Even The Obama Administration Knew That Banning Bump Fire Stocks Was Illegal

Trump bump stock ban

Bigstock

As we’ve written a number of times, the Trump administration appears to to be about to announce a virtual ban on bump fire stocks. If the rule they’ve published is adopted, the stocks will be considered the equivalent of machine guns and fall under NFA regulation, (months-long permission requests and a $200 tax stamp). And anyone who owns one will have to turn theirs in or destroy it.

The fact that bump fire stocks are perfectly legal under current law — that’s why the ATF approved them in the first place — doesn’t seem to matter much to the commander-in-chief. He apparently sees this as an easy PR move that won’t affect many gun owners while being a sop to the #gunsense crowd (as if that will change their minds about him).

We’ve also pointed out that re-regulating a perfectly legal gun accessory by regulatory fiat for political reasons is a supremely dangerous idea. One that is almost sure to come back and bite gun owners down the road when a less gun-friendly administration is in power.

As reason.com points out even some of our most rabid gun-grabbers knew they couldn’t legally ban bump stocks:

The Obama administration affirmed the legality of bump stocks on three different occasions: once in 2010, again in 2012, and once more in 2013.

As Sen. Diane Feinstein (D–Calif.) said in a February statement: The ATF “currently lacks authority under the law to ban bump stocks.”

In addition to being legally questionable, a bump stock ban probably wouldn’t do very much. No mass shooters before or after Las Vegas have used bump stocks to carry out their massacres. Even in Las Vegas, the death toll wasn’t necessarily higher because the shooter used one.

When your application of gun laws is less legally defensible than the Obama administration’s, you know you’re doing it wrong. Or you certainly should.

Most gun enthusiasts have little need for bump stocks. So they’re a relatively easy target for those who want more gun control, and a relatively easy sacrifice for gun rights advocates. Hence the reportedly pending ban. As (Christian) Britschgi argued in October 2017: “Banning bump stocks is something that can be done without pissing too many people off, placating the crowd that after every shooting in America screams for somebody to do something.”

That’s no doubt the Trump administration’s calculation here. But legality aside, a bump stock ban would also be an extraordinarily bad political move. The Civilian Disarmament Industrial Complex, by its very nature, can never be satisfied or placated. Trump will get precisely zero credit beyond perhaps a single news cycle for a ban. The gun-grabbing crowd and their media cheering section will then pick up right where they left off on their long march toward their ultimate goal of disarming all Americans.

On the other side of the ledger, a bump stock ban will be a very effective way of angering some of the President’s hardest-core supporters…gun owners and Second Amendment advocates.

Those who own bump fire stocks won’t appreciate being given the choice of destroying their property, turning it in (with no compensation), or becoming felons. And knowledgeable gun owners will understand that while bump stocks may be mostly “range toys,” this won’t end here. Any capitulation on the part of someone the NRA worked so hard to put in office will only diminish his support among a significant constituency he’ll need in 2020.

In short, re-regulating bump fire stocks would be a huge political blunder and — without a successful court challenge — would put Americans’ gun rights at greater risk in the future.

comments

  1. avatar Sean says:

    Wow, trusting a fundamentally untrustworthy person was a mistake. Shocker.

    “bUt HiLaRy WaS bAd ToO.” Just preempting that nonsense before it shows up.

    1. avatar S.Crock says:

      Hey she would have tried to ban more than just bump stocks. So be glad we will instead have to deal with the slow and steady erosion of our rights which will keep us complacent.
      /sarc

      1. avatar JAlan says:

        The difference is that there would have been opposition and not excuse-making for her from conservatives. I said this after the first year of no positive action on gun rights and we still had people on this very site saying that we had to give him time to heal the economy and so on. A load of nonsense. The economy goes in cycles, but rights never come back.

    2. avatar Anonymous says:

      It could be a game that Trump’s playing. We’ll see. If he wanted gun control, why wouldn’t he just tell the house to make some for him and tell them he would sign it.

      Either way it doesn’t look good.

      1. avatar MarkPA says:

        I agree. I’m no fan of any erosion of gun rights. Nevertheless, we always need to play the ball where it lies.

        Trump introduce the ATF rule-making at a time when Congress was ready to pass a bill to ban not only bump-stocks but also legislate against just about anything that might alter the rate-of-fire from its factory capability. Which proposition is the greater threat?

        Similar problem with the Brady Bill. Without a NICS “instant” background check we would have had a meaningless waiting period. Which proposition was the greater threat? Arguably, we would have been better off waiting a week and making 2 trips to the FFL. One to buy the gun; another to pick it up. Every time. And, all for the purpose of giving the local constabulary a bunch of forms to put in the circular file.

        Do we think we would have been better off had the NRA not pushed for NICS to replace the waiting period? Maybe we would all have been much happier waiting 7 days for every FFL purchase.

        Do we think we would have been better off had NRA not pushed for an ATF regulation on bump-stocks? Maybe we would all have been much happier with whatever Congress might have done to regulate triggers and other tinkering with the firing mechanisms of guns – plus a law making bump-stocks “machine guns”.

        It’s really hard to tell. What would have happened if what DID happen DIDN’T. What is clear is that we are conceited if we imagine that we KNOW for sure what WOULD have happened; and, that it would have been much better than what did happen.

        1. avatar Clay says:

          So Mark, at what point do “you” personally say enough?

          I say NOW

        2. avatar Craig in IA says:

          And, so, Clay- exactly what, other than go off on NRA on the internet, are you going to do about it now that “you’ve said enough”?

      2. avatar frank speak.... says:

        how about an amnesty for current owners?….

      3. avatar nightstryke says:

        You’re one of the few who’s willing to lie to themselves so they can sleep at night and feel safe in their home. Fact is we keep losing Gun Rights left and right, when are we going to get something back?
        When are we going to see positive pro gun legislation?
        When do we take a hard line and draw a line in the sand and say “NO MORE LEGISLATION! GIVE US OUR GUN RIGHTS BACK?”

        I’d say it’s long past due that some of you who think Trump is playing 15 dimensional chess as well as those of you who just sit around waiting to see what happens because you’ve got what you want get off your asses and start helping push back. Otherwise we’re going to let them legislate and take everything you already have away at the sign of a pen. Only then will you have yourself and your own inaction to blame.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “When do we take a hard line and draw a line in the sand and say “NO MORE LEGISLATION! GIVE US OUR GUN RIGHTS BACK?” ”

          Wow. Never thought of that. How do you see that happening? Are our representatives ignorant of our stance on “gun rights”, that they think we are only about 10,000 kooks?

          Our “message” isn’t selling, neither to the Unicorns in the middle who haven’t made up their minds, not to those we elect to office. Fact is, those who are hard over on 2A are in a distinct minority, nationwide. We may see a victory here and there, but 2A supporters (even single issue 2A supporters) are not wining the popular battle. I chalk it up to moral decay of the electorate; people who are only concerned about immediate comfort, not founding principles.

          If evil were so easy to defeat, we wouldn’t even be having these conversations. And gun blogs would be about equipment, not politics.

    3. avatar Geoff "Mess with the bull, get the horns" PR says:

      “bUt HiLaRy WaS bAd ToO.”

      You would have been fine with 2 more Kagan-Sotamayor clones on high court?

      Thanks a lot, asshole…

      1. avatar DDay says:

        ^ This.

        And don’t forget the dozens of circuit court of appeals judges. If hillary were POTUS, the courts at all levels would be very liberal for decades

    4. avatar Bierce Ambrose says:

      A more easily steered, fundamentally untrustworthy person with one set of goals, can be a less bad choice than a more committed, fundamentally untrustworthy person, with a different set of goals.

      As in the case of HRC n Trump.

      Do try to keep up.

    5. avatar Bierce Ambrose says:

      Or: A mercurial hack who’s impulses kind of align with what you want is a less bad choice than a ruthless ideologue who’s agenda and impulses are diametrically oppose to what you want.

    6. avatar Bierce Ambrose says:

      He has all the right enemies, and will do the right thing sometimes just to spite them?

      She has all the wrong friends, and will do whatever it takes to appease them?

      Seems like a clear choice.

    7. avatar Sam says:

      If I’d had to vote for either one or the other, I’d rather vote for the idiot than the traitor. Both are untrustworthy. Fortunately, there are other options, even if there was no chance of a win.

    8. avatar New Continental Army says:

      Still not sad I voted for him in 2016. And I’m still voting for him in 2020. Because while this is quite stupid of him, what the democrats would do is beyond insane. And it’s not just guns. Any democrat president would be absolutely wrecking the country right now on all kinds of fronts. This stupid F up will not convince me to join the leftist and media in the chorus of Trump Derangement Syndrome. After all, the important battle is in the SCOTUS, where we are very well off now.

    9. avatar Scoutino says:

      You have one thing right -“Hillary was bad too!” is nonsense. Hillary wasn’t just “bad too”. She was and still is incomparably worse. Let’s not forget her promise of gun control push and her proclamation that Heller decision was a mistake.

      Yes, Trump is disappointment for us. He did not deliver on his promises. But do you think we would be better off if Hillary did deliver on hers?

  2. avatar Esoteric Inanity says:

    God bless the NRA!!! Oh righteous and honorable Second Amendment saviors!!!

    Also: Inb4 comments decrying the deadliness of bump stocks and how they are practically machine guns and delta force just doesn’t know of their efficacy.

    1. avatar B320 says:

      If/when a regulation gets published or an executive order gets signed making bump stocks prohibited items… the time to hold the NRA’s feet to the fire will be at hand.

      Their facade will have been burned away and their desire to placate the disarmament complex and fill their own pockets will be more clearly seen by NRA members who have defended their actions as Trump-esque 4D chess.

      1. avatar barnbwt says:

        Marion Hammer said just yesterday that bump stocks were MGs, and that the NRA does not and has never supported civilian MG ownership, and that the NRA wholeheartedly endorses Trump’s ban.

        There is no facade, just delusion.

        1. avatar frank speak says:

          certainly seemed that way in ’86….think the NRA is just fine with the current arrangement…

    2. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Well, I know that such a ban would certainly be a pain to me, if I were planning to murder a few hundred people. I mean, I wouldn’t be able to just mow them down, because the ATF wrote a rule, I’d have to shoot them one at a time. Luckily, the ATF has not written a rule forbidding shooting a few hundred people dead.

      This level of stupidity just can NOT be real, it has to be a joke.

    3. avatar TexTed says:

      Those who vilify the NRA are probably going to get their wish, the organization is looking to be in bad shape. Membership revenues are down, down, down. But while you’re dancing on their grave and celebrating their death, you might just want to look around you and see who else you’re dancing with: Hogg, Hillary, Bloomberg, Shannon Watts etc.

      1. avatar barnbwt says:

        The NRA dances with Hogg when it comes the banning bump stocks.

        Good riddance to useless Fudds. A new org will come up based around promulgating voting lists & publishing the betrayals of politicians just like the NRA did under Knox to become so feared. The NRA has been lax in these areas for decades, and everything they built has eroded.

      2. avatar Nanashi says:

        An actual gun rights organization will fill the power vacuum. At worst we’re out a group that has constantly attacked gun rights.

        It’s clear that, for all their supposed hatred of it, Democrats REALLY pull their blows against the NRA. Atypically for Democrats, there’s extremely few attacks on the leadership instead of a vague “NRA” organization. If the Democrats started asking “The NRA says full-auto isn’t protected by the Second Amendment, why is semi-auto?” the NRA would be dead within a month. They (meaning the leadership who are smart but wicked, not the dumb as bricks rank and file) have to know the NRA has no possible response to this and it would severely damage the NRA, yet they choose not to do it. The only possible explanations are power vacuum or the NRA really is on their side.

      3. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “Those who vilify the NRA are probably going to get their wish, the organization is looking to be in bad shape. Membership revenues are down, down, down.”

        Are you implying that the NRA should have a monopoly on protecting “gun rights”? Do declining revenues indicate removal of funding, or purchasing an alternative organization? What is the overall funding level for 2A lobby/legal organizations; up, down or static? If the NRA is suffering from competition, it is the responsibility of the NRA to prove the value of their efforts. It is not the responsibility of gun owners to only support the NRA because…NRA is the biggest dog right now.

      4. avatar Craig in IA says:

        Crazy… I think I’ve read the obit on the NRA 20 times since the early 1980s. It was “really dead” when Wayne used the “jack-booted thugs” analogy and the Bush who assumed room temp last night had a hissy-fit and dropped his membership. How’d that work for them? Many, many other times as well- Parlkland and the shedding of some car rental programs has been the latest, and yet- here we are with over 5 million members. Dick’s Sporting Goods, on the other hand? In the meantime, all the Brown-, Knox- and Prattards salivate at their opportunity to become the grownups and come up from the basement. Isn’t going to happen, kids.

        Those who understand how things happen in legislative process might actually do something beyond bitch and moan on the internet and call the White House, call Chuck Grassley (Biden, too) and especially your own rep and senator. Write a guest editorial, go on local TV as a counter to any editorial message they may put forth. Organize the members of your shooting club, lots of opportunity. It’ll take work but it’d be more effective than whining here.

        And here’s another chore for some brilliant strategist out there: We all like bump stocks WHY??? Not having one, I’m assuming it’s because it makes your little semi auto that everyone can own shoot like a full auto.

        Sure- you can get all uppitty and claim it’s because it’s a Second Amendment right, or that because banning them is illegal as is the postulation of this article (and if so- NFBD, it’ll be overturned…) or a number of other reasons, but if the stocks are worth the defense, as is the Second Amendment in general someone is going to have to come up with a reasonable (as in- to the general public) explanation as to why and sell it to enough of the general public that there will be some real outcry if a ban is enacted.

        While I have been an activist in Second Amendment circles since the early 1970s locally, at state and national levels, the one truth is that it could be taken away through the process in Article 5. God-given right or not- it is provided for in the very document in which it is enshrined. The onset of concealed carry on demand and the absolute sheer number of magazine-outfitted semiautomatic firearms has taken a huge bite out of those who used to be reliable anti-gun votes nationwide. So- someone come up with a use for the stocks you can sell to your neighbor, or even your wife. Good luck.

    4. avatar Moltar says:

      Why would Delta Force need bump stocks when they have Chuck Freaking Norris and his son uhhh…. Chuck Freaking Norris jr. (NOTE: I know that’s not the kid’s real name but for the life of me I cannot remember his proper name.)

      1. avatar Marc says:

        Who cares for some washed-out stone-faced actor?

  3. avatar Sam I Am says:

    President Trump is not a conservative, a constitutionalist, politician or 2A supporter. He is a pragmatist. In the bump fire stock debacle, Trump likely sees a few votes gained at the loss of none, or fewer than the number gained. Although Trump is totally dependent on his base, he will sacrifice what he deems peripheral for what he deems more important. All the while confident his base cannot support any other presidential candidate (Trump already filed his papers for a re-election campaign).

    It has been said that the entirety of the unprecedented political war against the president is two-fold: remove him from office, or make re-election impossible; find something that will drive a wedge between Trump and his supporters. While the statists have yet to accomplish either goal, Trump may have succeeded in creating that wedge himself.

    Trump supporters shrugged off Trump’s pronouncement of “take guns now, due process later), but the ruination of peoples property (cost not pertinent) by executive action that re-writes legislation may not be treated so graciously.

    Not waiting for something “really big”. Changing party affiliation to “disinterested”, or barring that, the Bull Moose Party.

    1. avatar UsedToBePun says:

      And now someone will reply that, “well he’s playing 4D chess and he actually knows that the ban is unconstitutional.”

      And so they’ll be perfectly fine with the thinking that somebody will need to be arrested for the crime of owning a contraband piece of plastic, probably sent to prison, lose their 2nd amendment “rights” and have to pay ridiculous sums of money to argue that the ban is unconstitutional, appeal and hope that the Supreme Court takes up the case and then if they do, rule the ban as such.

      At which point, X number of years and X number of new “felons” whose lives are now ruined, everyone can cheer and say, “See, Trump knew what he was doing all along.”

      Sheeple thinking knows no bounds…

      1. avatar TheUnspoken says:

        When the president keeps talking about building a wall, I think “he wants to build a wall” not he is just trying bait a group of people who want one. When he keeps bringing up banning bump stocks, I assume he wants to ban bump stocks. When he wanted border controls on admitting people from certain countries, mostly warzones, I assume he wanted that too, as he kept at it, trying to implement it.

        I cannot rationalize or understand why banning bump stocks is such a priority or even a talking point for a republican administration, I can’t understand why Negron and Galvano and Rick Scott were for this in Florida either, maybe the Republicans think they can blame Obama and Democrats as being irresponsible machine gun mongers but in doing so they switch places, making the Democrats into upholders of the law and gun rights in this case and become gun controllers themselves. As usual… Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

        I would prefer the Republicans, if they had spines, stand for gun rights. Bring gun reform laws to votes even if they lose, so we know where they stand, and where Democrats stand. When Democrats argue their positions, argue back, or say no, that isn’t the law, we won’t ban bump stocks, we won’t ban mags.

        The Democrats will be continuing to submit anti gun bills and try to bring them to vote even if nothing more to show their base what they stand for, even if it can’t pass, they will call for gun control even if nothing makes it through. The Republicans especially in the Senate are not showing support though, at best we have a few state department reg changes, hopes for Supreme Court reforms, some CMP Phillapine and Turkey M1 returns, CMP 1911s… Is this any better than we would have gotten with Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio in the oval office?

        1. avatar TexTed says:

          “I can’t understand why Negron and Galvano and Rick Scott were for this in Florida either”

          The answer is extremely simpmle, and profoundly distressing. Mike Fernandez, a south Florida billionaire and major donor to Republicans in Florida, said “if you don’t support gun control, no more money for you.” And that was it. The Florida R’s flipped immediately.
          https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/375563-south-florida-billionaire-i-wont-give-any-money-to-politicians

          It is distressing to see how so few people can so easily impose their will on us all.

          Bloomberg vowed to kill the NRA, spends $50 million a year to do it, and now even TTAG readers are joining in on it. The NRA’s down, perhaps for the count, and “people of the gun” are joining in and kicking it while it’s down. Bloomberg and Fernandez, just those two guys, have stopped all our progress and turned the course of gun rights back. Meanwhile, NRA membership dues revenue is down 25%, to $98 million. And the sad thing is, one guy — ONE DONOR — donated $19 million of that. Leaving the entire country, 300 million people, donating 30 cents a year to the ONE gun organization which, while far from perfect, has at least made all the right enemies.

        2. avatar UsedToBePun says:

          Your fatal error is presuming there is a *real* difference between Republican and Democrat. In truth there is not. They are two sides of the same coin and that coin is Big Government.

          It is clear cognitive dissonance to watch election after election, administration after administration, and assume that the results will be different based on who is in office or which party holds the majority.

    2. avatar Esoteric Inanity says:

      An astute and cogent analysis.

      Esoteric Inanity however, would argue that Trump is mostly ignorant and disinterested with 2A Ideology and conflates it with being pro police and pro military. This isn’t to say that he is stupid, no the man is closer to being crazy than stupid. Crazy like a fox that is to say. He knows to surround himself with knowledgeable people that are revered in areas he isn’t proficient in.

      Who then one might ask is advising Trump on 2A issues?

      1. avatar TexTed says:

        Presumably Don Jr, if he could keep his little Johnson in his pants instead of going on adulterous sprees. What a disappointment that guy has been. During the campaign he was awesome. Hell, even Hillary, yes THAT HILLARY, complimented Trump’s kids. Remember during the debate when they were challenged to say ONE nice thing about the other candidate, and Hillary said “his kids.”

        Don Jr was supposed to be a big gun rights supporter. Heck, we even got John Boch on the President’s 2A commission. The House passed national reciprocity. The HPA was included in a bill that was damn near certain to pass. Things were looking up… for a while.

    3. avatar frank speak says:

      “shrugged off”?….hardly!…that comment has already done more damage for gun rights than a bump stock ban would ever do..

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “shrugged off”?

        Yes.

        No large scale defections (or stay at home) to other parties visible in 2018 elections.
        No reported anti-Trump rallies among Republicrats/conservatives/2A lobby groups.
        No rampant denouncements among conservative radio/media.

        So, yeah. The comment was shrugged off by the vast, visible, majority of Trump supporters. There was no upheaval of outraged former Trump supporters. Blogs are not the electorate. Nor are bloggers.

  4. avatar Parnell says:

    So, if banning bump stocks is illegal, why do the courts deem banning magazines of more than 10 rounds legal?

    1. avatar Antique Rifles says:

      In the case of mag capacity bans/restrictions, new laws were made.

      In the case of bumpstocks, existing laws on the books are being creatively “reinterpreted” to cover things which they don’t regulate.

      One is a legal, if unconstitutional, process… one is tyrannical ruling by fiat.

      1. avatar Scoutino says:

        If the Constitution is supreme law, how can something unconstitutional be legal?

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          The courts declare what is/is not constitutional, or a constitutionally permitted re-interpretation whenever convenient. The SC could even declare a constitutional amendment to be “unconstitutional” (COS adherents be warned).

          “When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean- neither more nor less.”

        2. avatar SoBe says:

          NFA anyone. NFA was challenged in SCOTUS, but it was argued unilaterally in United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), since “In reality, District Court Judge Heartsill Ragon was in favor of the gun control law and ruled the law unconstitutional because he knew that Miller, who was a known bank robber and had just testified against the rest of his gang in court, would have to go into hiding as soon as he was released. He knew that Miller would not pay a lawyer to argue the case at the Supreme Court and would simply disappear. Therefore, the government’s appeal to the Supreme Court would be a sure win because Miller and his attorney would not even be present at the argument.”

        3. avatar SoBe says:

          BTW, Miller was found shot to death in April, before the decision was rendered.

    2. avatar LarryinTX says:

      I don’t recall SCOTUS ruling on capacity limits. Did I miss something?

  5. avatar Ranger Rick says:

    Evidently DOJ has decided that defending this on the appeals is politically expedient.

  6. avatar C.S. says:

    Go ahead, flame me. The Trumps are pretty much all NY Democrats, except unlike the Progressives that run the Democrat Party of today, they actually care about the USA. Don Trump doesn’t have conservative values, he is clearly part of the growing populist movement… But that’s far better than the unnamed socialist alternative.

    1. avatar Scott says:

      I thought Cruz had a great point about Trump having New York values during the debate, which Trump deflected by talking about 9/11, and being the victim of a terrorist attack has nearly nothing to do with the values you hold.

      My biggest fear is that Trump will just be another Reagan, great on the economy, shit on civil rights and guns in particular.

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        The alternative was shit on both, and a lot more.

    2. avatar Sam I Am says:

      What does “populist movement” even mean? Bernie was/is a populist, yet totally opposed to Trump and all Republicrats. Other than hate Trump, what should we deduce from the label of “populist?

      Whether POTG like it or not, in the public mind, a strict constitutionalist, an “originalist”, is an extreme radical. The public also does not understand, or even want to, the subtlety of the inversion of the terms “liberal” and “conservative (leftists corrupt and ruin everything they touch). The public views both parties as parties of controlling people, but prefer the promises of control issued by leftists. Granddad always said, “Democrats win because they promise everything for free. Republicans lose because the only offer sweat and hard work.”

      1. avatar DesertDave says:

        Populist, like nationalist, is a dog whistle to the useful idiots in the country (about 50%). They are relatively uneducated and poorly read making them easy to control and stampede, like their bovine brethren.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          You offered an opinion on the followers of a “populist”, but nothing explaining the label itself. From you comment, one could conclude any person with a following of uninformed people is a “populist”. If that would be the case, doesn’t the term “populist” become useless?

  7. avatar Arandom Dude says:

    He will neither gain nor lose significant numbers of supporters over this. The hardcore “MAGA!” crowd is almost as mindless and derpy as the “Orange Man Bad!” crowd.

  8. avatar GS650G says:

    Bitch all you want but president kamala Harris will be worse.

    1. No question. And that is exactly why this precedent is so dangerous.

    2. avatar TexTed says:

      Not if Nikki Haley runs.

      Sorry Kamalah, but if America sees two strong women of color running for President, and one is a damn communist who has a nasty ugly tone and presence about her, and the other is a UN-ambassador who’s a certified badass, who endorses Trump policies without being Trump, no baggage at all, and an executive who ran a State… Kamalah ain’t winning nothing but California.

      It may require Nikki to primary Trump, but hey, she was a NeverTrumper before joining as UN Ambassador, so I wouldn’t rule out her deciding to run as a primary challenger.

      1. avatar Geoff "Mess with the bull, get the horns" PR says:

        Kamala equating ICE with the KKK will sink her chances…

  9. avatar Michael says:

    I fear for my country. We are getting the government we deserve. It already hurts and is definitely gonna leave a mark. -30-

  10. avatar GunnyGene says:

    A little late to be getting our panties in a wad over this bump stock reg. That horse left the barn a year ago.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      The fat lady we need to hear is seated on the Supreme Court, and hasn’t let out a peep yet.

      1. avatar Geoff "Mess with the bull, get the horns" PR says:

        Kagan and Sotamayor have had plenty to say…

  11. avatar lowell says:

    “In short, re-regulating bump fire stocks would be a huge political blunder and — without a successful court challenge… ”

    And I think that’s the point of all of this. We supposedly had a “conservative” congress for two years. As if the complete failure to even manage to conserves the sanctity of wome’s rest rooms wasn’t indicator enough, well, no concealed carry reciprocity. No Hearing Protection Act. No Hughes Amendment repeal.

    So we have a whole bunch of Republicans that clearly want to mention supporting the 2A while actually doing nothing about it and a bunch of Democrats that keep yammering on about banning guns when they know the bills they introduce will go no where. It’s almost like NOBODY in DC actually wants to DO SOMETHING either way. We are supposed to have a bomb-proof majority in the SCOTUS now, so maybe that’s the play. Trump gives the 2A crowd something we can use for a court challenge that rattles federal gun laws all the way down to the NFA1934.

    1. avatar pwrserge says:

      That’s my theory, yes. The bump stock ban allows us to go venue shopping and take a major swing at gun bans in general. This may be the foot in the door we need for the SCOTUS to say “you can tax, but you can’t ban”. That would be a HUGE step forward.

      1. avatar Geoff "Mess with the bull, get the horns" PR says:

        The downside to that logic will be that semi-autos may get put on the NFA…

        1. avatar Jon in CO says:

          Semi’s are covered under Heller and McDonald, (common use) so you “shouldn’t” have to worry about that happening. If the door gets opened to tax, ATF better hire some new paperwork crews, because that backlog is going to be years long, not months.

        2. avatar pwrserge says:

          Better yet, it would be incorporated to the states which would nullify every “assault weapon” and NFA item ban on the books.

  12. avatar Ed Schrade says:

    If they adopt this rule, then all sorts of money will be spent on lawyers to challenge and overturn this ignorant rule. Most of the ruling class in D C are lawyers creating work for more lawyers.

  13. avatar Fudds Mckenzie says:

    The Obama admin wasn’t the designated controlled opposition for RKBA infringements. The party you tools all vote for then act shocked and angry about is.

    1. avatar Ranger Rick says:

      And your solution(s) sir are what….?

      1. avatar Fudds McKenzie says:

        What makes you think I have a solution? Are you entitled to one?

  14. avatar MyPrettyAR15 says:

    If this goes through I’m all done with Trump, I might even stay home and avoid voting in 2020. At least I know liberals definitely hate me. Republicans offer low grade lip service and accomplish very little. In the end there will be no difference.

    1. avatar Fudds Mckenzie says:

      Gasp.

    2. avatar Sam I Am says:

      People like to ridicule 4D chess, and such. Actually what is going on is more like a street fight between establishment, and renegades. Neither party of elites wants Trump to succeed (discourages more upstarts).

      Neither party wants their firebrands to succeed, and not enough firebrands on the anti-Leftist team to actually accomplish anything. One might imagine that with enough firebrands, the Republicrats would have to accommodate them in order to get anything done. That proposition requires that the establishment/elitists want anything done that they con’t contrtol.

      You are seeing an organism fight for its life (elites vs. “the others”). Both sets of brahmans are faced with a quandry. For the Republicrats, Trump is a dire threat because he is a person trying to get things done, rather than someone who just wants to be invited to all the right champagne parties. Republicrat elites hate that Trump forces their hand by doing things the elites have claimed as principles, but always lack the will to accomplish. (the new US, Canada, Mexico deal; everyone said NAFTA was set in stone, and could not be overcome).

      As elites attempt to put down rebellions, it is silly to expect principles will play a role. As regards 2A, the current situation pales in significance vs. getting the border sealed. Yes, that is a principle, but one that seems more urgent (unfettered illegal immigration can change the entire political landscape, endangering all the constitution). Bump stocks are a mild distraction from preventing wholesale conversion of the nation into some S. American hell hole.

      One can see that the struggle to protect America from Leftists is more urgent than worrying over firearm accessories. No, I do not underestimate the importance of 1A, 2A, 4A, 5A, 8A. I recognize that if the Left brings in hordes of government dependent illegal voters, the entire constitution is at risk. So…2A isn’t the most important priority in current political calculus. Depending on courts is a fool’s game, and if we cannot elect sufficient numbers of people to hold all three branches indefinitely, no legislative victory will be safe.

  15. avatar former water walker says:

    Donnie may be in some serious trouble now…his lawyer is turning on him. I’m COOL with President Mike Pence😄

    1. avatar pwrserge says:

      Turning on him over what? Nothing Trump did constitutes a crime. Unless you believe that “campaign finance” bullshit.

    2. avatar Broke_It says:

      Good for you, I’m not cool with a president Pence. That man is tangled up in the bullshit troubled teen industry. Fuck him and his dangerously misguided ideas on behavior modification. I swear there’s days we’re only voting on who’s gonna send us to camps. The reasons will be different but at this point it seems a forgone conclusion the losers will face some type of thought reform.

  16. avatar pwrserge says:

    Has anybody considered the fact that this rule was written specifically so that it COULD be challenged and struck down? The left is infamous for using “sue and settle” tactics. I’m not saying that’s what’s happenning here, but I’m going to wait for the legal smoke to clear before I make any judgements. Sometimes the libertardians are just as bad as the “Orange Man Bad” NPCs. How about we see how this shakes out before we grab our pitchforks? Trump has shown to be a far more subtle operator than anybody is willing to give him credit for. (Note how every candidate he personally endorsed won in a landslide, while the “never Trump” side of the GOP got hammered?)

    1. avatar Jon in CO says:

      I hope you’re right. If he’s able to pull that off, either by sheer brilliance or sheer ignorance, either way, that would be amazing. Question is, how long is it going to take for the litigation To happen before the outcome is finalized? Years?

      1. avatar pwrserge says:

        With an almost guaranteed preliminary injunction in place, does it really matter?

        Now I’m not sure I’m right, but it’s enough of a possibility that I’m not going to be a virtue signaling libertardian cunt and throw our President under the bus until I know the full picture.

      2. avatar Danny338 says:

        That is the HUGE problem. Even if the regulation was published today, what are the odds of a challenge case making it all the way to the Supreme Court before the 2020 election? Subtle player or not, I think that is an awfully bad gamble.

        1. avatar pwrserge says:

          Pretty good.

  17. avatar just checking says:

    Still early for pitchforks?

    1. avatar pwrserge says:

      Just a bit. I’m getting that weird AHA feeling when Trump is about to pull another rabbit out of his hat. I could be wrong, but a “sue and settle” strategy has been used by the liberal to strike down laws or regulations they don’t like for decades.

  18. avatar possum says:

    The OBama administration is the same as the Trump administration.. The timing was off is all, a Black( not really, 1/2white) President banning any firearm / accessory, would have caused quite the uproar. B. Clinton was a litmus test. Guns and ownership of, banning, CC, all a diversion.

  19. avatar Jay in Florida says:

    I don’t own anything banned anywhere. Even if I did. Id happily be declared a felon. Nothing gets tossed by me by a fiat that means nothing to me. Not even with full compensation. Even if such was offered. Id still keep my property. Anyone who wishes can convey my feelings to the President the ATF local cops and scream it from the roof tops to Gubbiner Scott for banning some devices. Soon to be senator Scott “The Useless One”

  20. avatar anarchyst says:

    Bump stocks?

    There might just be a “silver lining” in the attempt to ban “bump stocks”. Most certainly, this flawed “ruling” will be challenged in court, as it constitutes a “taking” which requires compensation as well as the Constitutional questions affecting the Second Amendment.
    What if a “bump stock” ban were used to open up an “amnesty program” for “unregistered bump stocks”?
    There was an amnesty period in 1968 in which “unregistered machine guns” could be registered and made “legal”.
    There was also an amnesty period in 1999 when the “Street Sweeper shotgun” was deemed to be a “destructive device”. Owners were able to register them without paying the $200 “tax”.
    It would stand to reason, that if a “bump stock” ban were implemented, an “amnesty period” would be required.
    What if an individual attempted to register a “bump stock” on an ATF “form 1” (application to make a firearm) and then after approval and payment of the $200 “tax” was able to legally convert a semi-auto AR-15 to full auto?
    Interesting, to say the least.

    1. avatar Parnell says:

      If you want a “taking” issue, any of the magazine limits laws will do. There is a challenge of the NJ law which gives you the “choices”:
      1) sell it
      2) restrict it permanently or
      3) turn it in
      Notice no grandfathering or buy-back options.
      I think this might be a better forum for stopping these confiscatory laws as there are far more owners of 10+round magazines than bump-stock owners.

    2. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “Most certainly, this flawed “ruling” will be challenged in court, as it constitutes a “taking” which requires compensation as well as the Constitutional questions affecting the Second Amendment.”

      1. A “taking” is not the same as confiscation. To be a “taking” the object must be legal as it sits, and remain legal after the “taking” (compensated or not). Confiscation of a now illegal object is not a “taking”, and requires no compensation.

  21. avatar Matthew the Oilman says:

    I agree that banning bump stocks pisses me of too. But who do we bitch too about it? And how do we go about getting national notice? The Trump Administration pays attention to Rush Limbaugh ,Sean Hannity and Fox News,and not us.
    And come 2020 are you going to vote for Kamala Harris or stay home?

  22. avatar TX223 says:

    This has a high likelihood of being overturned in court.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      First, someone has to bring an action, somewhere. Then, the suit must fail at every federal level below the SC. The the SC must decide whether to leave things as they are, or intervene. Once the SC takes the case for review, the ruling will not be based on constitutional grounds (RTKBA/Shall Not Be Infringed), but on a narrower reading of the complaint. The SC does not determine “right or wrong”, but whether proper trial procedures were followed, maybe whether proper legal procedures were followed at trial level. But assuming the SC rules that re-defining legislation by executive decree violates separation of powers, the States get to have their say afterward. We have ample demonstration of their behavior regarding Heller/McDonald; disregard for the rulings. Then each instance of “disregard” must be litigated all over again (which is not dissimilar to how small claims courts work).

  23. avatar AZgunner says:

    This doesn’t look good. But then, when have things looked good for us? The NRA has become almost useless and a Republican House and Senate did absolutely nothing for us. We’ve managed to get plenty of conservative judges, but that will only delay the inevitable. I don’t see us ever getting any rights back, just slowing the process of losing them. The NFA is here to stay and likely so are state level bans on “assault rifles” and “high capacity magazines.”

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “I don’t see us ever getting any rights back, just slowing the process of losing them.”

      The two major political parties present us with the same outcome: destruction of the Republic. The only discernible difference is timing: quickly, or drawn-out.

  24. avatar Edo1 says:

    You know what, I am going to start voting straight ticket Dem.

    It’s time to move on to the endgame.

    1. avatar Ash says:

      I’m not getting any younger

    2. avatar Craig in IA says:

      “You know what, I am going to start voting straight ticket Dem.

      It’s time to move on to the endgame” Idiotic and I’m glad I don’t have to depend upon you for anything. Commit suicide rather than fight on for another day? Go for it, pal, it’s really easy and obviously accomplishes your desires. SHEESH!

  25. avatar Jim Bullock says:

    I’ve been mulling the bump stock issue for a while. They’re kinda dumb, but that doesn’t necessarily place them under the US Federal machine gun law, the scope of legitimate law in general, or make banning them good or bad policy. Those are separate questions.

    Here’s a useful distinction for machine guns as written in the US Federal law:

    “A machine gun fires multiple times from one activation, without further intervention by the shooter. Not a machine gun — like a bump stock — some part of the human is in the firing loop: the gizmo helps the human fire faster.”

    So all “full autos” are banned, like they intended. And the “fire faster” thing is spiked, so our lovely impose-o-crats can’t discover that the anti-lead paint law really banned all duck hunting ammo. Or semi-autos; pump, lever, bolt-actions; multi-round cylinders like revolvers; cartridges of brass or paper; precussion, cap, wheel, or flint firing locks (Back to match locks; that’s all you need!).

    The real conversation is changing the law, or not, to mean something else. I suspect the concern really is about “rate of fire.” The notion is to limit means of suppressive-fire and bullet-hosing.

    *Maybe* that’s legal.
    *Maybe* there’s some level of bullet-hosing that’s only suppressive fire.
    *Maybe* there’s a case that there’s no case for suppressive fire outside the military (or military plus law enforcement … and isn’t that an interesting combination.)
    *Maybe* there’s a policy you can write that does more good than harm in those terms.

    I’ll use the Tucker Carlson counter example. How many antifa-assaulters have to be defacing your property; threatening and assaulting your family, in your home, before suppressive fire with a bullet-hose is justified? How many Tucker-kid deaths, traumas, or intimidations do we trade off for how many hoodied, masked anarchists having how bad a day?

    Policy plays out in particulars. Yes, you can say bump stocks should be ignored. And some enterprising whack-job will find a way to do something heinous with them. Yes, you can say suppressive fire is nothing anybody needs. And some enterprising gaggle of rioters to make a point will do violence to someone who could have gotten away unharmed … had they only had a bullet hose.

    The Orange Crush like to think of himself as doing the flexible, pragmatic thing when other folks are tangled in ideology. The way to go after banning bump stocks or not with him, isn’t to argue “rights.” You sound like the ideologues he likes to feel smarter than. Argue “Those guys are reactionary.” and “It won’t help.”

    This guy gets stupid citizens’ arms bans: he’s had to jump through enough hoops to get protection in his life. The pitch should be: “More stupid stuff that won’t solve anything.” Let em preach at him. Then he’ll do the opposite, just to spite them.

  26. avatar Ted says:

    If they think bump stocks are a problem, wait till they find out about the EchoTrigger by Fostech lol. Both are basically novelties but still fun to use if blowing through ammo is your thing=)

  27. avatar Eli2016 says:

    “On the other side of the ledger, a bump stock ban will be a very effective way of angering some of the President’s hardest-core supporters…gun owners and Second Amendment advocates.”

    Maybe. But the “clear-thinking” individual will see this as a political move aimed not at the alt-right but at the middle ground fence sitters who may determine the presidency in 2020. And btw, I see Oprah being the biggest threat in 2020, not Kamala Tamala.

  28. avatar Ralph says:

    Bumpfire stocks were history the minute that @ssh0le in Las Vegas shot 500 people using them. Let that number sink in.

    Here in the Commiewealth of Massivetwoshits, possession was made a felony — no machine gun license could legalize them — with a maximum penalty of life in prison.

    Anybody who really believes that bumpfire stocks could be saved from the gungrabbers after Las Vegas is laboring under a monumental delusion.

    1. avatar frank speak says:

      while the actions taken in Massachusetts could certainly be deemed excessive…Las Vegas changed everything in regard to this item…

  29. avatar Accur81 says:

    Trump is still a great president, but I don’t want bumpfire stocks banned or this precedent. Instead of b!tching here, why not email the Trump administration? I’ve called and emailed numerous political leaders numerous times. Link:

    https://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/

  30. avatar Enuf Istoomuch says:

    Can’t say I’m surprised, because I am not. Trump has never been a friend of gun owners or the Second Amendment. He is a phony, a liar, a con man and a deeply emotionally disturbed weirdo. He stood in front of the NRA and lied his ass off. He lies so many times in any given day it is a wonder he has time to take in air and heat it up to blow it back out.

    Bump stocks are a stupid toy. Spoils accuracy, puts greater wear on the gun and burns through your limited dollars. So what? Decent people are allowed to waste their money on toys, and a ban will only get in their way on that. But If a criminal wants one it is easy to make for much less than the cost of buying on.

    Had I known they were going to get banned, back a ways when they were cheap, I’d own one. Wouldn’t use it but hey as an American I like to own banned things (up to a point anyway), watch banned movies, read banned books and think unpopular thoughts anytime I feel like it.

  31. avatar Zatoichi says:

    Ironically, if the penalty for keeping a bumpstock is the same as for illegally possessing a class 3 fully automatic weapon, it creates a perverse incentive to modify your trigger group to be select fire. After all, you’re already risking 10 years in prison for a piece of plastic.

  32. avatar Mad Max says:

    Trump’s bump-fire stock ban is nothing but kicking the can down the road. I believe it was purposefully designed to have multiple unconstitutional issues so it could be struck down. Trump can then say “I tried”

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