in contact with the shooter under these (threatening) circumstances failed to act.

      1. avatar Hannibal says:

        Stop. Stop trying to excuse this nonsense. He very clearly said take guns first, due process later. Either he’s a wanna-be dictator or he’s an idiot on civics.

        Neither is a good look for the president.

  27. avatar Falsifiability says:

    “I like taking the guns early,” President Trump says. “Take the guns first, go through due process second.”

    Also Trump says, “The police saw that he was a problem, they didn’t take any guns away. Now, that could’ve been policing. They should’ve taken them away anyway, whether they had the right or not.”



  28. avatar Smith Wesson says:

    He also suggested that Pelosi add the assault weapon ban in the mix and shot down cc reciprocity.

    1. avatar DoomGuy says:

      Yup. He’s gone full democrat.

      I hope he’s impeached. We’ll take our chances with President Pence.

    2. avatar Jeremy S. says:

      Yes, he said if reciprocity was built into the bill it would never pass. Forget it, don’t even try, etc.

    3. avatar Hannibal says:

      He’s giving the democrats exactly the sort of “compromise” they’ve come to expect:

      They get a good portion of what they want
      We get nothing we want
      We call it a compromise.
      Then they come back tomorrow and we do it again

      1. avatar John in Ohio says:

        That pretty much sums up the left and their “conversations.” They aren’t meetings of the minds and genuine discussions. They are manipulation tactics to get people to bend to their will. The only way to win is not to play.

  29. avatar DoomGuy says:

    Oh now he’s wanting UBC’s, and “assault weapons bans” and rejecting Nationals reciprocity:

    F-k this gun grabbing tool…

  30. avatar Nanashi says:

    Thanks Wayne! You could have opposed this with manly firmness, but instead you compromised and said it was OK.

  31. avatar Jonathan-Houston says:

    Told ya so, Trumpkins!

    He’s using that pen and phone to turn into a lawless tyrant just like his predecessor.

  32. avatar Momma1913 says:

    Now watch democrats ‘compromise’ – come back and ask for more.

  33. avatar Mad Max says:

    I think we should wait until it all plays out before making a final judgement on Trump. He works in very strange ways. It is the end result that matters. If he doesn’t get on our side in the end, impeach or primary him.

    1. avatar Joe Brown says:

      Just admit you got played… He is playing 2-dimensional lying politician, not 4-dimensional chess.

    2. avatar Jeremy S. says:

      I hope you’re right, MM, and I would not be surprised if you are. It wouldn’t be the first time he’s done something like that in the last year. Like the immigration thing where he said “I’ll sign anything you give me” and they presented him with their grand ideas and he told them to STFU with that sh*t. It has been hilarious to watch him screw with both sides.

      That said, I also wouldn’t be surprised if he wants to make a name for himself in the history books and wants to accomplish things other presidents have failed to do, or simply make large, sweeping legislation happen (good or bad) so his name is always connected with major changes. Ideology and morality and whatever else may well take a back seat to vanity and personal achievement, whether he or his base or whomever agree with the achievement or not.

    3. avatar Matt says:

      It will have been too late by then.

      1. avatar Hannibal says:

        And this is how the GOP works.

        “Hey, sorry you got screwed even though you voted for us. Vote for us more so you don’t get screwed!”

  34. avatar Joe Brown says:

    The #nevertrump movement predicted this from the start… A New York liberal with a history of this type of nonsense lying to audiences to get their support does not an ally make but it was “binary choice” as it will be in the next election. People will forget about this BS and happily support this abortion of a president because “(insert generic Democrat) is worse!” or “his son and the NRA will keep him in check!” It’s why our political system is truly broken…

  35. avatar Harold says:

    It’s 4D chess! Would you rather Hillary? He’s doing right on other things, so in the big picture this infringement on an enumerated right is part of a win for us. MAGA. Kek bless.

    1. avatar DoomGuy says:

      You call the destruction of the second amendment and the destruction of due process a victory just because you and your rich cronies can still get rich?

      You’re a moron or a fudd or a gun grabber. Either way get out of my country.

      1. avatar Joe Brown says:

        I’m 98% sure it’s sarcasm, or Trump’s support has reached cult level and I support the ATF being sent in to deal with them…

    2. avatar Hank Hill says:

      So how many of you even wrote opinion letters to the ATF with regards to the bump-fire issue during the comment period? If you did you have my respect…. if you didn’t then STFU and go get on the bread baking blog where you can compare yeast types from your vaginas….

      1. avatar Harold says:

        I don’t beg for my rights, but apparently you do. During the comment period.

    3. avatar Hannibal says:

      Hillary would have an almost impossible task of passing gun control through this congress

      Hillary would ensure that a republican majority in Congress until at least 2020

      Yes, I would prefer hillary.

  36. avatar Mad Max says:

    Trump knows full well that his EO to ban bump stocks would be promptly overruled by the courts (and he could say “I tried” – if anyone actually tries to enforce it). He also knows full well that an assault weapons ban will never pass Congress. It also isn’t clear that what he meant by taking guns before due process would be by methods that are in violation of the Fifth Amendment (clear and present danger).

    In addition, he also knows that no additional gun control will get through Congress without the highly unlikely possibility of compromise (bump stocks listed in the NFA for suppressor removal from the NFA, universal background checks for national reciprocity, and an end to Gun Free School Zones for FixNICS).

    This meeting was open to the press – he’s playing to the media. Congress has to pass legislation and then he has to sign it. That’s a steep hill to climb with the divisions in the country.

    Congress wants to be reelected – Keep the heat on Congress!

  37. avatar Raoul Duke says:

    If anti-gun legislation via law or executive order happens then he lost my vote in 2020.

    I am a one-issue voter.

    At this point let the Dems take over and ruin this country it is already in the shitter anyway.


  38. avatar Ret1SG says:

    Well, I will not vote for a democrat. Which means that whomever the republican candidate is, they will get my vote. Had enough of the dem BS my whole life.

    1. avatar Matt says:

      This precisely how we keep ending up with shit politicians on both sides. Start thinking outside the 2 party box. They are two sides of the same coin.

    2. avatar Hannibal says:

      haha wow you really are the putz that makes sure we never get anything better than the politicians we deserve

      don’t worry, you’re not alone.

  39. avatar Dale Gribble says:

    Trump needs to reread the constitution.

    1. avatar Harold says:

      Are we sure he’s read it once before?

      1. avatar Hannibal says:

        are we sure he reads?

  40. avatar Ret1SG says:

    Well, when there is a viable alternative gotcha. Until then….. The last pair of Libertarians weren’t exactly what POTG were lookin for.

    1. avatar Hannibal says:

      There won’t be a viable alternative until people stop just voting republican\democrat because they don’t like the other party. Viable candidates and parties begin when the two parties fail.

      That said, it’s a huge structural problem that the founding fathers screwed up big time by thinking that their utopian view of association and politics would mean a pail of warm spit.

      1. avatar John in Ohio says:

        I think the plan and hope was that the people would rise up and overthrow anything that began seriously exceeding the Constitution. If POTG, or at least people with common sense, would’ve taken an unwavering stance against infringement in the beginning, we wouldn’t see this mess today. I completely agree with your comment, BTW.

        We are seeing the results of the people’s inattention to tyranny in even the nascent stages. That tyranny is now growing up. I firmly believe that incrementalism got us here and incrementalism cannot get us back. It will take massive civil disobedience with stone resolve to stave off violent conflict. Or, the nation will simply slip quietly under full tyranny; liberty slipping away in the night. The entire world would soon follow.

  41. avatar ironicatbest says:

    Trump talks out of both sides of his mouth. Arms in schools, ban Bumpfire stocks. You all keep talking about what the Constitution declares, the brass tacks is with the new regime,going back to Clinton, they do whatever they want Constitution be damned. We POTG should be marching protest at the Whitehouse gates, that’s where and why we are going to lose the 2a. All gun owners should take a week off from our lives to take a stand oi our own, who’s with me, million man March to the Whitehouse, let our voices be heard. It up to us not the NRA. I can’t do it alone . I’m serious stand with me, let’s organize and get er done

  42. avatar Cam says:

    Nice to know you’re r ok taking someone’s rights away as long as you get something

    1. avatar Hannibal says:

      In this case, because he’s trying to make sure there is no ‘pro-gun’ (reciprocity, etc) aspect in the bill, he’s not getting ANYTHING.

      Well, except for a pat on the back by his new friend, Diane Feinstien.

      He won’t even get that in the end. They’ll just all laugh at him because he’s a doofus that gave away the farm.

  43. avatar Pawl from Florida says:

    Trump always had a habit of getting small companies to do work for him and not paying them. I knew people that did work in a cabinet shop building reception desks for Trump Tower in NY. The company had to borrow money for materials and labor. Long story short , they were told to sue him for the payment. They went bankrupt. That’s the way most of those billionaire’s operate.
    He was a good friend of the Clintons. How many millions did he give them? Hillary is accused of many crimes. Who is protecting her from prosecution ?
    My theory was that Trump wanted to get in office to destroy the Republican Party . That way he can get away with anything he wanted to. People like him never have enough. They want it all.

    1. avatar Old Fart says:

      Sounds like Tom Hicks who owned the hockey team here in Dallas. I think it was hockey team, some one correct correct me if I’m wrong. He built a mansion in North Dallas and he agreed to sub contractors prices. When mansion complete, he told everyone take half payment or sue him in court. Some small companies went broke. Thats how rich stay rich.

  44. avatar Paul on Harsens Island says:

    During the campaign Trump promised he wouldn’t govern by Executive Order.

  45. avatar Old Fart says:

    Does Trump realize he wouldn’t have won if he was running against ANYONE else but Hillary? And I voted for him. I just think he fell into a sweet job. If he listen to his advisers he could get a second term. He is trying to alienate all of us who voted for him. Someone said the way he made statement about confiscating guns from possibly mentally ill could be taken two ways won’t help him, most of his supporters will look at it as betrayal. Someone give him his phone back so he can start arguing with Kim Jong Fat Face again and leave 2nd Amendment alone!

  46. avatar cisco kid says:

    Just as I predicted Herr Drumpf being from New York has a very different idea of what the Second Amendment really means. Now he is revealing his true feelings on the Second Amendment and will take away those rights to tens of thousands of gun owners.

    When you couple this with the Supreme Court trashing the Second Amendment this summer over the Maryland Assault Rifle case this has led to States realizing they can ban everything and anything they choose even if they do it by “decree” which happened in Massachusetts with the State Attorney General who re-interpreted the 20 year old Assault Rifle Law which of course was totally illegal to do but of course given the blessing by the Courts caving in to public pressure. Ditto for California’s new confiscate and melt down all modern semi-auto rifles. Now going full tilt much to the ecstasy of the Stalinist’s.

    Of course universal back ground checks were long overdue as every civilized country in the world does not allow criminals and maniacs to simply walk into a gun show and buy all the weapons and ammo they need to slaughter the public at will. Police tracings also prove beyond any doubt that tens of thousands of second hand guns also find their way onto the streets of our major cities that have strict gun laws proving that the myriad of local and state gun laws are ineffectual when you do not have a Federal Law that would make getting around State laws so easy, asinine and ridiculous.

    And raising the age of buying guns to 21 is not a bad move either as few 18 year old kids are mature enough to handle the responsibilities of gun ownership on their own without constant adult supervision. Gun deaths and maiming’s and resale and straw man sales statistics prove that beyond all doubt.

    1. avatar Big E says:

      I think you should be at least 21 and have a 10 day cooling off period before exercising your First Amendment “rights”.

      Everyone should also have to pass a background check or else the Police can randomly search your home. Constitutional rights have limits, right?

    2. avatar JRC says:

      When the Supremes finally do take up a case that deals with the right to possess AR type rifles, I think you dear liberal, are going to be very very disappointed.

  47. avatar Manny says:

    What would be the legal standing of a person that purchased a a bump stock 5 years ago? He has the original dated invoice and the laminated letter from BATF declaring the item “not a BATF classified or regulated item”. I am asking for a friend.

  48. avatar Aaron M. Walker says:

    One Term President ! What a Douche Nozzle ! If by his own nonsense he was spouting off about…Then maybe he should be striped of his 2nd Amendment rights along with his son. Because he’s a possible bad guy according to the DemoCRAPS under the TRUMP Russia investigation…Due Process be Damned! Disarm the Trumps–See how THEY like what THEY have planned for the rest of America! He’s Just another RINO Stooge!

  49. avatar Big E says:

    Will not comply. F U Trump.

  50. avatar JRC says:

    Who enforces a presidential ban on bump stocks, I mean if you are caught with one, what is the penalty? Who prosecutes? Is it a federal crime? How would that all work?

  51. avatar Klain W. Garriga says:

    In 1968, when I was 18 and in Vietnam , I could drink all the alcohol I wanted, but I could not vote until I was 21. Now an 18 year old can vote but not drink alcohol until they are 21. Maybe we should change the law back to where you have to be 21 to vote. By the way, I had a fully automation M-16 rifle and access to many other automaton weapons. The only people I ever pointed my M-16 rifle at and fired it was VC and NVA! I think any person that is mentally capable of knowingly buying a rifle and ammunition, planning an attack, and carries out that attack is not mentally ill. They even make to get away from the crime scene and elude police. These shooters are not sick, they are just mean ass murders! When was the last mast shooter was convicted in a court of law? When was the last mast shooter was executed? I don’t think any of them have been executed. It is now a game to see who can kill the most kids! I think after we execute all the mass shooters who are currently enjoying their lives, the sooner this madness will end!!!! All the Police and laws in the world can not stop the shootings. In order to stop the killing, punishment must be SURE, JUST and SWIFT the punishment must be execution, preferably by rifle fire!!!!

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email