Giving An Inch Or Is This Already A Mile?

President Trump Bump Stock Ban Reuters

courtesy washingtonpost.com and Reuters

“We’re knocking out bump stocks. We’re in the final two or three weeks and I’ll be able to write out bump stocks. We are in the final stages of the process.” – President Donald Trump in a statement to the press, 10/01/2018

comments

  1. avatar Jmr says:

    Ammo land explained it very well with a cartoon and a cake.

    You can argue it is an inch, but when you only have three inches left to give it might as well be a mile.

    1. avatar Bearpaw says:

      You know Donald, Bumpstocks are only bad when accompanied with “high capacity” magazines. And HiCap mags are only bad when accompanied by volume ammo purchases. And … And… And…

      Better idea Donald. All the above are only bad when used with a semi-auto firearm. I’ll let you do the math on your own.

      1. avatar Nigel the expat says:

        “When you give a liberal a cookie…”

        1. avatar Tom says:

          Nigel, I’m stealing this.;>)
          “When you give a liberal a cookie…”

      2. avatar BLAMMO says:

        They’re all only bad when accompanied by a bad person. Just like everything else.

        1. avatar Bearpaw says:

          Wow. BLAMO is right. Let’s just ban bad people. Or better yet, let’s ban those people we think might be bad one day.

          So go ahead Donald. Point out who is bad or will be bad and we’ll ban them. Makes so much more sense than banning bumpstocks.

        2. avatar Ansel Hazen says:

          No Bearpaw. We need to do something much more definitive to “bad people”.

        3. avatar Larry says:

          They always blame the gun instead of the person pulling the trigger, especially if it’s an AR-15. Try placing the blame square on the shooter’s shoulders because the gun alone can’t do anything by it’s self.

    2. avatar Binder says:

      Everyone here is just clueless or disseminating bad information.

      There is a reason for YouTube’s policy changes, the NRA’s stand, the pulling of videos from all websites (Full30 included). Slide Fire Solutions stopping manufacture, the lawsuit being squashed. They gave out information were the “guns” were purchased, but not the stocks and the “accessories”. The whole bi-pod “evaluation” by Alex Jones Show (funny how even that is gone now) I don’t think we will ever see an evaluation of the firearms used in the attack.

      The reason is everyone is covering their asses and are scared of a copy cat.

      If you look hard enough you will find the true facts, and you can take any stand you want at that point. But then you may find out just how hard the wind is blowing on this and why.

      1. Repeat after me…The Deep State….The Deep State…

        1. avatar Esoteric Inanity says:

          Even deeper, Illuminati deep………

        2. avatar Benjamin Netanyahu says:

          Durr, it’s the Deep State. Durr, it’s the Illuminati. You’d be more respectable if you just admitted what you really mean is ‘it’s the Jews’. Typical cowardly bigots.

        3. avatar Big E says:

          To Benjamin Netanyahu- I have no idea if “Deep State” above was intended as some code for “jews”, but that isn’t how I see it. The Deep State is Progressive/Socialist/Communism inside the .gov and it is real. It crosses racial/nationality lines and most definitely isn’t exclusive to Jews. Obama isn’t a Jew- right?

          There are a lot of Jews (Soros, Bloomberg, Schumer, etc) that are prominent in the movement, but it’s like a cancer that is growing. Anyone that values Liberty needs to unite to combat it. The Red Menace is resurgent and needs to be defeated. Fu<K the Commies!

        4. avatar Toni says:

          Spot on Big E. it also involves the international banks and many multinational companies most of whom have been directly or indirectly influenced by the international banks. These same banks have funded both sides of every single war since the time of Napoleon and have leveraged control of most nations reserve banks through this. The end game? power and control over the whole world under one single govt which is sort of set up already through the function of the UN

    3. avatar Steve says:

      I don’t understand, this is the Republican President that Republicans voted into office? What’s your beef?
      I remember the hysteria before Obama was even elected and afterwards. Because he was going to take all of our guns away.
      Does anyone else remember basic AR’s being listed for $2,000 + in late 2007 and 2008 AND PEOPLE WERE BUYING THEM? You can buy them now for $350.
      I bought more handguns and rifles during Obama’s presidency that I’ve bought during my entire 61 years at bargain basement prices because the gun manufacturers had to dump all that leftover inventory because any intelligent person didn’t buy into the Obama gun seizure hype.
      Now you’ve elected a crazy person as president and he may very well start taking away our gun rights because he swings any way the wind blows if he thinks it’s good for him. And he does it by signing executive orders. He doesn’t give a sh** about the 2nd amendment. All he wants is your vote then you get stabbed in the back. Think about that in 2020.

  2. avatar Sam I Am says:

    Another test case. Can the executive branch unilaterally change the clear language of the law (legislation)?

    1. avatar Vic Nighthorse says:

      Amen.

    2. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Boosht.
      The *real* question is whether the LEGISLATIVE branch can change the clear language of the CONSTITUTION!

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “The *real* question is whether the LEGISLATIVE branch can change the clear meaning of the CONSTITUTION!”

        That is settled law, and the answer is “yes”. Indeed, the constitution may be changed by force of arms, then ratified by amendment.

        1. avatar BLAMMO says:

          Why bother with any of all that? It’s easier just to ignore it.

    3. avatar Chip Bennett says:

      And I hope that it becomes a test case. It will depend, I suppose, on how the language for said “writing out” is actually written.

      The best part is that, when that test is ultimately settled, Kavanaugh instead of Kennedy (and quite likely, Barrett instead of Ginsberg) will be joining in the decision.

      1. avatar Geoff "Mess with the Bull, get the Horns" PR says:

        “The best part is that, when that test is ultimately settled, Kavanaugh instead of Kennedy (and quite likely, Barrett instead of Ginsberg) will be joining in the decision.”

        We have a pretty good idea on how Kav will vote.

        Roberts is now the new Kennedy.

        He’s the ‘squishy’ one now…

        1. avatar FedUp says:

          Didn’t Roberts write the anti-People decision in Kelo v New London?

      2. avatar Train Runner says:

        The Kavanaugh nomination is going down in flames.

        1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          The Kavanaugh nomination is going down in flames.

          This comment aged well.

        2. Kavanaugh Confirmed!!!!!, Kavanaugh Confirmed!!!!!

    4. Simple……….. NO!!!!!

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “Simple……….. NO!!!!!”

        Such thinking is more simplistic than simple.

    5. avatar Rocketman says:

      Not technically, but whenever did the Bill of Rights stop a modern day politician? After all they’re just so much smarter and more in tune with what the sheeple want than a bunch of dead old slave owning, homophobic, racist white guys who’s names were Washington, Jefferson and Adams.

      1. avatar Constitutional Scholar says:

        The Bill of Rights was written by James Madison, you chubble butting bearded clam.

      2. Read the Federalist Papers, as to the explanation why.

  3. avatar No one of consequence says:

    An inch or a mile … is too much.

    I’m frankly sick of compromising and kowtowing and being polite, and all with zero hope of being anything other than an accused-and-therefore-guilty deplorable.

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      An inch or a mile … is too much.

      So much this!

      Suppose some man really, REALLY, REALLY wants to have sex with a woman who despises that man. His feelings are so intense that he will be driven to deep depression — and possibly even suicide — over not being able to have sex with that woman. Does that man’s incredibly intense feelings obligate that women to compromise with him in any way? Should she at least let that poor man fondle her in the hope of averting his suicide?

      NO! Neither should firearm owners give up anything. People who have intense overwhelming feelings do not obligate anyone to give up their property, liberty, nor self-defense/life.

    2. avatar Nigel the expat says:

      “Just the tip, baby, really…”

      1. Introducing Associate Justice of the SCOTUS, Brett Kavanaugh.

    3. avatar Massive Donger says:

      I doubt your boyfriend thinks the inch you give him is too much.

  4. avatar Marcus (Aurelius) Payne says:

    I wonder if Kavanaugh will end up being the swing justice in overturning such a ban.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “I wonder if Kavanaugh will end up being the setting justice in overturning such a ban.”

      He already declared that tradition and history control his jurisprudence (he calls it “precedence”).

      Maybe the question will turn on whether restrictions of accessories is permissible because they (accessories) are not actually firearms. Especially not equipment the lack of which renders actual firearms unusable. Should a law exist that bans rifle slings, does that infringe on the ability to keep and bear arms? Should a law exist that bans lubricants and cleaners, does that infringe on the ability to keep, bear and use firearms? Should a law exist that bans the use of telescopic sights, does that infringe on the ability to keep and bear firearms? Or do these examples represent a legitimate regulation of firearms-related items that do not render a firearm impossible to purchase, store, transport, use for intended purposes if the accessories are not present/available?

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        Tradition, history, precedent, apply to SCOTUS rulings. Vis a vis machine guns there are not any. So he might.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Tradition, history, precedent, apply to SCOTUS rulings. Vis a vis machine guns there are not any. So he might.”

          Kavanaugh’s jurisprudence applied to all his lower court rulings. Lacking those regarding bump stocks, he might defer to “common use”, which is a more sporty proposition.

        2. avatar Retrocon says:

          Per the 1939ish Miller decision, regarding a sawed off shotgun.

          “Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense.” This was why they ruled against Miller, sawed off shotguns were NOT military equipment, so they were NOT protected by the Second Amendment.

          Since full auto M-4s and other rifles are, in fact, “part of ordinary military equipment,” I would argue that this is precedent that machineguns are protected by the Second Amendment.

      2. avatar pwrserge says:

        1. Precedence is the order of hierarchy in a society with grades of nobility.
        2. Precedent is the legal theory that previous legal decisions should inform future legal decisions.
        3. There is zero precedent at the SCotUS level vis-a-vi machineguns.
        4. Please quit making BS arguments and undermining a judge who has all the right enemies.

        1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

          pwrserge,

          One of your points in your comment should be as follows.

          “2. Precedent is the legal theory DOCTRINE that previous legal decisions should inform future legal decisions.”

          While that seems like an inconsequential difference, it is important. The justification for observing previous legal precedents is to foster stability in a society. And while there is a lot of merit to that approach, IT MUST ALWAYS TAKE A BACK SEAT TO JUSTICE. Unfortunately, judges elevate precedence over justice. And why not since judges are observing a theory — the title of which implies a proven approach?

          On the other hand, if we define precedence as a doctrine, that title makes it clear that such an approach is a chosen — not a proven — standard that is subject to error and thus correction.

        2. avatar pwrserge says:

          Ok…

          1. Precedent and precedence are different things.
          2. It’s not a doctrine because precedent is not binding to an equal level court. The idea is that courts have hierarchies. A district court is not going to ignore precedent from a circuit court, but can and often does ignore precedent from another district court. That keeps every judge in the country from making up the legal standard as he goes along once higher authority has spoken on the matter.
          3. What you’re thinking of on the SCotUS is the concept of stare decicis, which just states that if an argument has been made and a decision reached, you would need a new and fairly strong argument to overturn the previous decision.

        3. avatar uncommon_sense says:

          pwrserge,

          All valid points and thank you for the clarification/correction. I wasn’t very awake when I typed my comment.

        4. avatar Sam I Am says:

          Ok, “precident”

          There is plenty of precedent regarding machine guns. NFA and Gun Firearm Owner Protection Act. These two alone can be considered traditional and historical regulation of machine guns. Thus, an appeal to remove machine guns from government control will likely be denied based on history, as Congress has not seen fit to lessen the regulations of machine guns since 1934,

          Kavanaugh himself stated “It is all about precedent for me.” He also clearly stated that constitutional questions should be decided based on tradition and history first, and only after should direct reading of the constitution be considered. (This is in line with all the other justices for quite some time – find justification some way other than dealing directly with the wording of the constitution). None of his writings on regulation of firearms approaches “Shall No Be Infringed”. None.

          https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-09-04/brett-kavanaugh-and-the-second-amendment

          https://reason.com/volokh/2018/07/09/judge-kavanaugh-and-the-second-amendment

          https://freebeacon.com/issues/brett-kavanaughs-view-second-amendment/

          https://www.law360.com/articles/1061742/kavanaugh-clings-to-text-and-traditions-in-many-dissents

        5. avatar pwrserge says:

          Sam, you clearly have no idea what legal precedent is. A law is not precedent, a regulation is not precedent, regardless of age. The only things that set SCotUS precedent are SCotUS decisions.

          There is exactly ONE SCotUS case that directly addresses ANY NFA item. That would be US v Miller. US v Miller is an interesting precedent because it specifically went against the plaintiff (who, btw, didn’t get to present arguments) because the weapon (a sawed off shotgun) in question was “not suitable for militia purposes”. That’s very shaky precedent to use as a basis for upholding bans on military weapons, weapons that would be, by design, ideal for “militia purposes”.

          That’s what the left is deathly afraid of. They have been making the public argument for years that “assault weapons” are “military style weapons”. That would mean that a conservative court that takes Miller as precedent can easily decide that “military style weapons” in particular are expressly protected under the 2nd amendment THANKS TO the precedent set in Miller.

          Quit scaremongering and look at the relevant case law. If we get a 5-4 or 6-3 originalist majority on the SCotUS, US v Miller is a precedent IN OUR FAVOR.

        6. avatar Sam I Am says:

          The “precedent” is in history and tradition. NFA has not been overturned anywhere in the nation. The Hughes Amendment has not been overturned anywhere in the nation. Thus, history and tradition dictate that machine guns may be tightly regulated. One does not begin at the Constitution and review a law/regulation against the Constitution, one begins at the lowest level of scrutiny and if tradition and history indicate regulation of firearms has been historically and traditionally permissible, there is no reason to get to “strict scrutiny”.

          The fact that infringements (regulations) have withstood challenge, or have never been challenged, justifies their continued existence because traditionally and historically, such infringements have been permissible. That, old buddy, is precedent.

        7. avatar pwrserge says:

          Um… no… that is precisely NOT precedent. You have no idea what you’re talking about.

        8. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Um… no… that is precisely NOT precedent. You have no idea what you’re talking about.”

          Ok, explain me this: A federal appeals court rules that an infringement on the Second Amendment is justified by tradition and history. The decision confirms the infringement. What do we call the decision? A “not precedent”? What do we call the opinion? A “not precedent”? What do we call making a decision without reaching “strict scrutiny”? A “not precedent”? Kavanaugh writes that he would not ban semi-auto rifles and handguns because they were not historically (traditionally) banned. He did not point to the Second Amendment RTKBA as precedent, but history/tradition.

        9. avatar pwrserge says:

          Refusing cert does not constitute SCotUS precedent. Only argued cases constitute precedent. Do you even law bro?

        10. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Refusing cert does not constitute SCotUS precedent. Only argued cases constitute precedent. ”

          Precisely. The logic of the ruling opinion is precedent, as well. It is used in subsequent cases as support for “Stare Decisis”. All of which is why Justice Thomas says the Second Amendment is becoming “second class”.

        11. avatar pwrserge says:

          Cite the passage bro. At no point did Heller directly address NFA items. Keep trying.

        12. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Cite the passage bro. At no point did Heller directly address NFA items. Keep trying.”

          What the hell are you talking about? I made no reference to either.

        13. avatar pwrserge says:

          There have been exactly three precedent setting cases on point before the SCotUS since the passage of the NFA. You have no idea how the law works.

        14. avatar Sam I Am says:

          I will beat you like I am your dad.

  5. avatar Scott says:

    This is my main disappointment in the Trump administration so far. I hope he turns out better than Reagan. Good on trade, economy, foreign policy, and then less than mediocre on civil rights.

  6. avatar TrueBornSonofLiberty says:

    Although I don’t like it one bit, Trump knows zero about firearms or the Second Amendment, other than its good for his base to want to protect it. This move is really the only criticism I can level at his entire presidency so far. And I’ll admit, because he’s a neophyte when it comes to this subject, he could’ve only been advised to take this action. All indications are the NRA. They tried to be too clever and advised the ATF to “take a look at this again”, believing they’d rule them just accessories like they did the previous 3 times. That’s when it got away from the NRA when someone at the ATF must have made the recommendation to trump to allow The DOJ to rule by fiat. A dangerous move and one I suspect won’t hold up in the courts. So let’s keep perspective. This wasn’t what the NRA really wanted. They just wanted politcal covernwith their recommendation, expecting the ATF to follow their own precedent. And as far as Trump is concerned, he’s damn well close to perfect. I’m old enough to personally see the comparisons and he’s neck and neck with reagan, who until now has been the greatest president of our lifetime.

    1. avatar j says:

      I’m sad that you actually believe Trump is even close to as good as Reagan…

      1. avatar TrueBornSonofLiberty says:

        Of course I’m leaving personal character out of the equation. I’m strictly speaking policy. (Even his court picks are infinitely better, as a prime example). Reagan was an elegant gentleman who refused to even take out his suit jacket in the Oval Office. Conversely, we have Clinton and his penchant for alternative cigar usage that defiled that very same office.

      2. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “I’m sad that you actually believe Trump is even close to as good as Reagan…”

        I don’t want to tear off into an unrelated discussion, but other than personality and social skills, how has Trump failed to be as effective (if not more effective) in getting things done that prosper the Republic?

        1. avatar TrueBornSonofLiberty says:

          Exactly.

        2. avatar B-Rad says:

          Yeah, except for that, so carry the 1, not.

        3. avatar TexTed says:

          Furthermore, do you all remember Reagan’s second term? It was not highly regarded.

          In the first term, conservatives had a slogan: “Let Reagan be Reagan.” Unmuzzle him, let him do his thing.

          In his second term, conservatives started saying “Let someone else be Reagan.”

      3. avatar Danny Mann says:

        Key word: CLOSE. He’s not there yet, and he may or may not ever surpass Reagan, but he’s still got 6 years(🤞)left. And as far as bump stocks go, I’ve never seen one, never had the desire to buy one, don’t ever think I’ll need one But, I don’t care if everyone has a trunk full of them, if that’s what they want. Besides, you don’t even NEED a bump stock to bump fire a semi auto rifle, or a pistol for that matter. And, a 20 year old disabled veteran(yeah, 20 years old)came walking past me and a rack of civilian legal AK-47’s in a gun store, stopped, and non-chalantly showed me how to make it fire full auto, with only a shoe string. A SHOE STRING. So, if ever got an AK, I suppose I’ll have to wear loafers to go to the range to shoot it, because technically, having an AK and a SHOE STRING at the same time could result in a federal firearms violation, according to this 20 YEAR OLD DISABLED VETERAN. Anyone else see the irony in this, or am I just being delusional? So, what should we ban next , SHOE STRINGS, or 20 YEAR OLD DISABLED VETERANS with this kind of knowledge?

    2. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “And as far as Trump is concerned, he’s damn well close to perfect.”

      Aaahhhh, the perennial question: “If you could have everything you want politically, in perpetuity, but had to surrender your firearms, would you?” It’s an “either/or” question. Perhaps POTG would all forfeit every other political advantage (freedom) in order to preserve the Second Amendment. But what about the rest of the gun owners? What about the millions and millions of non-gun owners? Which would they choose? Can we preserve “gun rights” with that calculus?

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        With no firearms in private hands, how would you guarantee that “in perpetuity” part? I mean, seriously? 300 years from now everything would still be exactly the way I wish, politically? Anybody who would even entertain such a promise does not deserve ANY freedom.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “With no firearms in private hands, how would you guarantee that “in perpetuity” part?”

          The “in perpetuity” part was to eliminate the need for guns to somehow ensure perpetuity. Point being, the people of the nation, almost entirely, would not forego a great number of things in order to preserve “Shall Not Be Infringed”. My comment challenges every POTG to reflect on their own personal priorities – what would you trade for ending all gun regulations? If there is a single principle, benefit, program, reward, accommodation that you would put above “Shall Not Be Infringed”, then you (the universal “you”) are compromising on fidelity to the Constitution. Not making a value judgement here, but we should all know ourselves inside out.

          With an alleged 100,000,000+ gun owners in the country, the fact that we are concerned at all about “gun rights” should be a screamingly urgent shame to committed 2A supporters. The numbers tell the tale. The mere fact that since 1934, the same type of politicians remain in place, politicians who see a need to ignore the Constitution, means “gun rights” are of little priority to the vast majority of voters of any stripe.

      2. avatar Mack Bolan says:

        No calculus required, only simple math.

        Gun rights, property rights and the American civilization as a whole will disappear unless the demographic transformation of America is halted and reversed.

        1. avatar Joel says:

          If by “demographic” you mean ethnic diversity, I disagree.

          Many of the most American minded people I know are first gen Americans. Some are illegals. (excuse me, “undocumented immigrants”).

          It’s the ones who have lived here so many generations that they believe living the American dream is a right, not a goal to work towards, that are the problem in America.

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “No calculus required, only simple math.”

          Actually, uuuhh, like, uuuhhhmm, a swing and a miss. The proposition is what will you trade in life for getting everything else you ever wanted. 2A? Be honest with yourself, look deep. If you had to choose between 2A and your most cherished ideal(s), which would it be? What is it that is more important to you than an originalist, absolutist preservation of the Second Amendment?

        3. avatar TrueBornSonofLiberty says:

          Nothing. Because I care about future generations. And the ONLY way to preserve our freedoms and liberty is by massive civilian gun ownership.

    3. avatar TexTed says:

      >>And as far as Trump is concerned, he’s damn well close to perfect. I’m old enough to personally see the comparisons and he’s neck and neck with reagan, who until now has been the greatest president of our lifetime.<<

      You know, three months ago, I would have said the same thing.

      Only thing that's got me squeamish is this damn Kavanaugh business. Kavanaugh's no rapist, those allegations are BS. But… he's swampy as hell. Kavanaugh was NOT on the original list of judges that Trump promised to pick from. Kavanaugh is Bush, through and through. And he lied his ass off in the testimony — really, "boofing" is flatulence? Use it in a sentence… "Judge, have you boofed yet?" How does that make any sense at all?

      McConnell told him not to pick Kavanaugh, he would be the hardest judge on the list to confirm. And Kavanaugh wasn't even on the original list! Trump introduced a list of 21 judges, and said "I will only pick from this list". Kavanaugh wasn't on that list. He was added later. We've been told he's Kennedy's hand-picked successor. How'd he get added to the list? How did he get bumped to in front of everyone else on the list? The whole thing stinks. And now, because he fell for a perjury trap the Dems set for him, the whole thing just stinks. Any other judge would have flown through better than this one.

      I have no doubt Kavanaugh will rule in our favor on cases that matter to us. That's not the problem. The problem is that the process stinks, and somebody made some sort of deal to push Kavanaugh on us. And Trump went for it. And that's swampy, and that has me concerned.

      Something stinks here, and it's not boofing.

      1. avatar Sue Doe Intellectual says:

        So was Kavanaugh on the ‘original list’ (whatever that means) or not? You’re unclear.

        1. avatar TexTed says:

          I’ll work on that.

  7. avatar Jay in Florida says:

    Unfortunately bump stocks for now are the sacrificial lamb. If it were to go to upper court. They use the term “common use.” Are over 500,000 users enough? I for one don’t think so as an accessory. As it’s not a firearm. So kiss your bump stock g’bye. Me I’m keeping my inertia/crank. Which is now illegal here in Floriduh. Screwem…….

    1. avatar TheUnspoken says:

      To a degree the gun control crowd has already won on bump stocks, slidefire stopped making them, though they are still somewhat available if not banned by your state. For those selling or not owning them I guess the question is whether you will be able to get them in the future, but for those who own them, or other devices that might be considered a bump stock or similarly regulated, the question is will you go to jail if you continue to possess the bump stock that you legally purchased with the ATF’s blessing. Or do you have to destroy or have it in, or become an outlaw.

      I don’t think we should separate over a legally defined firearm being a complete receiver, pistol, rifle, shotgun, silencer, or other weapon, vs what is an accessory, 80% receiver, knife, ammo, bow or arrows, stick, part, etc… The second amendment protects arms, we don’t need legal nitpicking that lets some parts or ammo or a stick get banned but “well, we didn’t ban a firearm, so that is ok right?”

      We need protection for all arms and the stuff that goes with it, or we continue to have silly rules on this length is ok but not that but these parts are and not those, flash hider no but brake yes.

  8. avatar Bob Jones says:

    Bump stocks are idiotic and wasteful of ammo. If you can really afford to waste that much ammo, you can afford a full auto. Using a bump stock equipped firearm for home defense is about as stupid as it gets, you’ll likely kill a bunch of your neighbors.

    In any case, if the dems take both houses of Congress, the US will have Australian Style Control next year and we will be turning them all in and this will be a moot issue.

    1. avatar Texan Trapped in FL says:

      I agree bump stocks are idiotic and a waste of ammo… however, they’re still protected under the Constitution and allowing an unelected and unaccountable federal agency to legislate them our of existence is illegal. And you speak for yourself on that, I’m not turning in anything.

    2. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      Bob Jones,

      Bump stocks are idiotic and wasteful of ammo.

      Whether or not that is true is irrelevant. I could say the same thing about a muscle car or a speedboat simply replacing the word “ammo” with “gasoline”. That does not in any way, shape, or form diminish anyone’s right to own and operate a muscle car or speedboat.

      And we could say the same thing about a printer that allows someone to print 100,000 paperback books per second. Whether or not such an arrangement is “idiotic” and wastes paper is irrelevant. If someone can afford such a printer and that amount of paper and wants to have such a printer and print books, that is their RIGHT.

      1. avatar Guns Is Good says:

        But you can’t drive a muscle car or operate a speedboat without a license, right?

        1. avatar ACP_armed says:

          A license is not needed to operate any car, as long as you stay on private property a 12year old can legally drive a car. Boats I don’t know for certain.

    3. avatar jwtaylor says:

      “and we will be turning them all in”
      Who’s this “we” you’re talking about?

      1. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

        Just think of the number that were already lost in tragic boating accidents .

      2. avatar Guns Is Good says:

        He’s referring to you, trembling coward.

      3. avatar Bob Jones says:

        “WE” = Anyone with a Mortgage, Home Owners Insurance, Utility Connection, Automobile Insurance, et al will eventually be subjected to conditions and regulations that make firearms ownership untenable or too expensive. The government won’t come and get your guns, you will turn them in voluntarily or have a very reduced lifestyle.

        Insurance companies : Guns in the house or car…..sorry, you’re cancelled.
        Mortgage Company : No insurance…..sorry, we’re calling your note.
        Utility Company : Your property has guns which endanger our employees, sorry, you’re disconnected.
        Fire & Police Department : Your property with guns is too dangerous. Sorry, we aren’t coming to help.

        Wealthy folks like Al Gore, living off the grid on big estates need not worry, but everyone else should.

        1. avatar TrueBornSonofLiberty says:

          If you don’t think that before any of this leftist utopia is implemented that we won’t see a literal Civil/Restorative War that leads to the genocide of millions of Liberal Terrorists™️, you’re delusional.

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “If you don’t think that before any of this leftist utopia is implemented that we won’t see a literal Civil/Restorative War that leads to the genocide of millions of Liberal Terrorists™, you’re delusional.”

          Waco, Ruby Ridge, Bundy 1&2, attack on the WW1 Bonus Army, Kent State, and on it goes? Where was the revolution?

          If private companies refuse to accommodate you and your guns, who is the revolution going to revolt against? We already have financial institutions and some retail outlets refusing to either serve the gun community, or restricting the guns considered “acceptable” (so far). Where is the revolution? We already have State governments punishing insurers for extending coverage to “gun rights” groups. Where is the revolution? Heck, where is the political outrage against politicians who ignore all these events?

          Revolution? Not gonna happen. It will be the slow boil that cooks us all.

        3. avatar TrueBornSonofLiberty says:

          You’re not one of us. You expose yourself by using a term like “revolution”. Other than outlier extremists, there’s very few that have a substantial problem with our “government”. In fact, our Constitutional Republic is the most perfect form of governance ever created by man. The problem today are the Anti-American domestic enemies that our Founders warned us about. We are in a Cold War with people who want to fundamentally transform our country. But make no mistake, we will DEFEND ourselves against their “War of Leftist Aggression”. No one is talking about fighting the govt. We’re talking about fighting back against her enemies. And it won’t be pretty. It’s time for “winner take all, once and for all”. You can thank the Halfrican for lighting that match.

        4. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “You’re not one of us. You expose yourself by using a term like “revolution”. Other than outlier extremists, there’s very few that have a substantial problem with our “government”. In fact, our Constitutional Republic is the most perfect form of governance ever created by man. The problem today are the Anti-American domestic enemies that our Founders warned us about. We are in a Cold War with people who want to fundamentally transform our country. But make no mistake, we will DEFEND ourselves against their “War of Leftist Aggression”. No one is talking about fighting the govt. We’re talking about fighting back against her enemies. And it won’t be pretty. It’s time for “winner take all, once and for all”. You can thank the Halfrican for lighting that match.”

          Had to quote your entire response because I do not understand any of it. Nothing above addresses my statement that there will be no armed revolt (what other word would you apply?) against the government attempts to disarm the population. Can’t relate my comment to yours above, at all.

          BTW, government IS the enemy. Hence the warning about “eternal vigilance”. It’s why the founders tried to hamstring it with the Constitution.

        5. avatar TrueBornSonofLiberty says:

          There won’t be a “revolt” against the govt. why would there be? The fight will be against those on the left who are trying to destroy it. Are you simply being obtuse in not recognizing the distinction? Modern democrats are THE domestic enemies our Founders warned us about.

        6. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “The fight will be against those on the left who are trying to destroy it.” (the government)
          “Modern democrats are THE domestic enemies our Founders warned us about.”

          OK , let’s review:
          Government is controlled, entirely, by “THE domestic enemies our Founders warned us about”. The examples of government attacks on the public were all acts of government, not some ephemeral entity called “Modern democrats”. The terms “Swamp” and “Deep State” have real meaning. “The Government” is not a captive of “THE domestic enemies our Founders warned us about”, it is a tool, a willing accomplice.

          There is no daylight between “Modern democrats” and the government. Short if physical annihilation, “THE domestic enemies our Founders warned us about” will remain a threat to the nation. And there will be no counter-revolution against them.

          You may be confusing the system of government established in 1789 with “the government” as it actually exists.

        7. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “The government won’t come and get your guns, you will turn them in voluntarily or have a very reduced lifestyle.”

          I think you are very much mistaken. SWAT teams will go house-to-house, arresting or killing everyone with guns. We will all go out in a blaze of glory screaming “Shall Not Be Infringed”, or “From my cold dead hands”. It’s gotta be that way because it is what we are preparing for. What you suggest just doesn’t fit the narrative. Ergo: can’t happen.

    4. I think what YOU really mean is that there would be a 2nd American Civil War for OUR very Civil Liberties and Freedoms…It would be so bloody, and harsh…It would make the shelling of Herzegovina look like a fireworks display at a small park Carnival during a short summer day….I fear the future of the USA….Not so United anymore….Until its to late….

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “I think what YOU really mean is that there would be a 2nd American Civil War”

        Actually….the third.

        (Maybe the fourth, if you take into account the “Indian Wars”)

    5. avatar BehindEnemyLines says:

      Who is “we”? You don’t speak for me. I don’t comply with unenforceable unconstitutional laws. There’s literally no reason to do so, and obeying them makes them harder to overturn.

      Reality check. You’re a felon. We’re all felons. It’s impossible to be an adult in the U.S. and not be a felon, simply because of the sheer volume of often contradictory laws. You cannot be a “law abiding gun owner” so don’t even try. Use common sense and realize that most people who are caught violating gun control laws are either involved in other illegal activities or got caught in an ATF sting operation. Avoid making those mistakes and you can get away with practicing all your rights, regardless of what the legislature, courts, and POTUS say.

  9. avatar GunnyGene says:

    I don’t give a damn what Trump said.

    The final rule has not been published yet despite the self imposed deadline of 9/00/2018. And I doubt it will be until after the Nov. elections.

    What that means is that we don’t know if any of the language in the Proposed Regulation has been changed as a result of the 193,000 + comments that were submitted. Furthermore, it’s very likely that it will be challenged in court the minute it is released/becomes effective.

    [quote]Mississippi-based Second Amendment attorney Stephen Stamboulieh said, should the federal government move to ban the devices, “I’m going to sue them day one.”[/quote]

    Stamboulieh is just one of the many who will go to court over this.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      If that happens, get the links here on day one, I need to know where to send money.

      1. avatar GunnyGene says:

        No problem. Steve is a neighbor.

    2. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “What that means is that we don’t know if any of the language in the Proposed Regulation has been changed as a result of the 193,000 + comments that were submitted.”

      ATF (along with other regulating agencies) are required to accept public comment, but are under no obligation to yield to the majority (or even plurality). Public comment is not equivalent to public voting.

      1. avatar pwrserge says:

        No, no it’s not. But, the DOJ isn’t going to pick a court battle that the comments have made endlessly clear they will lose. The open comment period also gives you grounds for court challenges, challenges that I expect to tie down this regulation for YEARS. There is zero grounds for not granting a preliminary injunction in this case.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “But, the DOJ isn’t going to pick a court battle that the comments have made endlessly clear they will lose.”

          The public comments are not votes, neither are they court decisions. As a supporter of bump stock bans, I would argue that law and reason are the proper venues to analyze the legality of a regulatory act, not public sentiment. Public sentiment may influence policies, politics and legislation, but have no standing in a legal dispute.

          When it comes to government, do not ascribe stupidity and ignorance to that which is most easily (and correctly) associated with malice aforethought.

          There is another problem with the “193,000” comments, but we leave that for another day.

        2. avatar pwrserge says:

          The point is that the public comments are basically the basis for any future legal challenges. It’s not complicated. They basically get a preview of any case challenging the regulation in question.

        3. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “The point is that the public comments are basically the basis for any future legal challenges. ”

          Do you have an example where public comments regarding a government action was certified as being substantive in a legal proceeding regarding an action that did not require the agency to write regulations to comport with the majority public comment?

          Lacking a legal mandate to act according to the majority public comment, such data is meaningless before the bar.

        4. avatar pwrserge says:

          The gun collective made a good video on it. Go look it up. The federal rule making process specifies that any legal challenge to a regulatory action must address an issue first raised in the open comment period.

        5. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “must address an issue first raised in the open comment period.”

          Not all the same as making a ruling that incorporates, agrees with, or accommodates the issue. Only that the issue be addressed. A challenge, or opposition ruling/decision is “addressing” the issue raised during the comment period.

          Again, there is no legal mandate that an agency must issue a regulation that fosters, promotes, enshrines or includes any of the comments made.

          You can do better than this.

          “Public comment: ‘Shall not be infringed'”
          ATF response: “The Supreme Court has permitted certain restrictions on the ownership and possession of firearms. Comment noted, and dismissed”.

          That is “addressing” an issue raised during the public comment period.

        6. avatar pwrserge says:

          Again Sam, you clearly have no idea what you’re talking about.

        7. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Again Sam, you clearly have no idea what you’re talking about.”

          Actually, I know quite a bit about agency rule-making. Having been involved in same a number of times as “a fed”.

        8. avatar pwrserge says:

          The rule making is not the question. The question is the LEGAL CHALLENGES to rule making. If I sue the DOJ to overturn the rule, my suit has to be based on an issue raised in the open comment period. The DOJ response to the comment is legally irrelevant. They will have to argue that position in open court regardless.

        9. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “The DOJ response to the comment is legally irrelevant.”

          How is it on the one hand you claim that an agency ruling must be written in accordance with the preponderance of public commentary (“addressing an issue raised during the public comment period”) is some how a legal principle, yet the required “addressing” is irrelevant?

          Yes, one can sue on the basis of agency rule making, but such is limited to whether the “rules were followed” in writing the rule/regulation. There is no legal ground for a law suit based on “I don’t like the outcome because it is not what I wanted”. If you challenge the authority of the ATF to change a legislative definition of machine gun, you cannot claim that the ATF is in error because they did not agree with your “issue”. You could only claim that the ATF exceeded its authority, but you cannot claim that the ATF ruled adversely to your “issue”. Thus, we are back at the beginning: public comment does not automatically determine whether an agency rule is promulgated.

        10. avatar pwrserge says:

          Since you’re having a hard time with the English language… I’ll repeat myself with a bit of emphasis.

          “The federal rule making process specifies that any LEGAL CHALLENGE to a regulatory action must address an issue first raised in the open comment period.”

      2. avatar GunnyGene says:

        I do know that.

  10. avatar New Continental Army says:

    Whatever. I’m not going to be goaded into Trump bashing by liberals, RINOs, never trumpers, or TTAG. Trump was and still is the best choice since Reagan by far. His stance on guns is still light years beyond ANY of the aforementioned groups, each of which is more than willing to sell out far more then bumpstocks for some other piece of progressive agenda. If this is what gets you to turn on Trump and join the “blue wave” then your simply out of your mind. Because trust me, what lies behind that big blue door is nothing any of you want to be apart of.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “Whatever. I’m not going to be goaded into Trump bashing by liberals, RINOs, never trumpers, or TTAG. ”

      Publicly critiquing/criticizing a politician, or president, is not “goading” anyone to do anything. Unless, of course, POTG are merely American Taliban about “gun rights”.

      1. avatar New Continental Army says:

        Yeah well, I’ve been watching politics for 30 years. I’ve seen this dance time and time again. With hollyweird, with news orgs, websites, and the music industry.

        Best summed up by Robert Conquest’s second law of politics. “Any organization not explicitly and constitutionally right-wing will sooner or later become left-wing.”

        It’s starts off with this valid ornery reaction to Trump being stupid on this one miniscule issue, but then uses that validity to make a mountain out of a mole hill, and build into a crescendo of liberalism. Seem extreme? That’s fine. Keep watching, it’ll happen.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Seem extreme? That’s fine. Keep watching, it’ll happen.”

          If one is a true absolutist regarding 2A, if one will sacrifice home, hearth and job to support the Second Amendment, if one demands that all questions regarding ownership and possession of firearms, then criticism of Trump and Kavanaugh (both “squishes” regarding “gun rights”) is mandatory, appropriate, and directly on point…lelft, right or indifferent.

    2. avatar S.Crock says:

      “Trump was and still is the best choice since Reagan by far.”
      It’s funny that the President who is banning the full auto workaround is the best choice since the one who essentially banned full autos.

      1. avatar New Continental Army says:

        By all means vote for all the Hillarys and Obamas you want to then. Let me know how that works out for you. By the measure y’all are going by, W Bush was the best president for gun rights as the AWB expired under his term and state level pro gun gains were made the most back then. And I sure as hell know y’all aren’t going to approve of that label for Bush.

  11. avatar Chris T from KY says:

    Somewhere on the internet there is video of two rich white men shooting their own real machine guns. There names are Eric and Donald Trump Jr.

    I still support president Trump. History has spoken for the other political parties including the Libertarian Party who ran a gun grabber for vice president. And a presidential candidate who when given a replica hand gun threw it in a trash can.

    This is all about “The Art of the Deal”.

    1. Yeah, no kidding…Crazy as F*** Gary Johnson and Of course, ex-M Assachusetts gov.
      /RINO Globalist. / Weld…WTF was the Libertarian party thing !???

      1. avatar Chris T from KY says:

        Because the Libertarians believe they are as clean as the wind driven snow. They are just as guilty and part of the problem as anyone else. These utopians need to get over themselves.

  12. avatar Eric O says:

    We’re past that. The inch was US v Miller, the mile was NFA.

  13. avatar Moltar says:

    Welp. Life sucks and as Mick Jagger famously crooned, you can’t always get what you want. Do I agree or support this decision? No, but I do understand that this isn’t a perfect world. Yes politicians will occasionally do stupid shit. In the end, Trump is STILL THE BEST OPTION FOR THE 2ND AMENDMENT SUPPORTING VOTER. Go head get pissed scream at the sky but then pull your head out of your fourth point of contact and actually freaking think. Do you honestly believe throwing every Republican under the bus will help your cause? Do you think for a flipping minute that Hillary, Cortez, or Sanders would be a better defender of your 2nd amendment rights? Vote against the big red machine all you want but know that should you really choose this as your hill to die on you may as well give up all your guns now and save yourself the trouble of having to do so once that blue wave you helped create by staying at home or flipping parties crashes at your doorstep. Hate Trump all you want but to keep your guns (i.e. the thing that goes bang and turns your hard earned money into noise, carbon, and empty brass cases) he and the big red machine he is figure head of are the best options we have to preserve our right to own a gun.

  14. avatar former water walker says:

    Uh whatever…especially the bit about “what Kavanaugh would do”. I’m a helluva lot more concerned about ILLinois descending even further into hell come January…

  15. avatar CCityGuy says:

    Well, for whatever its worth, I went to whitehouse.gov and emailed the pres. about this being a cause for loss of votes, mine in particular and my families. That is, if there is even a better repub. candidate. I feel like I might as well be shouting into space.

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      CCityGuy,

      I have a friendly request: keep supporting the Republican party on the federal level until they install Kavanaugh and one more conservative justice on the U.S. Supreme Court. After that happens, go ahead and vote against any Republicans on the federal level who betray the Second Amendment.

      A solid 6-3 Conservative versus Liberal majority on the U.S. Supreme Court will be our proverbial ace-in-the-hole. Giving Democrats the White House and/or a majority in the House or Senate before achieving a significant majority on the U.S. Supreme Court would be extremely bad for our ability to exercise our unalienable right to keep and bear arms.

      1. avatar CCityGuy says:

        That is what I plan on doing, I still have no intention of voting Democrat. Life is to short for that shit.

      2. avatar Gordon in MO says:

        The problem with a 6-3 SCOTUS conservative majority is, under a left wing government it would soon become at least a 5-3 left wing majority, a la Scalia events.

        Remember, for the left the end justifies the means….including mysterious deaths.

  16. avatar ro says:

    trump is not pro-gun….only pro-trump

    1. avatar jwm says:

      I have yet to see a never trumper come up with a candidate better than trump.

      1. avatar TexTed says:

        Which is not, in fact, a refutation of his assertion.

      2. avatar S.Crock says:

        I’m not a never trumper. I voted for him. But trump is not pro gun. It is weird acknowledging that I voted for someone who is not pro gun. But I agree with him of 75% of things. As for a better candidate, it depends if you mean better on principles or more electable. Rand Paul and Ted Cruz are better based on what they stand for. Trump was the more electable choice because he is leftist kryptonite.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “But trump is not pro gun. It is weird acknowledging that I voted for someone who is not pro gun. But I agree with him of 75% of things.”

          Bingo ! And thank you.

          Here is someone who is honest about the priority of the Second Amendment in his voting choices. Agreement with 75% of non-gun issues was sufficient to justify voting for a president who is not a 2A absolutist. Now we need to let this settle in to understand why we remain on the defensive. Now we need a realistic review of our slogans and braggadocio.

        2. avatar jwm says:

          Electable is what I’m getting at, S. Cruz and Paul could not defeat Trump in the primaries. They would have stood no chance against hillary and we’d be turning in our semi autos by now.

  17. avatar el Possum Guapo Standartenfuher " they think we're making pizza's Oberst von Burn says:

    Paddock, the catalyst of the ban on semi automatics. Trump certainly is on his way to MAGA. ,,what a fcking joke

  18. avatar CalGunsMD says:

    Wouldn’t it be funny if Justice Kavannaugh was the deciding vote that overturns this?
    Back to reality…..

  19. avatar jwm says:

    Funny how this is working out. I live in CA. We never had bump stocks. We are stuck with mag limits. Now it looks like the rest of the nation is set to follow our lead. Again.

    I keep telling folks that gun rights and individual rights are under threat until CA is beat down. ‘just moving’ to another state will just make it easier for the statist to win.

    This is also why I dumped the nra. They gave up on CA which is suicide for gun rights in the long term.

    1. avatar pwrserge says:

      I would argue that it’s less suicide than an interesting strategy. I would argue that securing a staunchly conservative SCotUS is far more relevant than fighting every battle state by state. Thus far, that strategy seems to have paid off. If we replace RBG with an originalist, it’s all over but the crying. I predict that most of CA’s gun laws would be struck down over the following years. Exchanging short term tactical losses for decisive strategic victories is not a pleasant approach, but it has worked over and over.

      1. avatar Stateisevil says:

        Since SCOTUS has not helped us in the past ( Heller being academic in practice), why would they help us now? Even if they did the rulings are so narrow that it would take forever to dissect the web of regulation in California.

        1. avatar pwrserge says:

          Because we haven’t had a solid conservative SC majority since before FDR.

        2. avatar strych9 says:

          Makeup of the court matters enormously. Not just in how they decide things but what cases they choose to take.

      2. avatar jwm says:

        That is actually my hope for the near future. I was not a fan of Trump but I held my nose and voted for him. And will do so again.

        The alternative was just to damn bad to even think of.

      3. avatar TexTed says:

        >>I would argue that securing a staunchly conservative SCotUS is far more relevant than fighting every battle state by state<<

        Which is exactly the NRA's strategy, and why they got behind Trump, and why they're pushing so hard for Kavanaugh. It is the only way forward.

        Of course, that won't stop half the TTAGers from decrying the NRA and complaining about them. But the NRA is playing the long game here, and they're close to winning.

  20. This whole Nation has become a corrupt sham…I’m voting for an iron core asteroid to reset the world 🌎….

    1. avatar Sue Doe Intellectual says:

      Proving yet again the staggering depth of your stupidity.

  21. avatar pwrserge says:

    Here’s the thing that all of the panic mongers are missing.

    The big picture.

    This regulation is not on the books yet. It’s constitutionality is highly dubious to say the least. To uphold it, the court would have to grant an unelected regulatory agency the power to redefine the english language as used in statute. That’s a hell of a stretch. This is completely separate from any additional 2nd amendment arguments.

    The big picture is the SCotUS. Right now, we’re inches away from having a solid 5-4 originalist majority on the SCotUS. The senate mid-terms are going to be decisive and thanks the the recent behavior of the DNC, I expect multiple “blue” seats to flip. Quite frankly, it’s possible that the senate will have a 60-40 conservative majority in January. That’s the death knell for the DNC’s social engineering by litigation strategy. Why? Because there’s no way in hell that RGB is going to last another 6 years, hell, I’d give it fair odds that she will not last to 2020. If that happens we go from a 5-4 conservative majority on the court to a 6-3 and by 2024 possibly a 7-2.

    A 7-2 originalist majority on the SCotUS is a coup de main to the gun control crowd. I expect several cases to be granted cert over the next few years. We should see a constitutional right to carry outside the home. We might have “assault weapons” bans taken completely off of the table. Heck, we might even see a preemption of state NFA bans and an opening of the MG registry. (The latter would take the 6-3 or 7-2 majority, but it’s doable.)

    In short, quit worrying about minor stuff that may or may not happen and stay the course. We have kept these harpies and their soyboy apologists in check, fir the most part, since the late 90s. We are only inches away from from a significant strategic victory and overall long-term victory is easily within our grasp. Finish the god damn drill.

    1. avatar TrueBornSonofLiberty says:

      Exactly. I’ve been saying this since the election. This should be plastered all over the front page here and on the NRA website. Let’s not forget, Breyer is 80 years old, too. Wouldn’t mind having RBG dropping dead of a heart attack and Breyer, in an effort catch her, stroking out. Perhaps 15 minutes after Kavanaugh is confirmed. Now wouldn’t that be lovely.

      1. avatar pwrserge says:

        I’m just hoping the RBG has an unfortunate encounter with a bucket of water. The cleanup would be messy, but it would confirm some of my theories about that commie witch.

    2. avatar GunnyGene says:

      I hope you’re right. I really do. I just hope I’m still alive to see it happen. I’m 74 now, so they better be quick about it. 🙂

      1. avatar TrueBornSonofLiberty says:

        If we can lure her to California, I hear assisted suicide is legal there. 😂😂😂

      2. avatar pwrserge says:

        I would also point out that I also called PA, WI, and MI before the National Convention. (Well, I said any 2 out of the 3 on that list, I wasn’t optimistic enough to predict what Trump actually did.)

    3. avatar bob says:

      Yes. The goal should be to keep pushing. Not to turn out backs on Trump now for what we “think” he might be doing.
      This is a very passionate group on here but at the same time, nobody is good enough, you have to be flawless or you’re an enemy, This is a very poor tactic.

    4. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “The big picture.”

      The big picture is that a bump stock ban would be the law until overturned by SC. However long that takes.

      1. avatar pwrserge says:

        Actually, it would be under a preliminary injunction until overturned by the SCotUS, however long that takes. The standard for granting such an injunction is black letter precedent.

        “A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.”

        Given how much judge shopping the various plaintiffs will get to do, finding a judge to grant such an injunction is a virtual certainty.

        Quit it with the fear mongering already. We have bigger fish to fry than your endless windmill jousting.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Actually, it would be under a preliminary injunction…”

          On what basis do we rely on this imaging?

        2. avatar pwrserge says:

          On the basis that thousands of plaintiffs would get to go judge shopping. Do you really believe that there is nobody on the federal bench that would extend such an injunction? Really? They found THREE judges to go against black letter law to try and block Trump’s “muslim ban”.

          Have you ever dealt with lawyers?

        3. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “They found THREE judges to go against black letter law to try and block Trump’s “muslim ban”.”

          Why has there been no injunction filed against infringements established in Californication, New Jerky and New Jork? Why has the NRA not used the injunction process to stop gun regulations? Why did no one fine a pro-gun judge willing to enjoin the ’64 and ’68 gun control acts? Why the decades of a lack of any judge to prevent anti-gun regulations?

          Judge shopping for “gun rights”, good luck with that.

          Yeah, I know lawyers. Especially government lawyers and federal judges. Stop watching the world through your righteous lens, and realize the judicial landscape is what it is, not what righteousness and justice require. The best you can expect is a Kavanaugh on the SC will slow the erosion of “gun rights”, not the repeal of the erosion. Putting a stop to the erosion will be a shining moment in our history.

        4. avatar pwrserge says:

          You mean like the injunction against CA’s magazine grab? Oh, wait… they found a judge in the 9th circus to issue just such an injunction. The issue is that the cases you mention weren’t argued in gun friendly circuits. Being a federal ruling it will be argued in every circuit at some point.

          Again, you’re talking out of your ass.

        5. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Again, you’re talking out of your ass.”

          I knew that if I let you go long enough, you would end up where you always do – childish epithets.

          Mission Accomplished.

          Nighty Night

  22. avatar bob says:

    Holy dang.

    Trump doesn’t make laws. Wake up fellas.

    How many bikers do you see wearing helmets? Why can I get a ticket for not wearing a seatbelt INSIDE A STEEL CAGE, but a biker is not required to wear a helmet?

    Because when the talk came down to making it a federal law that helmets would be required, bikers stood together and said NO!

    Some misinformation floating around here.
    Trump is not stupid.
    Trump is not a firearms dummy.

    What he does do is find ways to motivate.

    Think about this, he has to do things that “appear” to favor both sides or all Americans.

    So, he said the bump stock ban is almost a thing, this appeases the left and those crying “do something”.
    At the same time, this fires up Joe Conservative and he gets on the horn and starts speaking his mind to his congressmen.

    Thus leveraging the balance, so this way “the Government” tried to “do something” and the people responded. He can then tell both parties “the people have made a choice!”

    So, stand up, protest, write, call, march. Do what the left is doing, complain, speak!

    Saying Trump is a turncoat and denouncing him on a blog is not helping.

    Believe me, if ANYTHING were to happen and had to be sacrificed, let it be bump stocks. Could of been braces or semi autos all together.
    Yes I believe that ANYTHING is too much, but something HAS to be, let it be that.
    It isn’t written in stone, and laws can be turned around, but only by majority vote, be the majority!

  23. avatar TrueBornSonofLiberty says:

    As a mental exercise, in today’s “social justice” climate, imagine what our elected politicians would come up with regarding a US Constitution, if they were tasked with doing so tomorrow.

  24. avatar Jamie in North Dakota says:

    Big whoop. Bumpstocks have absolutely nothing to do with our right to keep and bear arms or the function of any firearm, zero infringement. How about you people with your underwear jacked up in your crack over this worry about things that actually infringe on our 2A rights like gun bans, ammo bans, ERPO without due process or mandatory BGC.

    1. avatar TrueBornSonofLiberty says:

      You’re either entirely obtuse or breathtakingly ignorant. You do realize that this is ENTIRELY about “rate increasing” accessories. Which, of course could mean anything from bump stocks, binary triggers, and most dangerous of all……gun oil. Do some research, clown.

      1. avatar pwrserge says:

        Not on the federal level it’s not. The regulation in question tries to change the definition of machine gun from…

        Any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot without manual reloading, by a single FUNCTION of the trigger.

        to

        Any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot without manual reloading, by a single PULL of the trigger.

        Paraphrasing, but basically that’s all it boils down to.

        Legal challenge is simple.
        The statute clearly says function, not pull. All pulls are functions but not all functions are pulls. In any case each shot from a bump-stock or binary trigger requires a distinct action. Either
        1. Pushing the hand guard of the firearm forward to re-engage the trigger.
        or
        2. Release the trigger for a second shot.

        Nothing in the proposed federal regulation would create the scenario you describe.

  25. avatar Fudds Mckenzie says:

    Lot of big talk but will any of you change your voting behavior?

    1. avatar jwm says:

      No. I’m going to keep voting.

  26. avatar Mlee says:

    Bumpstocks were a sacrifice. He’s hoping for a long term fix with court appointments. Don’t get your collective panties in a knot youngsters.

    1. avatar Mad Max says:

      It seems to me the regulation is designed to fail when subjected to appropriate judicial scrutiny (unless the Feds are planning on a buy back – they do frequently have deep pockets with our money).

      1. avatar pwrserge says:

        This regulation seems to be deliberately written to provide as many avenues for legal challenge as possible. It’s almost like that’s the plan… Naw… couldn’t be… It’s not like the left has been using “sue and settle” tactics to get around statutes they don’t like for decades… Maybe somebody on our side was paying attention for once…

  27. avatar luigi says:

    meet the new boss

    (in some ways) same as the old boss(es)

  28. avatar TX223 says:

    Can’t legally be done. They will lose in the courts.

  29. avatar John Galt says:

    It’s giving five miles.

    AND WHERE IS MY NATIONAL RECIPROCITY?

    What the F*** are republicans doing for gun owners?

    1. avatar Mad Max says:

      Maybe after this Kavanaugh fiasco, if the Republicans can hold the house and gain seats in the Senate and are so discusted with the Democrats that maybe they actually pass something like national reciprocity (or, if mad enough, national Constitutional carry).

  30. avatar Mikial says:

    I completely disagree with all the hype and criminalizing bump stocks because it really is just giving the antis another victory. But having said that, bump stocks were a bad idea to begin with. What did they think was eventually going to happen when you create a product that effectively simulates fully automatic fire? It was a bad idea that has hurt the gun community in the long run. I’m sure there are plenty of people on this forum who will flame me for my opinion here, but all you have to do is look at the consequences top see the reality of the situation.

  31. avatar Alan says:

    Re this Bump Stock fiasco, who or what is it that seemingly winds the president up?

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