BREAKING: President Trump, DOJ Plans to Ban Bump Fire Stocks Revealed

“President Donald Trump announced Friday evening plans for the Justice Department to ban all bump stocks, pending a mandated comment period,” dailycaller.com reports. Click here to read the proposal. It’s a 55-page treatise. Money shot . . .

ATF has now determined that the conclusion [that bump fire stocks are not machine guns] does not reflect the best interpretation of the term “machinegun” to clarify that all bump-stock type devices are “machineguns”under GCA and NFA because they convert a semiautomatic firearm into a firearm that shoots automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.

Wait. What? A bump fire stock does not shoot more than one shot per trigger function. Each shot is actuated by a single trigger function, albeit really quickly. And if that’s true, which it is, WTF? Oh here we go . . .

In explaining its prior ban on the Atkin Accelerator (a bump fire-like device), the DOJ doc says the ATF interpreted the “single function of a trigger” to mean the “single movement of the trigger” [italics theirs]. In other words, one trigger press sets the gun into automatic mode, wherein the gun’s recoil takes over. Or something like that.

Anyway, the document says the bump fire ban doesn’t violate the Second Amendment; the Supreme Court’s Heller decision gave a thumbs-up to a federal regulation of machine guns as they are “dangerous or unusual weapons and therefore not in common use.”

[As we’ve said before, machine guns are not in common use because they’re banned. Of course, that depends on what you mean by “common use.” The military and civilian police (same thing) have plenty of machine guns. And there’s a healthy supply of pre-’84 machine guns in circulation. ]

So it’s all about the semantics. The ATF is directed to redefine “single function of the trigger” to mean “single pull of the trigger” (still stumped by that one). And ta-da! “Automatically” now means “as the result of a self-actuating or self-regulating mechanism that allows the firing of multiple rounds by the single pulling of the trigger.”

And finally . . .

. . . the definition of a machine gun [now] includes a device that allows semiautomatic firearms to fire more than one shot with the single pull of the trigger harnessing the recoil of the semiautomatic firearm to which its affixed so that the trigger resets and continues firing without additional physical manipulation of the trigger by the shooter (commonly known as bump-stock-type devices.

The ATF estimates there are somewhere between 280k and 520k bump fire stocks in the wild, worth somewhere around $96m. All of which must be destroyed under the proposed rule. 

Consumers who purchased a perfectly legal firearm accessory, who will soon be felons if they continue to possess it, can destroy their bump stock themselves (“simply” with a hammer) or give/send their bump fire stock to the ATF for destruction.

The ATF reckons the new rule will cost bump fire stock retailers $1,780,498 in lost inventory. More or less.

Get this: the document says consumers who wish to experience the joys of bump fire may continue to do so using “rubber bands, belt loops, or otherwise train their finger to fire more rapidly.”

Meanwhile, the comment period is open! Contact the ATF using www.regulations.gov citing Docket Number 2017R-22. Make sure you use your first and last name and mailing address.

comments

  1. avatar pwrserge says:

    Yeah… I can see the lawsuits already… How many amendments of the CotUS does this violate? I lost count at 3.

    1. avatar Kroglikepie says:

      I didn’t bother to count as it is treason. Period.

      1. avatar Ed says:

        We should all go turn them in directly to our congressmen who allowed this treason to happen…in a box full of shit they have to dig through to get to it, just like the pile of shit they left us with.

        1. avatar BAN THIS says:

          It’s TIME we all ” INTERPRET ” that the A.T.F. is an Illegally created agency operationg under ‘ Color of law ‘. —- A throw back from prohibition kept alive by slick paper-shuffling and claims of authority by Treasury that belong ONLY to Congress.

          http://usa-the-republic.com/revenue/BATF-IRS%20Criminal%20Report.html

        2. avatar Garrison Hall says:

          Exactly. And well said.

    2. avatar binder says:

      pwrserge

      Simple Math

      Slide Fire + good trigger + heavy barrel = Poor Man’s SAW

      “100 rounds, I did not see one hiccup in that entire cyclic rate. That felt smooth the entire time. I kept it on the same impact area the entire time. This combination of a good trigger with the Slide Fre and a good heavy barrel absolutely works. This is definitely a poor man’s SAW” Quoted by someone who knows and has a hell of a lot of experience with military small arms.

      SAW + crowd + Article Five of the United States Constitution = no more Second Amendment.

      Myself personalty would prefer to just give up the Slide Fire.

      1. avatar Kroglikepie says:

        Oh noes! A bad man might do a bad thing! We must ban everything! Quit your self-flagellation. If you didn’t do anything wrong, then why volunteer to be punished?

      2. avatar binder says:

        A bad man DID a bad thing. And he showed the way for any other bad man to the same bad thing. If he didn’t we would not be having this discussion and they would not be banning bump fire stocks.

        1. avatar Kroglikepie says:

          And yet, I still DGAF. I’m not going to be punished for what someone else did. I’m done with that. The only people left to blame are those who allow these things to happen. Those who *facilitate* them happening. Those same people who jump on government as a solution like a dog in heat.

          No more. Fight to win, or surrender and die. The lines were drawn for us, but not by us.

      3. avatar pwrserge says:

        Yeah… because I’d totally hand in my guns…

        The reality is that the liberals keep setting up these shitshows and I’m not about to bend over backwards to accommodate them.

        Do you want to know what I can do with a $200 and a trip to the hardware store? Hint: IEDs cost much less than even a “poor man’s SAW”.

        1. avatar binder says:

          IEDs don’t have a 500 range. You have to know what the fuck you are doing with bombs. T.M. was smart as fuck and he still needed a 3.5 ton bomb. Try and buy 25 lbs of fertilizer without the AFT up your ass. Thanks to YouTube, the Vegas shooter knew exactly what to buy to do the job. Yes, I found out EXACTLY what sparked the policy change. And for anyone here who thinks that bump stock is some stupid range toy needs to get his head out of his ass. There is a reason the NRA is scared shit less of them. A lot of people are.

        2. avatar Binder says:

          Full30 will not post “the video” that sparked the YouTube ban either.

  2. avatar Quasimofo says:

    Eleventy-dimensional chess FTW!…

    1. avatar doesky2 says:

      I’m a fan of plain old chess and I think the wisest move now is to get behind the Leftist move to impeach the fvcking rat.

      Face it if Trump bailed on the wall, he’s gonna bail on the 2ndA.

      In a brief look at Pences 2ndA votes, I’d much prefer Pence.

      Trump is a fvcking idiot if he thinks the base is going to ignore this budgeting of a measley amount of money for a wall that can’t be used for any concrete! That’s not a wall, that another sh1tty fence! He’s an imbecile.

      1. avatar neiowa says:

        I will predict the varmints that are going to pay the price are the Social Republican Party (formerly know as RINOs). They sold out EVERY part of the conservative coalition that kept them in office. RINO voters are a small part of any GOP voter block. Social and Fiscal Conservatives make it happen for twits like Alexander, Blunt, Perdue. These bastards sold EVERYONE out. WORSE than the demtards.

        Senate vote http://therightscoop.com/breaking-senate-passes-omnibus-spending-bill/

        House vote http://therightscoop.com/breaking-house-passes-1-3-trillion-dollar-2232-page-spending-bill/

        How did your congresscritter vote? I’m proud to claim that BOTH my Senator and my 1st District Rep voted against this travesty.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          The RINOs, Republicrats, Democrat Lite crowd have no fear of your/our vote. They know we will not vote to permit even worse politicians to take office. They know we will always take the lesser of two evils. They know they can trade effectively on the notion that, “We are not as bad as them.”

          We would have voted for “Achmed The Dead Terrorist” before we would give Hilary a free ride to the White House.

        2. avatar Craig in IA says:

          Same senators as yours, neiowa, and both are great. David Young (3rd Dist republicrat), not so much. He’s already hurting, not taking any phone calls. It’ll be interesting to see if he makes it to the District Convention at all- He’s really going to catch it there. Justice!

        3. avatar SEIowa says:

          I’m not happy with any of this either. It looks as if we’ve lost our country. At least both my Iowa senators voted nay. But because of Moscow Midwest I.e. Iowa City, I’m stuck with Loebsack. At least he’s up front with his beliefs. So what’s next comrades?

      2. avatar Arc says:

        Yep, hes playing lip service on fixing the horde of foreign invaders, hes no longer representing the will of the people who elected him, impeach his ass. If we can impeach clinton over a blow job, we can impeach trump over this stormy critter.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          A bit curious here. Precisely what do you believe the effect of impeachment to be? Slick Willie was impeached, and continued in office.

        2. avatar John in Ohio says:

          I have no regard for Trump, however, Clinton’s situation was about him and an intern while he was in office. Trump’s alleged issue was before holding office and she was not a government intern.

        3. avatar Geoff PR says:

          “Precisely what do you believe the effect of impeachment to be? Slick Willie was impeached, and continued in office.”

          Yeah, they ain’t getting the votes to convict in the Senate, even if Trump’s ‘hooker-gate’ coughs up pics or video of Trump ‘in action’.

          And to this very day, ‘Slick Willie’ Clinton is considered to be a great president by the Leftists…

        4. avatar Dave says:

          Clinton was impeached for *lying in court*, not a blow job itself.

    2. avatar doesky2 says:

      Flashback to McConell and Ryan saying they are allocating 12-15B for wall.
      Fvcking liars!

      1. avatar Stereodude says:

        The swamp’s gonna swamp…

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          Yep. The budget deal is a punch in the face to Trump. The establishment is not going to let an outsider determine anything. The only thing Trump “got” was increased military spending.

          What I do not understand is why Trump did not veto the bill. There are not enough votes in the senate to override a veto. He should have pulled down all their pants while they were scrambling to go on vacation. Veto the bill, and go to the public to blame the entire congress and senate for wanting to do harm to the people. Explain that a government “shut down” isn’t; never has been.

          Pit the public against the politicians.

  3. avatar Smitty says:

    We all knew this New Yorker would eventually sell us out.

    1. avatar neiowa says:

      Congress didn’t offend your sensibilities? That’s shocking.

  4. avatar OmnivorousBeorn says:

    This is a major long-term win for liberty, because it’s being restricted.
    This is a major long-term win for the 2A, because it’s being restricted.

    I love my implicit faith in Trump’s 3D chess because it makes me feel like I’m winning even when I’m losing. (/sarc/)

  5. avatar Cruzo1981 says:

    Good luck collecting bump stocks. Traitor!

  6. avatar Chris T from KY says:

    The Florida, Marion Hammer supports it. The NRA supports it. A hole lot of gun owners on TTAG support it, and gun owners in general support it.
    I don’t. But I got my Slide Fire stock 3 weeks ago.

    1. avatar Joe R. says:

      We got a McConnell in 1985. FU KY, you need an Fing sinkhole.

      1. avatar Chris T in KY says:

        I don’t like McConnell. He is a traitor. But I remember when the atheist Reason Magazine was against the christian Matt Bevin, because he is in fact christian. He is Gov in Kentucky now thank god.
        Matt Bevin was supporting 2A after Las Vegas.

        https://www.dailysignal.com/2017/10/03/we-already-have-laws-against-murder-gov-matt-bevin-explains-why-gun-control-isnt-answer/

        He called for arming teachers after the mass shooting here in January 2018. Interesting how nobody is taking about that. Two counties so far are now getting teachers armed and trained.

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31nHOYTSap4

        http://www.kentucky.com/news/local/education/article200319349.html

        1. avatar Occam's Laser says:

          I voted for Bevin when he ran against the Turtleman. Voted him in as Governor. Unfortunately, he is:
          1. Completely unwilling to support either casino gambling or medical/recreational marijuana to raise revenue in order to help the pension crisis.
          2. Saddled with the feckless Crap Weasels that are the Kentucky Republicans in the legislature (Dan Seum being the one exception).

    2. avatar OmnivorousBeorn says:

      If you took a poll, I’d say at least 80% of TTAG-ers support keeping bump fire stocks. We’re not ignorant.

      Yes, some might be willing to trade it for national reciprocity or the NFA. I’m in the category, also because I’m not ignorant about how easy it is to bump fire without a BFS.

      1. avatar Jon in CO says:

        I would trade it explicitly for bump stocks only. No “rate increasing” definitions. If we’re going down the route of “these are machine guns” open the registry back up, let people register them, and add more items to the registry at the very least. I’ll take out a mortgage just to send to ATF for a couple hundred registered lowers, a couple P90’s, some Glocks, and whatever else I decide needs a happy switch.

        In addition, I want national reciprocity. The fact that rights change depending on locale is absolute bullshit.

        1. avatar OmnivorousBeorn says:

          Yeah, the rate increasing stuff is far more dangerous than just banning BFS. Makes no logical sense.

        2. avatar Chris T in KY says:

          You are working toward a complete ban on all semi automatic rifles. The human mind over came one design and created the Atkins Accelerater. Then the Bump Stock. The only way to end it, is to ban all semi auto rifles. When the demand that, will you give in????

          The anti gun Obama administration made sure police all over the nation were given select fire M-16’s. And M-79 grenade launchers. They also received M-14 rifles. Will they give up their guns????????

        3. avatar OmnivorousBeorn says:

          Chris,

          They’re already banning BFS. Wouldn’t it be cool to trade something we already lost for something we can’t get? Impossible, yes. Unconstitutional, yes. Permanent, no. Dumb, no.

  7. avatar DD says:

    So no wall,a pay raise for congress,and a ban on something that makes semi auto rifles shoot faster.well done dumass,you just lost the house and earned impeachment

    1. avatar Joe R. says:

      At least there’ll be hate involved.

    2. avatar pwrserge says:

      Do you know the difference between a budget and what he signed? Hint: None of the money actually HAS to be spent the way Congress wrote it. That’s what Obama did for 8 years. I think that once the DNC figures this out, they’ll be rioting in the streets again.

      1. avatar doesky2 says:

        Hang it up Serge. I’ve defended Trump since his nomination but that day is over. The chump change money allocated in the budget for a “wall” can’t even be used for concrete. WTF! He’s so dumb that he got kicked in the balls and he doesn’t even know it.

        Obama was able to mis-allocate money because he had the deep state behind him. Ain’t gonna happen with Trump.

        1. avatar neiowa says:

          You’re confused, Congress is giving PILES of money for a wall – Around JORDAN

      2. avatar Rusty Chains says:

        Maybe, but I don’t have much trust in any politician, and that includes Trump.

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

      Let’s be honest here. The wall was always a bad idea. Make it a felony with mandatory jail time to hire an illegal and watch how quick the crossings end.

      Arrest all the ‘sanctuary city’ pols for criminal conspiracy and watch how fast the illegals are chased out.

      Cheaper than the wall and more effective.

      1. avatar neiowa says:

        Yes. Double row of triples strand concertina with tanglefoot. Overwatched by fires. EVERY Army/Jarhead unit deploys to boarder for two weeks of training establish a deliberate defensive position (using wire obstacles). In 6 weeks the entire damn boarder is fence.

        Se a foot between the two rows and you’re dead.

        1. avatar John in Ohio says:

          The Warsaw Ghetto, East Berlin, North Korea?

        2. avatar pwrserge says:

          Funny how you rarely hear about people making it across the DMZ… It’s almost borders work when you defend them.

        3. avatar John in Ohio says:

          Yep. Commies love walls, fences, and DMZs. 😉

          Eventually, their spawn spread out to other countries and try to make a shitshow of them.

  8. avatar Shire-man says:

    Whelp, if we can’t be free we may as well get to burning it all down. Add a few trillion more to that spending bill, put Pelosi in the cabinet and ban rubber bands by EO. Let’s get on with it.

  9. avatar Swarf says:

    A true friend of the Second Amendment.

    A friend to the working class gun owners, a quantum chess master, and a large handed stable genius. He embiggens the smallest man.

    1. avatar SheepDog says:

      ~Donald jebediah Trump~
      “A noble Spirit Embiggens the smallest man”

      1. avatar Just Sayin says:

        Dudes!
        You gotta cut me in on what your smokin…

        For real.

        1. avatar SheepDog says:

        2. avatar Anymouse says:

          “Embiggen” was just added to the Oxford English Dictionary as:
          Pronunciation /ɪmˈbɪɡən//ɛmˈbɪɡən/
          VERB [WITH OBJECT]
          humorous
          Enlarge.
          ‘you need to embiggen your vocabulary’
          Origin
          Late 19th century: from big, on the pattern of embolden. Popularized in the 1990s by the US animated television series The Simpsons

  10. avatar SheepDog says:

    The trigger AND hammer ARE reset after every shot WTF difference does it make if it’s reset slow or fast.

    1. avatar binder says:

      Because the reset is accomplished by the RECOIL, not the shooter. Otherwise electrically powered gatling gun would be legal to. And they are not even autoloaders. If any part of the trigger action is powered by anything other than the shooter it should classified as a machine gun. Any other type of bump firing is the gun bouncing around in your grip. The slide fire is NOT bouncing in your grip.

      1. avatar strych9 says:

        I guess you should have written the NFA…. but you didn’t and the NFA is clear on what it says and what it doesn’t.

        You post this stuff all the time but apparently you’ve never bothered to read the definition of an MG in the NFA.

        1. avatar binder says:

          So why is a electric Gatling gun not a machine gun? How about a drill on a gat crank.

          You are NOT pulling the trigger. Your finger is just connection between the stock and the trigger. You can loop in a zip tie or put in a rod and accomplish the same thing. Slidefire had prototypes that did exactly that. But at that point the ATF was no longer drinking the Kool-Aid

        2. avatar strych9 says:

          Are you speaking of a modified Gatling gun or a M134 Minigun?

          Actually fleshing out what you’re trying to say rather than assuming I can read your mind makes this whole “conversation” thing a lot easier.

        3. avatar strych9 says:

          Oh, and in case you’re wondering, a drill on a Gatling gun is an MG. The ATF clarified that back a long time ago. There are discussions about how illegal such a device is on thefiringline forums going back to at least 2006.

          Lots of things are classed as MG’s. Bump stocks have not been because they should not be under the plain language of the NFA which is quite clear about what is and what is not an MG. I suggest you read the definition. If you read that definition and still come to the conclusion that a bump stock is an MG then you’re either delusional or have no grasp of basic English.

        4. avatar binder says:

          The original version with the spring was classified as a machine gun, putting in a spring into the stock with a butt pad will return it to that configuration, easily convertible applies.

          Put a zip tie threw the trigger guard and secure it to the interface block, attach a forward grip to the hand-guard. Now the forward grip is the “trigger”. The gun fires by only pushing forward. Forward pressure is ONE function, so machine gun. Again easily convertible applies.

          The truth is you trigger finger is ONLY a connector between the stock and the part called the trigger. Slide Fires manual of arms states the final action the shooter takes to fire the gun is forward pressure on the forgrip, NOT pulling the trigger.

          Always energy from the gun firing is used for at least some on the trigger operation. <- this it the key point. No one can keep up .12 second splits for 100s of rounds.

          With standard bump firing the ENTIRE gun moves. With the slide fire part of the gun remains stable.

          As for the NFA. Yes I think it is unconstitutional, but I'm a bit of a realist. The fact that one person can shoot 480 people (not a theory)in a very short period of time (he spent about 5 minutes firing over the course of 10 minuets) is going to result a NFA if one did not already exist. The only other option will be the elimination of the 2nd amendment. At some point people will just not care anymore and give it up. SAWs firing into crowds of people are that point. With the bump stock and the sure fire magazines, that is basically what you have. Put on a FightLite MCR upper and that is exactly what you have.

          I also think that the motto "In God We Trust" is also unconstitutional, but what are you going to do.

  11. avatar A Z says:

    Remarkably well-written, but it is still impossible to regulate that which is not already proscribed by law.

    The gist of today’s proposed regulation is a reinterpretation of the federal definition of a machine gun from a firearm which discharges “more than one round by a single function of the trigger” to “more than one round by a single pull of the trigger” (the regulatory argument being that a bump stock essentially creates a singular pull cycle similar to the Akins Accelerator).

    However, the relevant federal statute (26 USC § 5845) specifically uses the word “function” for machine gun and “pull” for rifles. If the 1934 Congress had intended for machine guns to have the “single pull” definition, they would have written it into the statute!

    1. avatar binder says:

      But the function on the slide fire is forward pressure. Your “trigger” finger can be replaced with a zip tie or stick. All you need is anything for the trigger to push against.

      1. avatar Mercury says:

        In what way is that different from regular bump fire? I can achieve the same effect with a long zip tie, a piece of string or, indeed, the waistband of my pants and a belt loop (and they needn’t even be around my waist at the time.) Are you seriously suggesting reclassifying those items, and any others that could potentially allow the recoil of a firearm to reset its trigger, as machine guns?

      2. avatar Patrick says:

        A standard trigger is actuated by muscle contraction and movement.
        A trigger attached to a SlideFire enabled weapon is actuated by muscle contraction resulting in stabilization, with no (or little) skeletal movement.

        They both rely directly on the contraction of muscles. The recoil operated reset reduces the need for coordination and muscle movement speed, but voluntary muscle contraction is needed for both. One could argue that different use of the muscle could warrant a different classification, but that is not discussed in the NFA’s MG definition.

        Replacing the finger with another object would be a modification. Practically speaking, using a cord or a stick instead of one’s finger doesn’t seem advantageous with the weapon system being discussed here, but I believe that doing so (even for only for 30-100 rds) would be considered use as a MG.

        1. avatar binder says:

          “using a cord or a stick instead of one’s finger doesn’t seem advantageous with the weapon system being discussed here”

          There is no advantage, I just mentioned it remove the argument that your trigger finger is really doing anything. Slide fire did make a version with a “stick”, it was actually a metal bar, but I don’t think they ever got that one past the ATF

    2. avatar MarkPA says:

      A Z: I agree with your conclusion.

      First, I concede to all the criticisms of others concerning this rule making. In principle, this rule making is wrong and nothing will make it correct.

      That point conceded, Trump, his DoJ and ATF did the minimum conceivable damage to the RKBA in the approach they have taken. It looks like binary triggers, trigger-jobs, replacement triggers, lubrication, etc. are free from this regulation.

      Would this narrowness of treatment have been achieved if the cry for a bump-stock ban been taken up in Congress? Yes, that’s possible; but is it likely? Would the Democrats have pushed the RINOs into bill language such as that proposed by Feinstein? I think that result would have been inevitable. And, had this result come about through the legislative process we could have been comforted by the fact that Congress legislated rather than the Executive branch legislating unConstitutionally.

      Would this narrowness of treatment have been achieved if the ATF took the initiative (rather than President Trump)? Unlikely, in my opinion.

      Has a president been set? Arguably so; would it have been better if it were set by new Congressional legislation?

      We PotG are not very good at politics. The Democrats are much better at this game. If we intend to win the war for the 2A we need to study-up and beat the Democrats at the political game.

  12. avatar CZJay says:

    We live in an era where definitions of words change when they need to if it allows for more oppression. People need to stop pretending they live in the olden days.

    Remember that government workers where saying the “founding fathers” were actually terrorists and people who want to follow the Constitution are dangerous sovereign citizen loons.

  13. avatar Bob Watson says:

    Sneaking up from the rear,……………………………………. A knife in one hand,…………………………………………….. A jar of Vaseline in the other,………………………………… President “I love our Second Amendment”,……………….. Shows us the meaning of true love,………………………… Bend over and repeat,…………………………………………… “Please Sir, may I have another”………………………………

  14. avatar strych9 says:

    They’ll lose this one in court.

    Part of me suspects this is some sort of stupidity. Another part of me suspects it’s flim-flammery.

    Trump tells Sessions to do this while at the same time appointing exactly the kind of judges who will tell Sessions to take a long walk off a short pier. Ironic? Stupidity? Some sort of master plan? I dunno.

    These days I’ve kinda stopped paying attention to a lot of this shit until the dust settles. There’s too much nonsense from all sides to really have a good idea of what’s actually going on without becoming “the media” yourself and basically spending you life investigating each “thing” and I just don’t have the time or patience for that shit any more.

    1. avatar pwrserge says:

      That’s my impression as well. The rule expands challenges to more than 2nd amendment grounds…

      I count…

      ex post facto
      “takings” (see: 5th amendment)
      due process (deprivation of property)

      I can see a bunch of manufacturers racing to file injunctions.

      1. avatar JAlan says:

        Well, you counted. Wrong. Ex post facto doesn’t apply. They aren’t prosecuting anyone for having owned a bump stock, only for the continued possession of them. It would be the same as when they decided to ban cocaine. Confiscation did not have to take place, only prosecution of those found with it.
        The “takings” part of the 5th does also not apply. Private property is not being taken for public use, only outlawed.
        Due process is also not violated. You will presumably get a trial for the possession of an unregistered machine gun after/if you fail to destroy your bump fire stock.

        The fact is that unless the 2A saves us in the court, and it seems unlikely, this is going to stick and the traitor president is behind it. It’s time to admit that this NY scumbag sold us out and stop being delusional about the type of government we’re living under.

        1. avatar pwrserge says:

          Um… how is due process not violated when you are required to surrender property without said due process?

        2. avatar Nick says:

          Wrong on the takings. The courts ruled a while back (in regard to somethung related to endangered species) that the government eliminating an items market value (by prohibiting its sell) is an unconstituonal taking.

        3. avatar binder says:

          All you need is adequate compensation. I’m sure the government can come up with the money to pay back people for what they paid for their slide fires. I hope people kept the receipts

        4. avatar JAlan says:

          You’re not required to surrender those stocks. Continued possession is what is illegal, not the selling or buying of them. What you do with them is your problem, but if you continue to possess them, then it follows that you will be convicted if caught.
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuels_v._McCurdy

        5. avatar pwrserge says:

          JAlan

          Using an overturned pre-prohibition case as precedent? Really?

        6. avatar Mad Max says:

          I think those in possession of cocaine when it was banned consumed it before any law enforcement was commenced. If there was an arrest, if the posessor could absolutely establish that it was legally procured before the ban, he might have a Constitional case.

          Cocaine is a consumable, not a long-lasting piece of hardware.

        7. avatar JAlan says:

          The case hasn’t been overturned by the Supreme Court. Please stop making things up. It’s been cited as recently as 1992.

          https://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/4th/6/1278.html

          Honestly, stop thinking the courts are going to save you. They are not.

    2. avatar ML says:

      They ain’t gonna lose in court – there are all kinds of magic unicorns in that there Constitution if you’re an activist judge, and know where to look.

      1. avatar strych9 says:

        Gonna be a tough row to hoe at the SCOTUS based on the plain text of the NFA and the plaintiff gets to pick where they file so the antis don’t get to do the judge shopping on this one.

        1. avatar pwrserge says:

          Yup… as before, I’m going to reserve judgement until the dust settles. If someone really wanted to ban these stocks, they would have weaseled some sort of grandfather clause in there to avoid challenges on things other than 2nd amendment grounds. That’s either a REALLY stupid move or a REALLY obvious tell.

        2. avatar ML says:

          Are you familiar with Chief Justice Roberts and Senior Associate Justice Kennedy? They have certainly had some interesting interpretations of different parts of that document as well as their reading of “plain text” in other legislation. I doubt they’re going to have your back on this one.

          Also, I can’t help but notice that the GCA of 1968, Hughes, and now this have all been passed with Republican support. I guess I don’t get your optimism that there’s some type of magical protection of your fundamental rights in that old parchment or the various branches of government.

        3. avatar strych9 says:

          Are you aware that Roberts and Kennedy are 2/9ths of the SCOTUS and that it will likely take at least a couple years for this to make it to the SCOTUS?

          It’s going to be really, really hard for Roberts to justify any vote other than against this kind of reg because of the plain text of the law. Kennedy is a swing vote but I think he would have trouble with this as well. Yeah, he’s not easy to pin down ideologically but I don’t think he’s the kind of person, based on his previous rulings, who is going to look at the plain text of a law and say it says something completely different in nearly every possible aspect. That’s just MHO on the guy.

          On top of that it’s entirely possible, indeed likely, that the Left will lose either Ginsberg or Breyer in the next few years. Maybe both. In fact, Kennedy, at 81 may retire too.

          There’s also the possibility, which is not outlandish given that the youngest of these people is 79, that one or more of them could pull a Scalia and die on the bench in fairly short order. (I don’t hope for this to happen merely pointing out that they are all of an age where it wouldn’t be a shocker.)

          All in all going to court on this one is something I would be completely comfortable with. The plaintiffs get to pick the originating court and, by extension, the Federal District court that will handle the case. Done deftly this gives them great advantage. A SCOTUS hearing, were it to happen, is off in the distance to the point that court makeup could well be decidedly in our favor by the time the SCOTUS even gets a crack at this. Unless Trump is impeached and removed in the next couple years which isn’t going to happen.

        4. avatar uncommon_sense says:

          strych9,

          Now here is a scary thought: gun grabbers file a challenge to the bumpstock “reinterpretation” in a court that is to their advantage and then purposely bungle the case. I see nothing stopping them from doing it.

        5. avatar pwrserge says:

          uncommon_sense

          Other than… you know… standing.

        6. avatar Geoff PR says:

          {SCOTUS}

          “…one or more of them could pull a Scalia and die on the bench in fairly short order.”

          Sotamayor is diabetic, if memory serves. And overweight.

          That right there make her susceptible to whole lot of unpleasant health issues, like stroke, heart disease, etc…

        7. avatar Matt says:

          Don’t worry, I’m sure it can all be taken into the warm embrace of the commerce clause.

    3. avatar Just Sayin says:

      Hmmm.
      Bi-polar is a term that is wholly applicable to this …
      experience?
      plan?
      situation?
      reasoning?
      confukulation?

      (The constrination of choices is in fact completely logical to any application of the term bi-polar.)

  15. avatar SheepDog says:

    Semi auto W/ bump stock = The trigger and firing group are reset after every shot.
    Automatic fire, the trigger does not reset the action.

    Jerry Miculek is a machine gun according to the “new” definition, he performs the same action as a bump stock.

    1. avatar Joe R. says:

      “Automatic fire, the trigger does not reset the action.”

      It does reset the action, however the auto seer overrides it.

      1. avatar GunMonk says:

        No, it doesn’t.
        In semi-auto mode, the disconnector catches the hammer and doesn’t release it until the trigger is released. At that point, control of the hammer returns to the trigger, and it must be pulled again.

        In auto mode, neither the trigger or the disconnector ever gain control of the hammer again, until the trigger is released.

        The only thing that auto-sear “overcomes” is follow-down. The bolt carrier has to overcome the auto-sear. Essentially, the bolt carrier becomes the weapon’s trigger, you rotating the selector gives the weapon access to use it.

        You get a trigger!
        The weapon gets a trigger!
        Everyone gets a trigger!!

        1. avatar binder says:

          You have no clue how guns work. On a closed bolt gun the hammer can not be released until it goes back into battery. The hammer is triggered by the auto sear which in turn is triggered by the bolt going into battery. Open bolt guns do not require this function. And because of this they are outlawed whether they are semi-automatic or full automatic

        2. avatar GunMonk says:

          I don’t know where you get off with your first sentence. The post I was responding to was referencing an auto-sear, so my response was entirely accurate.

          And, @binder, your response just illustrates your own ignorance. An auto-sear doesn’t “trigger” a hammer. An auto-sear catches the hammer, and is “triggered” to release it.

        3. avatar binder says:

          Sorry GunMonk, reply to the earlier post in the car. I know auto sear holds the hammer and the bolt is the “trigger” in full auto.
          But if somehow the bump stock survives the court challenges and we can use the energy of the gun firing to “reset” the trigger, I’m going to see if I can come up with a “reset sear” that instead of releasing the hammer pushes the trigger forward. Kind of like a lightning link. I think if I can time the reset to just before the gun goes into battery it will work really well. If we can have 500 rpm “semi” auto guns, might as well design a good one.

  16. avatar Joe R. says:

    At least it’s encouraging [honest citizens to violate the law, and violate their reps by instrumentation]. Well, that’s how America got started. Next one we’re going to F’ up a lot more liberal (D)NA, too much of it was tory-residual last time.

    Funny, Conservatives can stand it if everyone’s conservative.
    Liberals can’t have everyone be liberal or you get Venezuela, then Madura gets dragged through the streets behind some skinny horses.

  17. avatar Joe R. says:

    Need an armed march on D.C.

    No ‘agenda’ no shouting, just a few million bussed in armed citizens looking at the reflecting pool (and maybe for an OFWG porta potty).

  18. avatar Moltar says:

    Ok we really should’ve seen this coming. I know it sucks but seriously, we got lucky they weren’t already banned in the first place back when Barry was runnin the show. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it’s a duck. For all intents and purposes it does make a semi auto impersonate full auto REALLY well which is enough to scare the sheeple. Remember most people aren’t really gun people. Yes they may own guns and they may shoot a lot but to them a bumpstock equipped AR is full auto. They don’t know that full auto fires multiple rounds per trigger press and that the trigger doesn’t reset between shots all they know it Rambo once went ham sammich on a police station with a gun that sounded a lot like that AR you just mag dumped. They don’t care that really all a bump stock does is let the weapon use recoil to reset between each shot they only care that it sounds and looks like something out of the gangster movies. Flame all you want but search your feelings POTG you know this to be true. Like anything else in the world it isn’t the engineering that matters it’s the appearance to and perception of the lowest common denominator (i.e. the dumbest most gun illiterate wastes of cellular materials) that matters.

    1. avatar strych9 says:

      None of which should matter at all and, even under Barry, it didn’t matter because the NFA strictly defines what is and what is not a machine gun.

      Simulating auto fire is not auto fire. Simulating an MG is not an MG. To be an MG it has to fall under the strict definition of what an MG is which was set forth by Congress and signed into law by a POTUS. People don’t have to like that but if they want to change it they have to rewrite the definition within the NFA, get that passed by Congress and signed by the POTUS.

      Which is exactly why they will lose this in court and then shrug and say “Well, we tried”. Like most other things in DC this is a fucking carnival side-show.

      1. avatar SheepDog says:

        BINGO!

      2. avatar Moltar says:

        Strych I freaking love debating with you. Ok look at how many points of failure there are in that plan….
        1. NFA definitions – We all know politicians build their careers on 2 things bending words and lying through their teeth. So we already know that the definition will be ignored because they couldn’t possibly have known more back in the 1930’s than we know now.

        2. Have you ever seen the government do anything right? 90% of the time they are just trying to look like they’re working and they get stellar counseling statements so long as they look busy. How the hell does that apply here, well easy that bump stock equipped AR or AK LOOKS like it’s firing full auto. So by the governmental viewpoint it IS full auto. Just as that lazy campus cop looks like he’s guarding the school so therefore he must actually be protecting our kids.

        3. They may lose this in court if it gets that far or it could really bite us in the ass. One can never be too sure when it comes to the Supremes.

        4. Do you really want to give them that idea that they can run this through Congress? Now? Right after they all passed a 2,000 some odd page budget AND gave themselves a raise to 180,000 a year with an expense account totaling 192,000 a year? You really think they won’t screw us over on a piece of plastic and some springs?

        Yes I hope we can get bump stocks back for all yall that want them or have them, but realistically I don’t see the political class giving back any freedoms or powers unless forced to do so by a large number of angry people toting torches and weapons.

        1. avatar Geoff PR says:

          “2. Have you ever seen the government do anything right?”

          There is one thing, and they do it arguably the very best in the world. Not perfectly, but towards the goal of not getting people killed.

          The air traffic control system, and aviation safety in general…

        2. avatar John in Ohio says:

          “here is one thing, and they do it arguably the very best in the world. Not perfectly, but towards the goal of not getting people killed.”

          Compared to how many die in wars. Compared to government genocide. Compared to how many that die after being stripped of their ability to exercise their rights. Compared to how many will never be born due to government mandate and funding. Etc.

          Government is a prolific author of death.

      3. avatar Stereodude says:

        They’re not gonna lose squat in court. The gov’t and courts ignore the wording of laws all the time. You do remember that the Supreme court found Obamacare legal by ignoring the explicit wording of the law right?

    2. avatar Stereodude says:

      They were left legal under Barry because they hoped someone would use them in a high casualty crime. They were hoping to manufacture a crisis that they then wouldn’t waste. They tried the same thing with Fast & Furious. The first mass shooting with a bump fire stock just happened to not occur while the Democrats were in power.

      1. avatar Adnan Firman says:

        What a load of rubbish. They weren’t banned at the time because of some conspiracy by Obama, do you have any idea how pathetic you come across by even suggesting that. The real reason they were still available for sale was due to right-wing gun freaks like yourself who would have acted the exact same way that you’re acting now. Do you remember Sandy Hook, I certainly do and if I remember correctly, Obama tried to bring before Congress stricter gun control laws. However what happened, freaks like yourself were up in arms about any measures being taken, and so we had the Vegas massacre and now the Florida shooting. If anyone should take a measure of responsibility for what’s happening now it’s the likes of yourself and the other intransigent gun owners who are in complete denial.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          Never ascribe to incompetence, stupidity, bad luck, or inertia that which can simply, easily and more accurately be explained by malevolent intent and conspiracy.
          – – former government employee

  19. avatar tfunk says:

    Eff this guy and almost all of the things he’s doing. The only thing I begrudgingly appreciated about him was that he made the crazy of progressives (both dem and rep) shine through, even though he seemed to be one. But now he doesn’t just seem to be one, he is.

  20. avatar Me says:

    Can kicked down road. Bait taken by dems. No one talking about your ar-15 or ak or 10-22… cleverly misdirected them toward an accessory that their ignorance keeps them from understanding. The cleverest win is often disguised as a potential loss. Good
    Work by many…. too much panic by others though. Hug your high ends and hipoints… government aint takin yer baby

    1. avatar Scoutino says:

      Sure, the more we lose, the more we actually win! Genius thinking.
      Now if we just could trick the gun grabbers into repealing the 2A, that would be yoooge win for 2A supporters. Or something.

      1. avatar Miguel says:

        What was banned again?? Nothing…

        1. avatar Gerome says:

          Haha. Internet conjecture is entertaining. Nice thing was when TTAG demod bump fire
          Stocks for the media and attracted extra libtards in here to stoke flames against and for what?? We dodged Obama era grab attempts and have not Clinton…… too much whining in here….. I smell trolls

  21. avatar raimius says:

    They are wrong. A bump stock does not harness the recoil for further automatic action. It is designed to specifically NOT do that. If it harnessed that energy, it would not be a sliding stock without a spring. Further, the rule never addresses that the shooter needs to physically pull the rest of the firearm forward for each firing sequence. This is political interpretation designed to achieve a desired result, not an honest interpretation. Their old opinion was correct.

    1. avatar binder says:

      WTF, the shooter only pushes, he NEVER pulls. The gun using the energy of the round to overcome the forward pressure of the shooter. So energy is used to reset the trigger. That sound a hell of a lot like it is harnessing the recoil to ASSIST in operating the trigger.

      1. avatar CoryC says:

        Are you sure you have that right? I’m not busting your chops and I don’t play the “Well, actually, you stupid idiot,” game that is so popular in the commments section. But, respectfully, I believe you have this incorrect.

        When trying to make a gun bump-fire without using a bump-stock, the way you do so is to use your left hand to pull forward on the foregrip, they you sort of loosely dangle your trigger finger in the trigger guard area. So first pull of the trigger results in recoil which sends the gun back toward your body (and away from your loose trigger finger), then your left hand pulls the gun forward, effectively “bumping” it into your trigger finger, causing the process to repeat. The forward pull from your left hand bumps the gun into your trigger finger, the recoils pushes it back away from the trigger finger, then your left hand pulls the gun forward, bumping it into your trigger finger, lather, rinse, repeat. Some people loop the thumb on their trigger-finger hand into their belt loop, or they use a rubber band, or a number of other rigged up methods to produce the same effect as described above. Whatever the method, all you’re effectively doing is letting the gun slide forward and back, rhythmically, so that it keeps being bumped into your trigger finger.

        Recoil moves a gun AWAY from your trigger finger any time that you fire a gun, only when you are holding a gun normally (that is to say, tightly), your hand moves backward with the gun as the recoil pushes it backward. Again, though, with bump-firing, you keep your trigger-finger hand loose so that your trigger finger stays more or less fixed in position while the gun moves forward (due to the left hand pushing the gun forward) and back (due to recoil). Your finger — the thing that engages the trigger— is not activated by recoil.

        So all of that is the case without a bump-fire stock. What role, then, does a bump-fire stock serve? The novelty of a bump-stock is that it is little more than a pistol grip and stock that slides along a track, allowing you to control the above process a bit better. It’s basically just a handrest so that your trigger-finger hand isn’t limply dangled in the arm, but instead has something to hold onto. The process, however, does not change at all from what was described above. Ergo, it is erroneous to say that the bump-fire stock is recoil activated.

        1. avatar CoryC says:

          Actually, I just realized that we’re saying that we’re saying the same thing. Only, I’d argue that when you push on something, you don’t wrap your hand around it. If you can pardon the crude analogy, when someone has marital relations with themselves, the grab their “foregrip” and pull on it, right? 🙂 You wouldn’t say they’re pushing on themselves.

        2. avatar binder says:

          “The novelty of a bump-stock is that it is little more than a pistol grip and stock that slides along a track, allowing you to control the above process a bit better”

          But that the “real” problem. They are NOT novel. Set up right and you can run it as well as a M249.

  22. avatar Vince says:

    The claim these college taught assha5s at the atf are even constitutionally taught is suspect too..

    More than that, we all know our government isn’t constitutionally taught either… This government should be ignored until we stomp it under and start again.. No new bullshit laws by these fucking lawyers and commies need apply.. Jail their asses til they’re old and frail. Reinstate the Constitutional republic. Civil rights, original amendments.. And who ever doesn’t agree with the entire constitution.. Strip their fucking citizenship and boot them to Canada or mexico or slave labor.. Fuck em.. I’ve had it with these commie shitbags being here.. They’re not Americans and I don’t recognize any of them..

  23. avatar Docduracoat says:

    Is there any possibility of a freedom loving state opting out of this Federal law?
    Like a. “sanctuary state” for bump stocks?
    Just refuse to enforce this rule and not cooperate with enforcing it?
    It’s my only hope!

  24. avatar muhammad says:

    What happened to the idea of “pre-ban bump stocks”? How can they expect folks to destroy something the legally bought because of a new law?

    1. avatar LKB says:

      Ask the folks who bought Adkins Accellerators . . . and had to destroy/disable them. It sucks but it’s been done before.

  25. avatar LKB says:

    The only good news here is that the proposed regulation isn’t as bad as we’d feared. It’s pretty narrow, and is not going to pick up trigger packs or trigger jobs, although I suspect it will mean the end of binary triggers (“single function” now means “single pull,” which eviscerates the basis for the legality of a binary trigger). And note that the notice explicitly says that using belt loops, rubber bands, etc., to increase the rate of fire is A-OK (which, of course, makes little logical sense, but at least indicates that they aren’t totally thick).

    There will, of course, be fights over whether the reg is contrary to the statutory definition of “machine gun,” but don’t hold your breath on any court bailing us out here. Absent the Supreme Court nuking Chevron deference in the near future (might happen, but it’s a long shot), the courts are gonna defer to the ATF’s “expertise” in this area. See the opinions in the Adkins Accellerator cases for a taste of how the lawsuits are going to come out. Not pretty.

    The real unfairness is to all the folks who purchased bump stocks based on the government’s ruling that they were legal (to say nothing of the people who built businesses based on those rulings). Now, with a stroke of a regulators pen, they are all now illegal and must be destroyed — no compensation, no grandfathering, no amnesty, no opportunity to register, nada. And despite the report recognizing that tens or hundreds of millions have been spent on such devices in reliance on the ATF ruling, the DoJ essentially says, “too bad.”

    Bottom line: Trump (with a yuuge own-goal assist from the geniuses at the NRA) has sold us out. And he didn’t even *try* to get anything in return. Some dealmaker.

  26. avatar Mick says:

    Guess who I won’t be voting for in 2020? I’ll either leave the space blank or vote third party, because I never vote for a gun grabber.

    1. avatar Raoul Duke says:

      Same

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “… I never vote for a gun grabber.”

        Sounds heroic, doesn’t it? However, failing to vote for one “gun grabber” may result in the election of another…along with whatever else crap the victor may bring to town.

    2. avatar Geoff PR says:

      “Guess who I won’t be voting for in 2020? I’ll either leave the space blank or vote third party, because I never vote for a gun grabber.”

      Congrats, that is casting a vote for grabber. Ever heard of cutting off your nose to spite your face?

      1. avatar Mick says:

        Sorry, Mr Trump, but it not. That’s like saying that you voted for Obama by not voting for Obama and is completely idiotic. People like you are exactly why our political system is a complete mess, because you insult anyone who doesn’t support corruption.

  27. avatar Aaron M. Walker says:

    Pres. Donald Trump, One Term President in my Book…I’d vote for Rand Paul if he runs….

    1. avatar CZJay says:

      There is no reason to elect him again if Hillary doesn’t run again. He only won because of Hillary.

  28. avatar Mike Hawkizard says:

    Interesting, looks like binary triggers would still be good to go as those count as 2 separate trigger pulls and don’t use the weapons recoil.

    Look forward to the lawsuits. This isn’t going to be settled anytime soon.

    1. avatar pwrserge says:

      If it even gets enacted in the first place. I expect the see the ATF swamped during the comment period. We were exactly here post Vegas…

  29. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

    To all the Fudd’s out there, to all the fence sitters, think of it this way. By agreeing with the Pres on this, you’re just agreeing with the cannibles to eat you last.

  30. avatar Ddub says:

    After reading as much as my brain could handle of the justice departments statement am I correct to conclude this does not affect binary triggers? Am I wrong on that?

    1. avatar binder says:

      Binary triggers should be outlawed for safety reasons. Takes a new level of stupid to put a dead man’s switch on a rifle.

      1. avatar Raoul Duke says:

        Fudd

        1. avatar binder says:

          FUD, for dead man’s switch on a rifle. WTF. Why do you think it is such a good idea? And this is from someone who buys guns without firing pin blocks and hates decockers on his double action pistols.

      2. avatar st381183 says:

        Binder, You’re the reason we have the NFA, GCA of 1934, Hughes Amendment, and now this. Go and polish your over/under and shut the heck up! Just because you don’t like it doesn’t mean it should be banned.

        1. avatar binder says:

          FRANKLIN ARMORY has a liability waver in the fist page of the instructions. Sounds like they even think it is a bad idea.

        2. avatar ACP_arms says:

          Re: Binder

          And Ruger has a warning in every owners manual about chambering a round unless you are ready to fire the gun. Your point is what, guns can be/are dangerous?

  31. avatar Sam I Am says:

    Public comment is “mandatory”, taking into consideration (as in sway a decision) comments contrary to the intent of the government is nowhere mandated.

    This action, which destroys private property will be ruled by the SC to not violate the 5th amendment “takings” clause because requiring destruction of bump stocks is a “compelling government interest” (making the public feel safer) that overrides constitutional protections.

    For those always curious about whether Trump is still worth supporting, the man is setting up some very interesting propositions: Korea; bump stocks; Iran; Paris; Mueller testimony; tariffs. Based on the changes in staff the last few months, it looks like Trump believes the force of his personality and reputation for being a very good negotiator will allow him to: scare the Norks into destroying their nuclear capability; tell Meuller “what for” about collusion, and end the investigation; force the rest of the nations to re-write Kyoto to favor the US; show how tariffs result in jobs moving back to the US (without raising prices), and having other nations re-write all those adverse trade agreements/treaties; sign anit-2A legislation without risking his base of support.

    Let the circus begin !

    1. avatar Mad Max says:

      The “takings” clause requires just compensation. It efectively requires a declaration of eminent domain. Congress would have to act.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “The “takings” clause requires just compensation. It efectively requires a declaration of eminent domain. Congress would have to act.”

        Congress does not pass “eminent domain” laws for each government action that could be declared an uncompensated “taking”.

        A regulation that is issued in implementing signed legislation brings the full force and effect of the underlying law. Thus, if the EPA issues regulations that all motor vehicles manufactured before 2001 are in violation of EPA pollution laws and regulations, and those vehicles must be surrendered forthwith for destruction, without any compensation being required, such a regulation/law would be candidate for reversal at court as an unconstitutional taking. Congress would not be involved (nor need be).

        The interesting thing is the difference between “taking” what was a previously legal machine (motor vehicle), and confiscating a device that has been illegal to possess without government permission since 1986. The argument can be persuasive that confiscation of illegal weapons is not a “taking”, but merely an operation of existing law: a felon in possession of a firearm purchased before the person became a felon does not benefit from constitutional protections of uncompensated taking of private property. It is illegal already for a felon to possess a firearm. The firearm can be legally confiscated as the result of an investigation and arrest, and/or a conviction of a felony crime.

        1. avatar pwrserge says:

          That would only be true if the ATF hadn’t approved the device for sale in the first place.

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          An agency may determine it made a mistake, and is only correcting the prior mistake. We are all happy when that happens to our favor. Can’t have it both ways.

        3. avatar Mad Max says:

          Congress controls the appropriation of the funds required for the just compensation.

        4. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Congress controls the appropriation of the funds required for the just compensation.”

          All the government agencies have budgets and funds. If an agency should experience a shortfall in budget designed for adverse court rulings, there are processes in place to reprogram certain budget items to cover the shortfall. Congress does not have to individually legislate every compensation payout. I know this because….BTDT.

        5. avatar Mad Max says:

          I don’t think the ATF has a discretionary budget big enough to cover $100M.

          The sum is large enough that it will require an appropriation.

        6. avatar Sam I Am says:

          A judgement against the ATF in that amount just might require an appropriation. However…

          There is no judgement against the ATF.

          The government will decide when and if there will be a judgement against the ATF.

          The government is anti-2A in/at all its branches.

          The government can rebuke the ATF, and determine that any claim regarding unjust “taking” of private property will always result in an award of damages limited to $1 per claim.

          Or maybe the government will declare that the ATF acted within its authority, but used a mistaken interpretation of the regulations/law. In that case, the government would likely conclude that the ATF was acting in good faith, and nothing is due persons who lost property. Sorta like when SWAT destroys the wrong house.

          It is interesting to see the number of people here who actually profess to believe that right makes right. Not so. Might makes right. You effectively have only those natural, human and civil rights that you can personally enforce.

          Claiming that your 2A rights are not dependent on utility or social is simply whistling in the dark.

        7. avatar binder says:

          “It is interesting to see the number of people here who actually profess to believe that right makes right. Not so. Might makes right. You effectively have only those natural, human and civil rights that you can personally enforce.”

          That is so so true. But I would argue that having other to help you enforce those rights is the best way to go.

        8. avatar Sam I Am says:

          No disagreement here.

        9. avatar John in Ohio says:

          “Not so. Might makes right. You effectively have only those natural, human and civil rights that you can personally enforce.”

          You are correct. I agree with your whole comment, Sam I am, except for the last sentence and that is probably just a matter of wording. The right still exists but the exercise of it is squashed. For example, slaves still possess their unalienable individual rights even when the exercise of them is suppressed. Their inherent right to liberty remains.

        10. avatar Sam I Am says:

          The existence of a “right” that cannot be enjoyed is the same as not “right” at all. Theoretical possession of “rights” do nothing to ensure their protection in real life.

          Nice words in DOI about unalienable rights, but the government has already alienated them, most effectively. The words about unalienable rights were justification for the revolution. The BOR was the declaration of unalienable rights in the constitution. As the founders feared and cautioned, the government disregards unalienable rights with impunity.

  32. avatar Anymouse says:

    The finger breaks contact with the trigger (or at least enough to reset) and gets pulled into the finger again. If I held a gun in my right hand and pushed it toward my left finger extended through the trigger guard, what happened? Apparently, I didn’t pull the trigger. I challenge anyone who says I didn’t fire to stand in front of the muzzle during the experiment. If I pulled the trigger once with my left hand, and then pushed the gun toward it 10 times, am I a machine gun because I fired many times with one pull? What if I replace my left finger with a branch? Is my cherry tree a machine gun?
    Is a bump stock a machine gun in and of itself, or only when attached to a gun? If I put one on a legal, registered machine gun, am I holding 1 or 2 machine guns? The litigation will be endless, or we’ll win quickly. Bring your own popcorn and enjoy the show.

    1. avatar binder says:

      If you can replace your trigger finger with a zip tie then it’s not a trigger finger. You are NOT lifting your finger, the recoil and the finger rest are. Let’s loop a zip tie in the trigger guard, the guns will still function fine. So now is it a machine gun?

  33. avatar Jason says:

    Time to start building real machine guns if you’re already a criminal because of accessories you bought legally.

  34. avatar Mr. Tibbs says:

    This website used to do gun reviews and post decent articles. Now it is all click bait and fear mongering. In the past few months this website is gone WAY overboard on popups and click bait. To make it worse, I cannot even count the supercharged political horsecrap articles that have come out… and the comments are even worse. The lower part of my screen is filled with click bait ads and pics of women with photoshopped bodies. There are 8 ads on my screen right now. I am guessing ownership or hosting has changed and the real “people of the gun” have been sold out. Obviously it is working… people are terrorized and commenting on hypothetical legislation and preparing (poorly) to take up arms (in their imaginations) against… shadows and make believe. Many seasoned owners and operators of all types of arms have seen a thousand political dramas unfold and our 2A rights have endured. In fact, some of us were limited for quite some time to low capacity mags and fixed stocks. We never had a Chuck Norris or Jerry Miculek candidate make it to office… but we did undo the Clinton era gun ban. Some of us watched family members lose businesses to the ban. Some of us lost supplemental income from gunshows. Now… we have a new generation that calls one group “snow flakes” but literally mess their pants daily over ever story on the news about guns. The effort put forth in whining and crying about un-executed political possibilities would better be spend helping a very lost and misguided younger generation. Your expertise will never outweigh the ignorance of the coming generation. You do however need to make a commitment. I remember being taught the proper respect and safety of firearms… I was never taught to fear them (although some of us know we were not far from being taken behind the woodshed for a beating if we ever mishandled one.) Can we commit to teaching the proper treatment of firearms to the younger generation? Will they view them as something outside of hollywood or videogames? Some gun clubs are dying because their youngest members are in their 70s….. shooting sports are almost like the dark web… they exist but no one talks about them… Perhaps we can all start by helping out at the next youth trap shoot or women’s intro day or hunter safety course… even if we are just serving chips and hot dogs can cleaning up brass… Something to keep the sport from decaying….
    The decline in responsible and sportsman like use of guns is declining. Tactical application is turning into a mockery with failures getting millions of “hits” and “likes.” Ignorance is so rampant that the news shows a shotgun shooting a watermelon and the newscasters call it a demonstration of the power of an AR-15…
    We should be far more worried about the current realities than the future possibilities…. especially in light of the outrageous infringements brought upon by previous politicians under far less media outrage..
    If you were smart enough or attentive enough to read the above you probably aren’t on internet forums anyways. If you happen to agree just enlighten the future generation. Perhaps those who survive the tide pod pandemic will grow the manufacturing and the sports that we love and perhaps leave us with even greater tools, hobbies, and means of self defense than ever before. If we don’t, then perhaps we will simply settle for gluten free clay pigeons and vegan turkey shoots.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      I read your entire commentary. I do not know what/which theme you are trying to convey. It the whole of the comment simply to complain that TTAG is not “Guns and Ammo”? Is there any other stream of thought we should recognize?

      Take a moment to rethink your submission, and deliver us a more focused comment (or two).

    2. avatar st381183 says:

      Try The Firearm Blog. They never take a stand publicly. They will sell guns down the proverbial river rather than take a stand or rally support. Guns not politics! Eventually it will be spoons not politics!

    3. avatar GFleming says:

      “Many seasoned owners and operators of all types of arms have seen a thousand political dramas unfold and our 2A rights have endured.”

      I’m a fairly young person. Quite unseasoned. I am one of those dreaded Millennials. I didn’t buy my first gun until August of 2008. Never served in the military. Never hunted. But I am an avid reader and quite obsessive with topics I enjoy, of which guns is one. I can say with certainty that the our 2A rights have not endured. 1934? They didn’t endure. 1968? Didn’t endure. 1986? Didn’t endure. 1994? Didn’t endure. We got lucky on that one because Uncle Bushy dropped the ball (preoccupied by his War on Terr’r) and didn’t renew the ban. We’ve been enduring like a snowball endures hell.

      And I know someone is thinking right now, “What about Heller?!” Heller doesn’t amount to a road apple when our adversaries our now waving it around as proof that they can ban any gun they want as long as they can argue that it’s “dangerous and unusual”, which is every gun in the mind of an anti-gunner.

      We won’t have to worry about it much longer though. Trump will lose reelection, the blue wave will wash over the nation, and everything will be on the chopping block.

      1. avatar Mad Max says:

        I think “dangerous or unusual” may apply to bump stocks, Remington rifles with defective triggers, and any firearm that is prone to firing without pulling the trigger.

        All other firearms currently in the possession of citizens, especially semi-automatic pistols, rifles, and shotguns, bolt-action rifles, revolvers, and all other arms and accessories that are in common use are protected by the Heller Decision and the 2nd Amendment.

        They can try all they want but AR platform rifles and 30 round magazines have been “in common use” in large quantities since the early 1960’s so suddenly declaring them “dangerous or unusual” would be held by a legitimate Supreme Court to be unconstitutional.

        If the Supreme Court were to violate the “in common use” portion of Heller and allow a ban of all semi-automatic firearms, it would result in a shooting war very quickly.

        1. avatar GFleming says:

          I would like to believe in that, but every “assault weapons” ban that has gone before a court has been upheld so far with the SCOTUS turning down appeals when sought.

  35. avatar Armchair Command'oh says:

    I don’t like it, but this will almost certainly withstand judicial review (like 98% sure). I’m not saying that I think it’s just or constitutional, I’m just telling you that, based on my legal experience, this will be upheld.

    On the upside, it doesn’t cover binary triggers or match triggers. (The change was not to the definition of “single function of the trigger”, it was to the meaning of “automatically”.) Too bad I live in Florida.

    Downside, this sets the precedent going forward of massaging the language of the NFA/GCA to creatively ban whatever the government wants to ban. Months back, I wrote an article for TTAG criticizing the NRA for pushing this approach for this very reason, but it’s too late now.

  36. avatar Mad Max says:

    Of course the proposed regulations don’t comply with the laws as passed by Congress and the part about eliminating existing bump stocks is unconstitutional.

    No ex post facto law shall be passed. Making current owners destroy them without just compensation is unconstitutional. The Government would have to declare eminent domain over each existing bump stock and compensate the owner.

    Further, if the SCOTUS does not maintain the Chevron Deference, the regulation will be ruled unconstitutional. If they follow the Chevron Deference, they would uphold the regulation but rule that owners of existing bump stocks can keep them. Congress would then need to declare eminent domain.

    I think this is one case the SCOTUS will take. It has many issues that are in addition to the 2nd Amendment issues.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “No ex post facto law shall be passed.”

      The statement above is erroneous in implication, seriously undermining the rest of your comment. “Ex Post Facto” does not mean no law can be passed that makes a previously legal activity illegal. Ex Post Facto laws would make an action (purchase of a bumpstock) illegal because it is declared illegal today. Prior purchases of bump stocks are not illegal transactions (as they would be a new purchase if bump stocks were banned this evening).

      Ex Post Facto law is a law that makes one subject to criminal charges if one ever committed the now illegal act at any time in their past.

      1. avatar mandrake the magician says:

        that’s some-what disingenuous;
        a previously legal activity and/or the possession of previously legal merchandise is now classified as “illegal” without any sort of recompense and/or compensation;
        that most certainly fulfils the “spirit” of ex post facto if not the actual, literal ‘letter’ of it;

        IIRC, they didn’t even “try that on” in AUstralia….
        they declared whole classes of fire-arms “illegal” virtually over-night but, still, people were compensated if they decided to declare them @ regular drop-off depots….

        there are, most certainly, grounds for a SCotUS challenge if not the seeking of immediate redress via an injunction;

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          The “spirit of the law” is what a judge says it is. I am unaware of any case where an alleged violation of “the spirit of the law” resulted in a conviction (or positive judgement). It is the actual law that is adjudicated.

          But to repeat self, the possession of a weapon that was illegal to possess in the first place is more likely confiscation of an illegal weapon, rather than the “taking” of an otherwise legal piece of property. Government never compensates a felon in possession of a firearm.

        2. avatar mandrake the magician says:

          “the spirit of the law” is and has been most certainly taken into account by the SCotUS;
          if there have been no actual rulings on it per se, then, it has most certainly influenced some rulings;
          again: you conveniently ‘dodge’ the issue here: the government is arbitrarily and suddenly declaring a whole passel of people, “felons”;
          and: again: with no compensatory regime in place….
          that most certainly violates due process;
          it is fertile ground for several, SCotUS challenges and the immediate lodgement of injunctions @ the lower, Circuit Court level as soon as the “law” comes into effect…

        3. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “…you conveniently ‘dodge’ the issue here:”

          Nope. You are overlooking that under the constitution, the concept of “taking” is where the government (or one of its agents/cies) claims possession of a legally owned piece of property. In such cases, compensation is required.

          With bump stocks, you have the government declaring that the item is in fact a machine gun, which is illegal to own without government permission. Since the bump stock owner possesses an illegal weapon, there is no compensation due for surrendering (or having government confiscate) an illegal weapon.

          If the government declares a weapon “illegal”, then you have no legal grounds for possession of the weapon; no compensation. To prevail, you must first have the government declaration declared null and void. Then, if the judgement does not require government return of the item, or compensation for it, you can launch a second suit for recovery of the item, or damages due to an unconstitutional taking.

          No matter how desperately you, I , or anyone else wants a

        4. avatar mandrake the magician says:

          the government is bound by the USC;
          they have no actual power to declare a formerly legal item “illegal”;
          the whole “machine-gun” ban is, in and of itself, illegal/unConstitutional per se and would not withstand a SCotUS challenge before a strictly objective and neutral bench;
          the bump stock ban is definitely illegitimate and unConstitutional;
          also: the ATF does not have the power to ‘make’ law and arbitrarily declare something, ex post facto to be some-thing that, previously, it was not……
          OTW: they could declare ALL semi-autos to be “machine guns” …..
          this is bogus, ill-conceived, panic-driven, emotion-fuelled “law” based on media hysteria generated by a bunch of marxist so-and-so”s;
          it will not be abided by and it will not be respected…it is garbage and not worthy of respect!
          if there had to have been a year-long, independent Congressional and/or Senatorial inquiry and, then, a carefully weighed and deliberated decision then, yes!, it might have some legitimacy…
          legislation “on-the-fly” is worthy only of complete and utter contempt!

        5. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “…they have no actual power to declare a formerly legal item “illegal” ”

          Ever hear of Coca-Cola™?

          Of course the government can determine something once legal is now illegal (try segregation).

      2. avatar Mad Max says:

        The US Constitution, Article 1, Section 9 prohibits ex post facto laws. Banning existing bump stocks is clearly unconstitutional without just compensation per the 5th Amendment’s takings clause.

        They’d have to buy them (and the Government can compel the sale) but that would require an act of Congress which would defeat the whole purpose of doing this via DOJ/ATF regulations (which I do not believe can be accomplished Constitionally – it will require an act of Congress to ban new or existing bump stocks).

        The other thing to consider is that it may take a very long time to actually get a final regulation to litigate.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          Making it simple….

          Possession of a machine gun without government permission is illegal. Bump stocks are declared to be “constructive possession of an unregistered machine gun”. Confiscating an illegal weapon does not rise to the “taking” of lawfully owned property. As I understand it, suing on the basis of confiscation of an illegal weapon will not be seriously entertained by any federal court.

        2. avatar mandrake the magician says:

          making it even simpler ….
          a previously legal item is now, arbitrarily, declared ILLEGAL;
          as Max noted: that violates the USC;
          doubtless, more astute legal minds that yours (or: mine!) will be addressing this matter in the very near future…

        3. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “arbitrarily”

          1. Determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle: stopped at the first motel we passed, an arbitrary choice.
          2. Based on or subject to individual judgment or preference: The diet imposes overall calorie limits, but daily menus are arbitrary.
          3. Law Relating to a decision made by a court or legislature that lacks a grounding in law or fact: an arbitrary penalty.
          4. Not limited by law; despotic: the arbitrary rule of a dictator.

          Just because one does not like a ruling is not de facto proof of violation of USC.

        4. avatar Mad Max says:

          The Government did not ban existing machine guns. They created a path to qualify for and register possession and pay a tax to keep them.

          From what is described, this is an outright ban of an item that was completely legal when purchased and was even ruled so by the ATF.

          The Government cannot Constitionally do this without an act of Congress and just compensation.

        5. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “From what is described, this is an outright ban of an item that was completely legal when purchased and was even ruled so by the ATF.”

          The government did not create a path to unregulated machine guns. Ownership of a machine gun that does not have government permission for a private citizen to own, is illegal; period. Any portion of a maching gun that is does not have government permission to be owned by a private citizen is illegal; period. Government can declare that a gun part (or parts) that makes a machine gun possible is possession of a machine gun. Government can declare a bump stock is considered a machine gun. The SC has leaned toward letting government agencies determine how an agency’s rules, procedures and policies are to be interpreted.

          Now, government declares a bump stock to be a machine gun, or possession of an element of a machine gun. Only those with certified government permission are allowed possession of machine guns. Ergo, if you hold a part of a machine gun, and that part cannot be proven to have certified government permission, you are in possession of an illegal firearm. The government then has complete authority to demand you surrender the unregistered part, or turn it over to an FFL, and then apply for government permission to own/possess the machine gun part. Since you would be in possession of an illegal firearm, government owes no compensation for your loss of the property.

        6. avatar Mad Max says:

          They did make a path to “registered” machine guns. They didn’t make anyone destroy their existing machine guns. If you were not qualified to own the existing machine gun it could be sold to someone who was qualified to register it. You were not deprived of property without the ability to receive just compensation.

          In this case, they are NOT making a path to “regulated” bump stocks; they are banning existing bump stocks outright. That is unconstitutional taking.

        7. avatar Sam I Am says:

          The proposed regulation bans nothing. The proposed regulation identifies yet another gun part that is the equivalent of parts that make a machine gun possible. Since there are individual gun parts one can possess that are regulated under NFA (machine gun), those parts are illegal unless one has certified permission from the government to own/possess that/those part(s).

          Unless registered, possession of a machine gun is illegal; full stop. Ergo, those parts considered to be parts that make a machine gun possible are also illegal. Confiscation and “taking” are entirely different. If you are a felon in possession of a firearm that you legally purchased before becoming a felon, your firearm may be confiscated without compensation. If you are a non-felon in possession of an unregistered machine gun, you are violating the NFA, and your illegal possessions may be confiscated without compensation.

        8. avatar mandrake the magician says:

          “arbitrary” ….
          ☞1. Determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle: stopped at the first motel we passed, an arbitrary choice ☜
          check!

          ☞ 2. Based on or subject to individual judgment or preference: The diet imposes overall calorie limits, but daily menus are arbitrary ☜
          check!

          ☞ 3. Law Relating to a decision made by a court or legislature that lacks a grounding in law or fact: an arbitrary penalty ☜
          check!

          ☞ 4. Not limited by law; despotic: the arbitrary rule of a dictator ☜
          check!

          ★”arbitrary”★
          see, also: knee-jerk, precipitate, hasty, ill-conceived etc.

          how to recognise a NON-arbitrary “law”
          (a) a political party makes law “x” a major part of their electoral platform;
          (b) law “x” becomes a major issue during election campaign;
          (c) afore-said political party is elected … by a clear majority of the eligible electorate;
          conclusion: it is, now, safe to assume that law “x” has, @ the very least, got the imprimatur of popular support;
          OR
          (a) a law, “x”, is proposed;
          (b) independent committees with public input and with the ability to take evidence ON OATH are convened;
          (c) after hearing(s) lasting several months if not a year or more, afore-said committees retire to deliberate;
          (d) after a period of several weeks or months, a careful and precise judgement is rendered;
          (e) afore-said judgement is still open to challenge and review by the public;
          (f) after a period of, say, two or more years, law “x” is, finally passed;
          conclusion: it is, now, safe to assume that law “x” has, @ the very least, been carefully framed and thought out and all the implications and ramifications given due and appropriate consideration;

          Just because one does not like a ruling is not de facto proof of violation of USC
          the USC is written in plain, easy-to-understand, if not elementary-school-level English;
          as such: it could well be argued that any person of average intelligence could, quite easily, tell if any particular law violated it or not!

          If you are a non-felon in possession of an unregistered machine gun, you are violating the NFA, and your illegal possessions may be confiscated without compensation
          and…where… exactly does it say, in the Second Amendment to the USC, that “felons” do not have the right to keep and bear arms…. ANY arms they so deem [?]
          perhaps there is an over-looked clause which, also, says that “felons” have, also, abrogated their First, Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights [?]
          i will re-check and re-read!

        9. avatar Sam I Am says:

          You are living in a dream world. The notion that we can return to some magical time when there were no deviations from the words of the constitution is wasting valuable brain cells. We have what we have. The laws are the laws. The constitution does not say that laws of the legislature are the law of the land only if everyone agrees with the law. Every excuse presented in this comment thread regarding refusal to deal with what is renders us more and more irrelevant. All the originalist curd chewing is not indicative of new insights or genius thinking. If any of such arguments had been successful in court, we would have a different thread of history.

          Boys and Girls….there is no cosmic court or judge who will set things to right as we see it. There is no appeal beyond the courts of the land. The insistence on relying on the courts to reel-in the wayward politicians means we are too lazy to do the hard work of selling our theories and principles to enough voters to change the make up of our representatives and senators. We are conceding that our principles are the gross minority of opinion, and our only hope is to impose our will on the majority through the courts.

        10. avatar mandrake the magician says:

          uh….no !
          both the US Constitution and the writings of the Founding Fathers make it clear that, if the ‘government’ refuses to adhere to the USC (and, of course, i include “the courts” in that sobriquet), then, we, the people, are perfectly entitled to take up ARMs against it
          if you think that is not a very real and increasing possibility with every, single, passing day, then, it is you who are “off-with-the-fairies” in la-la land!
          in fact: i would go so far as to say that the government “provocations” now inflicted on the citizenry on an almost daily basis are much less than those which provoked the Revolution ……

        11. avatar Sam I Am says:

          ” we, the people, are perfectly entitled to take up ARMs against it”

          That still makes a person violating the law no longer one of the most law abiding citizens. Rebellion against the central government is a crime under the constitution. However….

          Let us look at your (and all the other sunshine patriots here) commitment to armed discipline of tyrannical government. You would somehow take up arms against the government because of a piece of plastic, but not because the government conducted an illegal armed assault against law abiding citizens (Waco). It is curious that we read so many here threatening revolution somewhere down the line, based on unknown and unnamed infringements of constitutional rights. Your “rights” have been so compromised already as to render the notion of citizens chastening the government down right laughable.

          So, what is your bright red line? Specifically.

          Or, like the rest of the nation, are you meekly going to tolerate whatever government does because there are more important issues in your life?

          I think over 150 years of non-action tells the tale.

          Oh yes, I completely understand the second amendment, and the reasons behind it. But I also know that the second amendment has devolved to where it is primarily about self-defense, not revolution.

        12. avatar mandrake the magician says:

          So, what is your bright red line? Specifically

          hard-to-say, specifically!
          Australian-style gun laws would be a definite “red line”/in-the-sand;
          maybe: an across-the-board “assault weapon” ban even if fire-arms like, say, the Ruger mini-14 were excluded;
          registration?
          as with all such scenarios: we would not necessarily be expecting a spontaneous uprising…but, rather, some-thing more in the nature of a series of bigger and bigger incidents ultimately culminating in an organised, mass resistance… kinda like the American Revolution which, IIRC, actually involved less than ⅛ of the total population;

          Or, like the rest of the nation, are you meekly going to tolerate whatever government does because there are more important issues in your life?

          gun control is one of those “important issues” b’cs it directly affects the livelihood of, pretty much, every man, woman and child in the US;
          as for “meekly tolerating”…. the social comment boards, post Sandy Hook (when massive gun control looked like a very real possibility) were full of threats of armed uprisings….
          how seriously you want to take that is, of course, your own discretion but, i’d hazard a guess that it would, most certainly, have “put the wind up” the Obama administration especially when the leader of the US Senate @ the time, Harry Reid, told Obama that if he ‘tried on’ an assault weapons ban, that the NRA would, literally, “declare WAR” on him!

          I think over 150 years of non-action tells the tale

          that’s not quite correct b’cs there actually was an armed revolt against government authority just after WII … commonly called “The Battle of Athens” ;
          look it up!

          Oh yes, I completely understand the second amendment, and the reasons behind it. But I also know that the second amendment has devolved to where it is primarily about self-defense, not revolution

          “self-defence” covers a very broad spectrum…

          You would somehow take up arms against the government because of a piece of plastic, but not because the government conducted an illegal armed assault against law abiding citizens (Waco)

          “Waco” was pre-interwebs;
          most people had no idea what really occurred until long after it was over;
          by then: it was too late: a fait accompli , as it were !

        13. avatar Sam I Am says:

          Thanks for the reasoned response.

          All in all, it seems that there is not really a bright line for anyone. The central government attacked a compound of people doing nothing wrong, and the response was a lot of yelling and threatening. We had our Lexington, and nothing happened. We will likely soon see the response to a semi-auto ban (recent bill in congress).

          Yes, a small minority of the population pulled off the American revolution, but the leaders were prominent in the communities. The effort was not a bunch of uncoordinated, sporadic attacks and battles. The militia were organized, knew each other, and knew with whom they could communicate. Those conditions do not exist today.

          We have permitted so many violations of the federal constitution that we are, indeed, frogs in the pot. The minority is the group who are organized, purposed and using media as a force multiplier. We are in the comfortable, passive majority. Responsible people, with jobs and families, mortgages and car payments. We spend our time trying to make a better life for our children. The opposition is absolutely committed to achieving raw power that can be foisted on the rest of us.

        14. avatar mandrake the magician says:

          i stand by my original comment vis á vis Waco;
          the incident a few years back where there was a confrontation with the fed(dot)gov Land Management Agency [?] to do with the Bundy Ranch incident does show that people are prepared to ‘take on’ the government;
          i don’t mean the Bundy Ranch incident per se or where that fellow (Vinnicum [?] ) was shot but where there was an actual armed stand-off and the fed(dot)gov backed down;
          (may have been in Nevada or….was it… Nevada Ranch or some-such…. the memory is playing ‘tricks’ )
          now…whether you could categorise that as of the same level as “the opening shots” of the American Revolution is, admittedly, dubious…
          how-ever….. i would have to say that a modern-day version of the American Revolution would have no trouble finding leaders….. people who would “step up to the plate” and be counted….
          the times make the leader(s)
          also: because of the modern communication systems, we are, now, in a better situation than they were back then……
          there is, also, another aspect that has not been fully explored….
          has the US govt’ …or…. what-ever faction of it….actually got “the will” to prosecute and fight a protracted Revolution/Civil War…. [?]
          they have a lot of hi-tech gear…..and para-mil’ cops…
          but…what good is that if they havn’t got “the gumption” to engage [?]
          after all: a bunch of stubby brown people using 70+ yr old rifles, 40+ yr old rockets launchers and IED ‘set off’ by oven timers, mobile phones, garage door openers and TV remote controls gave them quite a headache in Iraq not so long ago…
          a civil war/Revolution even of the scale that occurred in Iraq would, i think, pretty much be the end of the US….it simply could not be sustained…..
          so…..they might have victory but it would be a pyrrhic one @ best….

        15. avatar Sam I Am says:

          I think you underestimate the comfort level of the people. And underestimate the number of forces at the disposal of the government who would be very willing to exercise ballistic power at those they consider “other”. We know the police have what seems to be a general attitude of “us against them”, and that their experience leaves them convinced that all non-cops are scumbags who just haven’t been caught at crime yet. The military is a mixed bag.

          The politicization of the services is just incredible. We know that the chaplaincy is denied the ability to offend anyone. The insertion of lawyers in every combat brigade deployed was a bright flag. Marine General “Mad Dog” Mattias was driven out of the Corps for focusing too much on warfighting. Army Lt. General McMasters was never going to be a 4-star because he had strong ideas about defending the nation (ideas that conflicted with the career boys). But I wouldn’t count on all that political correctness to work in our favor. Eliminating “enemies of the state” would be nice resume’ builders.

          There is a consistent theme here that the bright red line is “when they come for my guns”. An attitude that makes us look just like the comic stereotype gun owner being sold to the public 24/7. Even thinking “they will come for my guns” shows incredible lack of imagination. There is no need to confiscate guns. They can be made irrelevant.

          There is legislation in congress to ban future sales and transfers of any semi-automatic weapon. You have your guns, but you can’t have any more. You cannot sell or gift them. Once such a regulation is in place, how far is it to jump to “reasonable restrictions” on transport of fire arms? How far is it to legislation overturning all use of a firearm outside of home defense? How much longer will it be before a federal law demands people retreat from a threat, rather than repel the threat? “Stand your ground” and “Castle” laws are mere legislation. If we think we can get national reciprocity via simple legislation, why do we think the enemy cannot get “national last resort” laws passed? How much longer will it be before there is legislation prohibiting open or concealed carry of firearms because the government has a “compelling interest” in maintaining the safety and tranquility of the population? The Demoncrats will initiate a firestorm of anti-gun legislation once they regain majorities in the house and senate (the 60 vote rule will be abolished immediately; Harry Reid set things up for just that purpose).

        16. avatar mandrake the magician says:

          I think you underestimate the comfort level of the people
          yes and no!
          that “comfort level” is a lot less than it was, say, a decade-or-so-ago b’fr the GFC;
          most people know that they are, @ most, only a couple of pay cheques away from being home-less on the street(s);
          also: the “authorities” (viz: the government and the media) have much less moral kudos than they had ‘back then’;
          i’m pretty sure that a very sizeable minority of people would not concede that the (dot)gov had the actual moral right to introduce any significant gun bans…..

          And underestimate the number of forces at the disposal of the government who would be very willing to exercise ballistic power at those they consider “other”. We know the police have what seems to be a general attitude of “us against them”, and that their experience leaves them convinced that all non-cops are scumbags who just haven’t been caught at crime yet

          again….yes and no!
          it depends what “police” and where;
          @ the local, county level, the police have to inter-face more closely with the community;
          if they step too far out of line, then, the public oppropbium and ostracism alone would make them back off;
          @ other levels, such as metro’ and state, it is hard to say;
          its hard to say how they would meet determined resistance and how far they would be prepared to go;
          my impression of most US cops is that they are arrant cowards;
          they like “taking on” senior citz and little old ladies…..any-one who doesn’t offer any reasonable prospect of “fighting back”;
          in effect: they’re bullies!
          but: if they’re confronting some-one who knows their Constitutional rights and is ready, willing and able to “take them on” physically, if necessary, then, most times, they just “go to water” and back down;
          again: my impression: but it seems to me that they’re entirely mercenary; only ‘in’ it for the benefits and the pay;
          most of them strike me as corrupt, incompetent cowards…..

          also: “forces” do not win a military engagement;
          you need moral certainty of your cause and esprit de corps also;
          its an old Sun Tzu maxim: in warfare, never advance relying on military strength alone

          The military is a mixed bag

          so much so that it is hard to foresee how the fed(dot)gov could, effectively, rely on them 100%;
          the biggest “fly-in-the-ointment” is the National Guard and the National Guard armories which sympathetic NG-men could, quite easily, open up and turn over the contents of such to the local populace….
          many military personnel take their Constitutional Oath very seriously indeed and would regard an across-the-board gun grab as a direct violation of it;

          There is legislation in congress to ban future sales and transfers of any semi-automatic weapon. You have your guns, but you can’t have any more. You cannot sell or gift them

          that’s the Feinstein fol-de-rol;
          won’t go any-where;
          any-way: we’re talking abt “line-in-the-sand” scenarios and that would be some-thing like Australian-style gun laws which would be the proverbial “red rag to a bull” and almost certainly provoke a civil war/Revolution;

        17. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “also: “forces” do not win a military engagement;
          you need moral certainty of your cause and esprit de corps also”

          The Japanese relied on that during WW2. Seemed to work out pretty well.

          “that’s the Feinstein fol-de-rol;
          won’t go any-where;”

          Unless the congress is solidly Demoncrat.

          “some-thing like Australian-style gun laws which would be the proverbial “red rag to a bull” ”

          This is where POTG are woefully unprepared. As noted, making your guns useless does not require confiscation. There is so much leverage/power in the SC approved “reasonable restrictions”. The Swiss are gunned-up, but also penned-up. No concealed carry except for the favored. No movement of your firearms outside your home (except for hunting, wherein you may not stop between home and hunting grounds; same for the gun range). Complete reliance on a courteous culture and the ability of police to protect the citizens.

        18. avatar mandrake the magician says:

          The Japanese relied on that during WW2. Seemed to work out pretty well

          the US had greater moral certainty on their side….
          also: the Jpns violated other Sun Tzu dictums such as not having an efficient intelligence network (their codes were ‘cracked’) and not maintaining momentum;

          those who heed Sun Tzu’s teachings will always be victorious;
          those who ignore them will fight in darkness;

        19. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “those who heed Sun Tzu’s teachings will always be victorious;
          those who ignore them will fight in darkness;”

          The myopic thinking that one day there will be a third revolution because…guns is what is causing us to lose. We only think in one dimension. The gun grabbers are following Sun Tzu’s teaching: when the enemy is weak, attack. We are week in the sales department. We are week in the political department. We are always on the defensive, which violates Sun Tsu.

          There isn’t going to be a third revolution, because government is not going to launch a military operation to kick-in doors to discover who has a gun. The freezing of “gun rights” by making it virtually useless to have guns is more effective, and less likely to spark a physical retaliation. Look at what is happening in the states. While POTG are focused on national legislation and the courts, the gun grabbers already abandoned that field, and are attacking in a different direction: state and local. POTG are always fighting yesterday’s battle.

          We will be undone by a wave of “duty to retreat” state and local laws. We will be undone by the removal of “preemption” laws. We will be undone by the proliferation of conflicting laws in multiple jurisdictions. As noted earlier, we will find ourselves under “reasonable restrictions” that prohibit the use, transport and discharge of firearms beyond the home, and only for home defense when retreat is not possible.

          The very foundation of Sun Tzu tactics is never underestimating the enemy. POTG are genetically disposed to presume the enemy is stupid, as evidenced by near complete reliance on lifeless slogans in the face of real political danger.

  37. avatar Accur81 says:

    Trump and most Republicans joined Democrats in screwing over gun owners. Sucks.

  38. avatar mandrake the magician says:

    looking into my “crystal ball” here, i can fore-see a lot of 3D printers being ‘fired up’ ……..

  39. avatar Red Forman says:

    Maybe we should start supporting impeachment.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “Maybe we should start supporting impeachment.”

      To what purpose? Do you think impeachment will chasten Trump (or any other politician)? Are you sure you understand what “impeachment” really is?

      Hint: it is an indictment; nothing more.

      1. avatar Mad Max says:

        An impeachment that results in a trial that finds him guilty of some high crimes or misdemeanors and removes him from office would result in President Pence.

        Not sure if that would be any better but it probably wouldn’t be worse. I don’t see Pence being a traitor but he is (a very religious) politician.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “An impeachment that results in a trial that finds him guilty”

          Therein lies the rub: conviction. Impeachment and conviction are separate and distinct. So, if we want to say we support the constitutional removal of the president, then we are talking about something. Using “impeachment” as shorthand for the entire process is misleading. We should not be as guilty of sloppy use of the language as the leftists/statists/liberals/Demoncrats are.

      2. avatar Mad Max says:

        Ok. 1. High crimes and misdemeanors identified. 2. House of Representatives reviews evidence and drafts articles of impeachment. 3. House of Representatives votes to pass articles of impeachment. 4. The Senate tries the President for the high crimes and misdemeanors identified in the articles of impeachment. 5. Senate votes the President guilty of the charges of high crimes and misdemeanors. 6. The Vice President becomes President and Trump goes home.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          Exactly. Impeach and convict. Impeach and remove.

          But not just “impeach”.

          And you actually already have a Congress willing to impeach Trump, and enough votes in the Senate to convict. Republicrats would love to conduct an impeachment and removal.

  40. avatar Jay in Florida says:

    It doesn’t matter what the congress or ATF does. Nobody in any number will turn in anything.
    No different then turning in a AR or AK in the slave states. Along with mags,
    No one of any consequence has followed the so called law. Almost no one will turn in anything now or ever.
    A few chickenshits might turn in a bump stock
    All they will do is create a defacto bunch of felons. On paper.
    If the day comes they are needed. There will be plenty to go around.
    If I had one which I dont. Ive never seen the need for one. Id never turn it in.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “It doesn’t matter what the congress or ATF does. Nobody in any number will turn in anything.”

      Doesn’t this negate our entire “gun owners are the most law abiding people” meme?

      1. avatar pwrserge says:

        Not really, malus lex est null lex.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          The mythical right to ignore invalid (unconstitutional law) does not play well in actual court. “Law abiding” means just that. The civil rights activists of the early 60s broke all sorts of laws. They were arrested for breaking those laws. Even after the Civil Rights Act of 1964, those arrested prior to the Act were not entitled to compensation, nor automatic expunging of their criminal records. Regardless of whether the activists were morally justified in breaking the law, the activists were no longer law-abiding citizens.

          I would bring popcorn to any venue (including federal court) where a person proposes to stand in public and claim, “We gun owners are the most law-abiding people in the country, unless we decide we don’t like a particular law. Even when we violate the law, we remain the most law-abiding people”.

        2. avatar mandrake the magician says:

          this is where the Sovereign Citizens/Common Law people come into play;
          the only valid laws are the USC and Common Law….
          every-thing else is an optional extra;
          “statute” laws cannot be said to be laws in the sense of historically recognised and acceptable laws…..

          “law abiding” means abiding by THE COMMON LAW … not a bunch of bogus, un-Constitutional, “statutes”
          (hence: yr analogy of Civil Rights demonstrators is invalid…they almost all broke THE COMMON LAW…ergo: they were real and actual felons )

        3. avatar Sam I Am says:

          The constitution states that laws of the legislature that are passed and signed by the president are the law of the land. “Law abiding” means abiding by the laws of the land (until they are overturned or repealed). The whole “common law” mythology does not stand up in the courts. The laws of the constitution may be founded upon common law, but only the enacted laws matter.

        4. avatar mandrake the magician says:

          if a law passed by Congress violates the USC, then, it can be challenged and struck down;
          the Founding Fathers assumed the Common Law;
          in fact: it could be argued that that was the only “law” they recognised;
          the Constitutional Amendments merely crystallised pre-existing rights;
          in fact: it could, also, be argued that the Founding Fathers did not recognise “government” as it is commonly understood today;
          centrist, statist, control freaks they most certainly were not
          the level of government control today would be totally alien to them;
          pretty much every-thing that the government does today violates the USC in one form or t’other;
          but: gun laws are a blatant, egregious and obvious violation of it…….
          although there have been many SCotUS challenges in recent years, there should be a tsunami of legal challenges that, pretty much, clog up if not out-right bury the entire legal system…..
          this fellow puts it best!

        5. avatar pwrserge says:

          Sam I Am

          Yeah… ask me how many federal laws I ignore on a daily basis. No free man is under any obligation to obey an unjust law.

        6. avatar Sam I Am says:

          Knowingly violating a law makes you no longer one of “the most law abiding people” in society. If you are caught and tried, your claim of ignoring unjust law will result in a conviction. If you are caught, tried and convicted, you become a convicted felon; no longer one of “the most law abiding people” in society.

          You can violate any and as many laws as you like. But as a gun owner you cannot legitimately claim that as a gun owner, you are among “the most law abiding people” in society.

    2. avatar Mad Max says:

      Quite frankly, other than to help a handicapped person use an AR, I don’t understand what a bump stock is good for except to consume ammo quickly.

      I also don’t see how a machine gun is of much use for most typical firearms applications. I do understand that they may be useful in a war or war-like situation to lay down suppressive fire and are otherwise fun to shoot for recreational purposes.

      The same goes for select-fire rifles. They put 3 shots in pretty much the same place. I think 3 separate shots to different locations would be more effective in a DGU.

      Just my thoughts. Someone else may have alternative applications.

      1. avatar Jonathan-Houston says:

        Nobody is challenging whether bump fire stocks are good. They’re obviously a cheesy work around to comply with the law, but still attain the desired effect. That’s not the point.

        Just because something is stupid doesn’t mean the government has the power to ban it.

        This case is especially menacing, because Trump is unilaterally rewriting the law. He’s usurping authority and defying the Constitution’s separation of powers. Congress needs to rewrite the law, not Trump.

        You may not care about bump stocks, but you should be very concerned about a president ruling by dictate.

        1. avatar binder says:

          “They’re obviously a cheesy work around”. NO they are not. set up right, 100 round dumps no problem. With a bi-pod they are extremely accurate. But you should use any rifle caliber machine gun with a bi-pod.

        2. avatar Stereodude says:

          The irony is that people are arguing about the spirit of the law when it comes to ex post facto, but conveniently overlook that a bump fire stock clearly violates the spirit of the law. If you could take a bump fire stock equipped AR to 1934 in your time machine and demonstrate it to the laws authors with the explanation that it’s legal because it complies with the letter of the law, they wouldn’t say, “Yeah, that should be perfectly legal. Definitely not a machine gun.” No, they’d rewrite the law so that it was not legal.

        3. avatar pwrserge says:

          binder

          Ok kiddo… you go ahead and try to use a slidefire stock with a bipod… I’ll be in the corner laughing.

        4. avatar John in Ohio says:

          With a slide bipod?

          With no bump stock.

          Bumpski stock.

  41. avatar ironicatbest says:

    First bumpstock, then magazines over ten rounds, then semi autos, then bolt action rifles with scopes( sniper rifle, nobody needs one) then bolt actions holding more then 5 rounds. Then rifle ammunition capable of achieving over 1000 ftps energy. Ammo and firearms price go up by a factor of 10. But you still got the 2a ….. In the mean time Law Enforcement is tooling up with military hardware and running an over 700,000 man “,thin blue line” army. Talk about a chess game. We are looking at checkmate in 15 moves

    1. avatar mandrake the magician says:

      that’s what occurs when you don’t shut the gun grabbers up by physical FORCE

    2. avatar Jason says:

      The 2nd is about using your guns. Everyone knows that day will come. It’s your fault if you let tyrants disarm you.

    3. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “First bumpstock, then magazines over ten rounds, then semi autos, then bolt action rifles with scopes( sniper rifle, nobody needs one) then bolt actions holding more then 5 rounds. Then rifle ammunition capable of achieving over 1000 ftps energy.”

      Welcome to America.

    4. avatar John in Ohio says:

      “We are looking at checkmate in 15 moves”

      That number is a bit optimistic, IMHO.

      1. avatar SheepDog says:

        It’s closer to check mate in 5 moves or less. In Oregon they’re floating a bill that will outlaw Most semi auto rifles and pistols with more than one feature on the ban list.
        And a magazine ban over 10rds.

        1. avatar John in Ohio says:

          Yep. It’s the Hour of the Time.

  42. avatar Sian says:

    “Comment Period Closed
    Jan 25 2018, at 11:59 PM ET”

  43. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

    If the RNC doesn’t locate a conservative to primary against Mr. Trump,they will loose the presidency as they are more than likely after their performance of the very recent past going to loose the presidency and house along with the senate. The Republicrat party has earned it by their actions.

    1. avatar Stereodude says:

      The RNC doesn’t want an actual conservative. They want a RINO swamp dweller. They’re stupidly convinced that a conservative can’t win and by in large they’re not actually conservatives either.

  44. avatar Hannibal says:

    I don’t give two shits about bump-stocks, in and of themselves, but I do care about the fact that the pro-gun side is losing (AGAIN) without gaining anything in return, all in the name of “compromise.”

    With republicans majorities in the senante, house, and a republican in the white house.

    Makes you think.

  45. avatar TomD in CO says:

    The docket cited says “Written comments must be postmarked and electronic comments must be submitted on or before January 25, 2018.” so either it’s the wrong docket or they are playing date slight-of-hand…

  46. avatar LaDarrell Chad Rubinstein says:

    At least we still have our precious 1911s and our beloved Caracals. If David Hogg and his army of Obama Youth come for those its game on! You can word my marks on that!

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      There is legislation in congress right now to ban semi-auto guns. Semi-autos currently possessed remain legal (for the moment), but the bill will ban new sales/imports and transfer of currently owned semi-auto guns. Semi-auto and “assault weapon” become one and the same.

  47. avatar Geoff says:

    Well, then what about this?

    1. avatar Binder says:

      No interface block. The interface block is the key component. Otherwise the rifle is just bouncing around in your grip an you need to keep your finger ridged.

      1. avatar Geoff says:

        Right back to people who know nothing about guns want to write laws about guns.
        Still only one shot for each trigger pull does not make a bump stock a machine gun.
        Well, maybe it’s time I go buy a real machine gun.
        I can get a Reising M50 .45 Caliber (poor man’s Tommy Gun) for $6995 shipped, C&R Eligible.

        1. avatar binder says:

          Also this guy was struggling to get a string of fire of more than a few rounds. A properly tuned slide fire equipped AR-15 can do 100 round dumps util it burns up.

        2. avatar binder says:

          When Tim publishes a video of that MCR upper he has with a good trigger and a slide fire then we can talk. Better yet have him set up about 50 IPSC tragets down range and have him walk the fire into them. But he will never do it, and you want to know why? Because every gun grabber will publish that video and there will be ZERO chance of ever keeping slide fires.

          What he is doing is really no more effective than just firing semi auto from the shoulder.

        3. avatar John in Ohio says:

          “Also this guy was struggling to get a string of fire of more than a few rounds.”

          When someone posts evidence to refute, off you go on another deflect. I’m not wasting anymore time. You’re done.

        4. avatar binder says:

          John, people should not compare bump firing from the hip or the shoulder as the same as using a slide fire. Even when they first came out, everyone called them a novelty, a “range toy” because it looks the same. But you almost never see people post videos of them when they are set up to be effective. Some of the best videos on them used effectively has been taken down, I wonder why.

          And they can be very effective. Kind of like putting a stock on a pistol. There is no change is the “power” or rate of fire of a pistol, yet that stock makes them much more effective.
          So yes, you can bump fire a AR-15 without a slide fire, but the slide fire makes it much more effective. So effective that you can use it as a SAW. That’s what has the NRA so scared. That is what has a lot of people scared.

          Even Tim over at MAC knows how effective a slide fire is and what a SAW can do to a crowd. So when he goes and bump fires an AK from the hip and somehow implies it is the same as a bump stock, he knows better. He gets a MCR upper (It is a SAW on a full auto AR-15 lower, the Amy was testing them) yet he fires it very slowly. At one time he even called it a semi auto SAW. Tim ‘s defense of the Slide fire stocks is disingenuous. He should show what they can really do, and then try and defend them.

      2. avatar binder says:

        RECOIL ENERGY is used in the operation of the trigger. YOU ARE NOT PULLING IT. You are pushing forward on the for grip. You can replace you “trigger finger” with anything that will interface between the stock and the trigger. Slide Fire built prototypes that did just that, but they did not get past the ATF. You can easily do the same thing to any existing slide fire. Easily convertible applies.

        “Right back to people who know nothing about guns want to write laws about guns.”
        Really? I could give you the real low down on how the Vegas shooter came up with his setup, but there are people who would come under some nasty pressure from the public.

        So go get your sub gun, it the people who light up crowds with SAWs that will get the 2nd amendment killed

  48. avatar C says:

    I just tried to submit a comment. The comment period CLOSED on 25 January 2018. So that’s it, then?

  49. avatar UncleSlayton says:

    Breaking news! The feds can do what they want.

    Why is Kristien Saucier free today? Why was he in federal prison? Why did the IRS let Al Sharpton slide? Why is Hillary Clinton not charged with violating national security? Why has our border shared with Mexico been a screendoor for 48 years?

    “It ain’t about the law. It ain’t about the constitution. It ain’t about jackwipe on the internet. It is about power. None of you have power so hang on to your guns.”

    That, by the way, is how the 2A was originally written.

  50. Before we all freak out, let me suggest the following:

    1) Download the ATF proposed rulemaking document
    2) Read it
    3) Look for items that would set a bad precedent
    4) Object to these provisions and ask that they be removed

    Our goal should be to protect semi-automatic rifles – and I think that this goal is completely achievable.

  51. avatar Detroiter says:

    So wait: a machine gun is now defined as a gun that fires more than one gun with the pull of a trigger!?

    What about a gun that fires more than one round with the “push” of a trigger. 🙂

    We are a creative lot

  52. avatar Jon says:

    I didn’t see anything about just compensation for turning in the bumpstocks

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      I think we went through that yesterday. If bump stocks are declared to be machine guns, and you hold an unregistered (and taxed) machine gun, you are in criminal possession of a machine gun. There is no law requiring compensation for the confiscation of an illegal machine gun. This is probably how Florida will get away with making bump stocks illegal immediately. The federal government is also likely to use the “criminal possession” proviso to avoid compensation for loss of property.

  53. avatar Tupperware says:

    Lawsuits are coming!

    Dear Judges here is ur opinion ur free to steal!

    A Well regulated Chef, being necessary for a complete kitchen,

    The right to Keep and Bear Tupperware, #SHALLNOTBEINFRINGED!

  54. avatar Sammich says:

    A Well regulated Sammich Maker, being necessary for a complete kitchen,

    The right to Keep and Bear Ingredients, #SHALLNOTBEINFRINGED!

  55. avatar Bumpee says:

    3d printers link to make my own and sell on da ebays as canoe oars? Thanks!

  56. avatar Matt says:

    I’ll just follow my good senator’s lead (Blumenthal) and disregard federal law and regulation with which I disagree.

    I expect I will receive a congratulation for doing so just like those people who decided to ignore their deportation orders.

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