BREAKING: Trump Administration Announces Bump Stock Ban

As has been long anticipated, the Trump administration has announced that bump fire stocks have officially been banned. The plastic rifle accessories will be regulated and treated by the ATF the same as machine guns are under the National Firearms Act.

As CNN reports,

Under a new federal rule, those who possess the devices, commonly known as bump stocks, will get 90 days to turn them in from the date that the final rule is published in the federal register, which is likely Friday, the officials said.

Re-classification of bump stocks and NFA-style regulation by ATF fiat sets a dangerous precedent for gun rights (read Luis Valdes’ post on this here). A number of gun rights organizations have promised to sue if and when the administration re-classified bump stocks (because the move is, you know, illegal) and you can expect to see that as soon as the rule is published in the Federal Register and officially becomes law.

As Luis Valdes notes, acting attorney general Matt Whitaker signed the new rule.

KSTP.com obtained the following DOJ memo regarding the ban and bump stock disposal a couple of weeks ago:

Stay tuned.

comments

  1. avatar Rick the Bear says:

    Rules? Rules? We don’t need no stinkin’ rules!

    So depressing.

    1. avatar Big Sky says:

      Well it’s now official. Trump has taken a bigger bite out of the second amendment than Obama ever did. Actually with Obama office gun rights expanded including carry in national parks.

      1. avatar New Continental Army says:

        Not because Obama didn’t want to, because he couldn’t. Trump deserves all kinds of hate for this, but don’t for second let that hate turn to love for Obama. Obama was blocked from doing all kinds of far worse things when he lost congress during his term. Unfortunately now, our goal needs to shift back to what it was during Obama’s term. 2020 is a dead deal, Trump just committed political suicide. So, we need to focus all our energy on keeping at least one house of Congress and retaking both of them. For the next 6 years we’re back to playing defense. In 2024 then we’ll have a chance to get a real pro gun candidate in the GOP primary. There will actually be several good choices on the GOP side that year, as many that ran in 2016 are young enough to run again.

        1. avatar Eli2016 says:

          2020 is not a dead. This move by Trump will get the MOR on his side. Bump stocks are cheap toys and will set no precedent on other issues which are far more critical to 2AR’S. Time for the gun rights folks to wake up and smell the Rose’s of a brilliant political move.

        2. avatar New Continental Army says:

          Whatever you say man. How about this: I hope you’re right and that I’m wrong.

        3. avatar Jonathan-Houston says:

          Many of them, such as Walker and Rubio, are inept national campaigners. Not encouraging.

        4. avatar Hannibal says:

          Seems like a distinction without much of a difference. On one hand we have a president that wanted to do stuff but didn’t\couldn’t, on the other hand we have one that didn’t have to but chose to do so anyway. Heads, I win- tails, you lose.

        5. avatar Dick Giddings says:

          Politicians lie to get the vote, and then take easiest path to riches. I don’t give a hoot about the banning of “bump stocks” and I have said they should be illegal since the day I first saw one. You can pi$$ and moan but I hope the legalities are untangled and the ban takes effect. I am a hunter, and a competitive shooter, and I only see the bump stock as the equivalent of the glass-pack mufflers of my teen years. I am sure the ammo manufacturers won’t like the ban, but I’m all for it. Trump has my support for 2020.

        6. avatar Kroglikepie says:

          @Dick, apt name there. Did you cheer when the Hughes Amendment was passed too? I bet if you were around, the NFA and GCA were right up your alley. Fudd or Quisling? You choose which albatross you wish to bear.

        7. avatar Matt says:

          And yet Trump said he didn’t want to and did… directly.

      2. avatar Phil Wilson says:

        And thus Trump builds on the already disturbingly common precedent of legislation by executive fiat.

        1. avatar pwrserge says:

          Or deliberately throws out something so egregious that the SCotUS will be forced to take the case. Until we see the final result, it’s kinda hard to tell.

        2. avatar Jonathan-Houston says:

          Agreed.

          And, no. Donald “the J. is for “Jenius’ Trump” doesn’t deserve the benefit of the 3D chess apologist refrain. This is worse that just banning a trivial toy that nobody cares about but a few gun dorks living in their parents’ basement.

          He’s willfully misinterpreting the law, aka, dictating what the law is. That’s abhorrent regardless which party’s jersey a president wears.

        3. avatar Ing says:

          Serge, it’s time you realized that Tronald Dump is no different than any other Oval Office occupier.

          This is all about scoring cheap political points. If it does get overturned in the courts, it won’t be because Trump planned it all along, He doesn’t give a rat’s ass about the law or the Constitution.

          On top of that, he’s setting precedent that the next Democrat communist to occupy the White House (and you know there will be one) can use against all of us. None of the Washington DC creatures are on our side. They’re all playing a global game of thrones at our expense. It’s a big club, but you and me ain’t in it — and we’re never going to be.

        4. avatar Pg2 says:

          Slap! Ing you got this this one right in the money.

        5. avatar Straight Talk says:

          Trigger warning; tough love to follow…

          Wake the F up POG! Quotes from above “…Trump is doomed…no chance in 2020…dictator…”… STFU and see the big picture!

          Name me another president that is going to the mat on illegal immigration, as the Dems attempt to flood the country with 3rd world voters?

          Name me another president that is attempting to end China’s 2025 plan of replacing the U.S. as the world’s global and super power?

          Name me another president that confronts the liars and smear merchants of the MSM?

          While you fight over bump stocks… hey look over there, it’s shinny… this country is having the life sucked out of it. This is not to say to capitulate on the ban, far from it. The thing is, this is potentially good, as it will be tied up in the courts for years, vs. congress passing a law that would be more difficult to fight and win.

          There is no perfect person, any of you married a perfect a woman? Doesn’t exist, we take the bad with the good, and look for (way) more good than bad. If Hillary was president or a Dem becomes president in 2020 (try this on for size… President “Major” C_ _ _. Harris…) bump stocks will be the least of your worries.

          D.J.T. got one thing spot on “…dems terrible policy, but stick together like glue…”. We, to our determent, …not so much.

          P.S. (I have to call this out, can’t leave it alone) To the commentator that said “..2020 is a dead deal, Trump just committed political suicide. So, we need to focus all our energy on keeping at least one house of Congress and retaking both of them. For the next 6 years we’re back to playing defense. In 2024 then we’ll have a chance to get a real pro gun candidate in the GOP primary…”

          That is either the dumbest comment in a long time, or you are a DNC plant. The rules have changed with illegal immigration flooding the country, (OVER 22 million atm and waves of “caravans” literately at our door banging to get in) vote stealing, see ballot harvesting in…where else…California, out of state voting in Nevada(that turned it blue), barely winning in Texas, Georgia, and Florida, and coming to a town near you(!)…Online absentee ballot voting for every state, i’m sure that won’t be hacked. Yeah, 2024, Wake TFU! Your playing by the old rules, the Dems reset those rules 2 years ago, and there’s a new playbook in town.

          Trump’s your president, he’s fighting the good fight, why don’t you get your keyboards behind him.

  2. avatar 2a suxs sucks says:

    I would throw mine in a river before I gave it to him

    1. avatar rosignol says:

      Time to get in touch with a friend who owns a boat.

    2. avatar Rattlerjake says:

      It’s really quite simple, if you are too stupid to figure out how to “hide” it until the court cases play out, then you don’t deserve to have one. Wake TFU! Trump is playing a game of chess (while most sheeple are playing checkers), and all he did was sacrifice his bishop, but he is still way ahead in the game. I just can’t believe so many people are crying over bump stocks, yet they have no problem paying a $200 fee to buy a suppressor/silencer, or pay for a CCW permit, or cower to the other illegal state laws. When this goes to the courts and we win it, it will open the door to destroy the illegal/unconstitutional NFA!

  3. avatar Jr says:

    So do we know what that means for people who already own them?

    1. avatar California Richard says:

      Ya, it means it would have been better to buy cheap machinegun parts and illegally turn your gun in to an M16, because at the end of the day it’s all the same to .gov.

    2. avatar Ragnarredbeard says:

      Means you can pay the $200 tax stamp and wait 9 months for approval, or you can turn it in with no compensation, which would appear to violate the 5th amendment.

      This will go to court and we will win because the court will look at the initial approval and ask the .gov why it suddenly changed, and when they can’t answer in any logical manner, the court will throw it out.

      1. avatar pwrserge says:

        Sadly, you can’t even register it. Hence the blatant 5th amendment violation.

        1. avatar Geoff "You'll shoot your eye out, kid!" PR says:

          And that is *exactly* how we should proceed with litigation.

          Offer them an out, instead of confiscation without compensation, the relief we want is the ability to register them.

          And that re-opens the registry, which worked just fine before the 1986 shit-show.

          Kavanough is all about “Tradition” with regards to the 2A, OK then, re-open the registry…

        2. avatar pwrserge says:

          That may be the “sue and settle” strategy in play here. I’m not liking the current situation, but I’d like to see how the lawsuits shake out. Nobody could possibly be stupid enough to think a unilateral ban by an unelected agency in contradiction to statutory definitions would stand up in court.

        3. avatar Rick says:

          “That may be the “sue and settle” strategy in play here. I’m not liking the current situation, but I’d like to see how the lawsuits shake out. Nobody could possibly be stupid enough to think a unilateral ban by an unelected agency in contradiction to statutory definitions would stand up in court.”

          That’s hilarious, I just spit my coffee, good job sir.

        4. avatar Garrison Hall says:

          The ruling is so questionable, I think you’re right about it being a “sue and settle” dog-and-pony show. There ought to be some serious legal challenges to this.

        5. avatar pwrserge says:

          It’s possible. I think the big thing is that it gives us standing to challenge the 1986 ban. That alone is a huge step forward.

          I don’t see this surviving a preliminary injunction hearing in every circuit court that sees this case. With a preliminary injunction, we’ll have to fight this all the way up through the circuits, but we will be able to do so in every circuit separately. Basically the old “throw enough shit at a wall” approach.

        6. avatar Geoff "You'll shoot your eye out, kid!" PR says:

          Page not found, ThisEnd…

      2. avatar andrew says:

        Technically the 5th’s just compensation clause wouldn’t apply because they are not being taken for public use. But turning it in may be a violation after 90 days because of self incrimination. Just an observation form your typical “internet lawyer.”

        1. “shall not be infringed” is law. The entire Constitution is law that can be amended following Article V. thereof. No exceptions allowed unless we the people are stupid enough to reelect those that ignore their Oaths-of-Office during which every public servant swore to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution, to the best of their ability, from all enemies, both foreign and domestic, so help them God.

          None are doing so! Why in God’s name are they being reelected to keep not serving the people and violating the Constitution daily. Heck they even let non-christians take the oath using some tome other than a Bible which is unconstitutional and unethical as well. We live in the United States of America, a sovereign state created with the consent of the governed to be administered and operated in accordance with the Constitution by which it was formed.

          Public servants are to serve the people that elected them to do so and no-one else. Political parties are unconstitutional because they are not mentioned/created therein to be part of our election system. If you remember, those things not permitted government by the Constitution, or forbidden by it to the states, shall be relegated to the states or to the people. So, political parties can exist at the state level, if the people want them, but not at the federal level.

          Right now you can see why parties are not allowed. They focus on their agenda and ignore the people. Now that the elections are over all you see and hear is this party or that party. Nothing about the people. Those that do not align with the doctrine of one of the two parties are ignored as well.

          Wake up people, do not reelect anyone at any level of the federal or state governments that does not tell the truth, keep promises made, honor their oath and serve only the people that elected them. To do anything else is suicide!!

        2. avatar Jonathan-Houston says:

          That doesn’t matter, anymore. Ever since the Supreme Court rewrote that amendment to expand public use–meaning actual, physical public use as in land for a school or highway–instead to include “public purpose”, the government can pretty much seize anything it wants for any purpose. Besides, even before that they could rely on their infinitely elastic “police power”, per the Court, to do whatever, too.

      3. avatar MeRp says:

        There’s no registration path for post-86 machine guns. Sending them $200 just gives them a name (and probably address) of someone who is committing a felony.

        1. avatar Charlie Foxtrot says:

          The good news is that there is no registration requirement for an illegally possessed machine gun (bump stock), see Haynes v. United States, 390 U.S. 85 (1968).

      4. avatar Alan says:

        I would hope your line of thinking is correct. That said, one wonders as to exactly how “the courts” , spelled federal courts might act.

    3. avatar Muhammad says:

      So if 90 days goes by, the devices become illegal, and then the whole thing is overturned at the Supreme Court 2 years later, how do these illegal devices resurface and become legal to own again? There would be no more lawfully owned bump stocks in the US, so over-turning this seems like a Pyrrhic victory at best

      1. avatar Charlie Foxtrot says:

        You just provided the argument for a nation-wide temporary injunction, which will be the first step in fighting this ban in the courts. Bump stocks will stay legal until the all legal avenues have been exhausted.

  4. avatar TRUMPSTER says:

    from my cold dead hands…via la revolution! oorah! COME @ ME BRUH

    1. avatar Smokey the Goat says:

      Don’t you mean “from my cold dead hip-high index finger!”

  5. avatar Shire-man says:

    Should start dropping off belt loops, rubber bands, string, blocks of wood and every other piece of matter which facilitates Newton’s third law. Fill police station lobbies and parking lots with construction debris and garbage because bumping.

  6. Outrageous! Sue! Sue! Sue!..Next it will be magazines of various ammo capacity…Then it will be everything semi-automatic and that looks military…Then it will be Hunting/Sniper rifles….All Handguns…Lever-action and pump…Just as was done in Australia, U.K., etc..Then when guns in general have been “Regulated” out of existence for the common citizen/Peasents…Big Government (DemoCommies and some RINOs), will target knives and cutlery…Just like Chinas permit to buy sharp items, or like the U.K. and blunt all the knife 🔪 points! This is called ” Creeping Incrementalism” we all know where this goes! We the People all know that this is unconstitutional in every aspect has absolutely nothing to do with Public Safety or Crime….

  7. avatar Garrison Hall says:

    This kind of confiscation amounts to “a taking” and can be legally challenged. Individuals who purchased bump-stocks when they were legal did so in good faith that government would protect their right to private property. Suddenly claiming for purely political reasons that a freely available commodity is now illegal would appear to obligate the government to compensate owners for depriving them of their property. We live in interesting times.

    1. avatar California Richard says:

      They did so in good faith with documented opinions from the regulating agency that they were in fact NOT illegal. Then the regulating agnecy decided to change its mind? I hope the SCOTUS eviscerates regulations authority in the near future.

      1. avatar Muhammad says:

        The concern is that the Supreme Court over-turning this will be to late. You can introduce legislation in the future that you know is a violation of the 5th ammendment, and by the time its over-turned, the damage and destruction is done. Imagine a future administration taking the same route with “assault weapons” or “armor piercing ammunition”

        1. avatar Charlie Foxtrot says:

          You just provided the argument for a nation-wide temporary injunction, which will be the first step in fighting this ban in the courts. Bump stocks will stay legal until the all legal avenues have been exhausted.

  8. avatar CHS says:

    This is just going to end up in lawsuit hell for the next 10 years. There is no way that bump stocks meet the statutory definition of “machine gun” and cannot just be banned “because”.

    I’m willing to bet Gura and the SAF already have the lawsuit ready to file.

    1. avatar Jonathan-Houston says:

      You would do better to take that wager amount and just mail them a check to fund said lawsuit.

  9. avatar TheUnspoken says:

    So much for 3D/5D chess, it turns out Trump does think owners of lawfully purchased firearms accessories are dangerous criminals who need to go to jail. Merry Christmas to you too, Mr. President!

    I am guessing he still thinks this is some kind of political win, that bad old Obama allowed these nasty bump guns, but the Republicans are here to save the day, aren’t you happy? Wouldn’t want any of those liberal machine guns running around killing people!

    Who will be at the press conference, Pelosi, Chuck, and some activist Parkland kids? Rick Scott and Marco Rubio? Any chance of anyone on the Republican side of Congress denouncing this, or will they all nod and clap?

    The party of gun control is left and right.

    1. avatar pwrserge says:

      We’ll see how the lawsuits shake out. I can see a preliminary injunction against this already being written.

      1. avatar Cory C. says:

        Pwrserge, respectfully, how is your position. Or turning into a “no true Scotsman” fallacy? I’m not going to dog on you like some of the guys on this site seem to enjoy doing, but it seems like you keep moving the goalpost to maintain your position. It appears to have evolved from, “relax, guys, he’s just placating the press and won’t actually go through with it,” to, “this is all part of the 3D chess plan.” Again, I’m not trying to insult you. I’m genuinely curious if you’ve changed your position or not. If not, what would have to happen for you to regard Trump as hostile to the 2nd Amendment.

        And, for the record, I don’t hate Trump and understand that we often have to chose from a lesser of two evils and will likely never get the perfect candidate. But I also believe that we should never make excuses when presidents who violate the Constitution, even if we generally like them.

        1. avatar Cory C. says:

          Son of a… that was supposed to say “…how is your position not turning into…”

        2. avatar pwrserge says:

          Like I said… I’ll reserve judgement until we see the full story of lawsuits and appeals. My position evolves as my understanding of the strategy evolves. If it stands, yes, I’ll be pissed.

        3. avatar CarlosT says:

          There is no strategy, Baghdad Bob. He’s just banning bump stocks, like he said he was going to do ages ago.

        4. avatar pwrserge says:

          Oh look newfag doesn’t know how the courts work

        5. avatar Smokey the Goat says:

          Just more smoke and mirrors from a trump dillusionist.

          This will never play OUT. It plays forever. There will never be closure. For goodness’s sake we are connecting today’s announcement to a 1934 ruling that challenged a proclamation penned in 1791.

          Pwrserg is just playing all sides to keep his king in the oval orifice.

        6. avatar pwrserge says:

          So keeping Trump in the Oval Office is a bad thing? Would you prefer Hillary?

        7. avatar Hannibal says:

          At least with Hillary the legislative GOPers would bother saying “no” once in awhile to stupid ideas.

        8. avatar CarlosT says:

          Ha! I’ve been on this site waaaay longer than you Serge.

          Maybe the court challenges work, maybe they don’t. What I do know is you’ve been saying this was never going to happen and now here it is. Now that Trump has done exactly what he said he was going to do, it’s part of some brilliant scheme.

          Sure, okay. Or, he doesn’t really support the Second Amendment, and saw an opportunity to do something he thought was politically expedient.

        9. avatar strych9 says:

          I would point out that serge hasn’t moved the goalposts. He has been involved in this discussion and maintained the same position the entire time, which is that Trump is involved in some kind of trickery here. In fact he’s suggested before that the whole thing is a ruse to get a court to shoot down the regulation.

          Personally I find that plausible. Other Presidents have gone out of their way to pick SCOTUS judges that they thought would allow said President to do what he wanted. Trump seems to have done the opposite here, picking judges who would seem to be very opposed to exactly this kind of regulatory fiat. Changing black letter law while arguably violating multiple sections of the 5A. That’s odd behavior.

          While I don’t think Trump is the smartest guy ever I also don’t think he’s stupid. Especially not stupid enough to appoint justices that are in direct opposition to his positions. On top of that, even if Trump isn’t very bright his lawyers mostly are, especially those in the office of the White House Counsel.

          One of the things we discuss from time to time is the ever expanding nature of certain facets of government, such as Willard v. Filburn (1942) just the other day. Sneaky people in the past have used unconventional tactics to get what they want and then expand the court rulings to other things later on. It’s theoretically possible that this is what Trump is doing, not in some fantastic protection of the 2A, but in an attempt to get a court ruling that lays some significant groundwork for generally reigning in the regulatory state which is something he’s said he wanted to do.

          For example, if the SCOTUS decides that the BATFE can’t simply redefine a machine gun then wouldn’t that logic extend to the previous administration’s reclassification of what a “navigable waterway” is and therefore also extend forward into the future on other topics as well? In other words, such a case might place limits on what and how an agency can define/redefine things. Perhaps that’s the bigger game.

          It’s also interesting to note that in any court case that comes out of this the Left (and most gun control supporters) is (are) in a very awkward position where they have to actually defend Trump’s position and will probably lose in the process. While a risky ploy, if it works that’s not just making the other poor bastard die for his position, it’s picking the hill he has to die on.

          I don’t know exactly what’s going on but given the very obvious oddities of the behavior I am in no way convinced it’s as simple as Trump just not liking bump stocks and banning them because he said he would.

        10. avatar pwrserge says:

          Let’s make a deal. If this survives a SCotUS challenge, I’ll publicly admit that Trump fucked up and will vote against him in the primary. (Not voting GOP in the general is retarded, unless you want Venezuela to move here.) If, on the other hand, this leads to what I expect it to lead to, I reserve the right to take a victory lap.

          What people seem to not realize is that the possible scope of this case could be HUGE. We COULD go right back to where we were, OR we could wing up with a major face smashing for the administrative state and gun control in general. I’m hoping this will lead to a back door way to overturn the 1986 ban and preempt state NFA prohibitions. It’s a bit of a wish list, but I just realistically don’t see this surviving the dozens of cases and their appeals filed in every district in the nation.

        11. avatar strych9 says:

          “Let’s make a deal… …I reserve the right to take a victory lap.”

          Fair enough.

          “What people seem to not realize is that the possible scope of this case could be HUGE.

          I don’t pretend to read minds and therefore don’t pretend to know what Trump is doing here. That said, no victory comes without risk and, generally speaking, the greater the victory sought the greater the risk to obtain it. If what you and I have discussed in the past (and here) is correct then it’s a hell of a risk but it’s also potentially very rewarding.

          “…I just realistically don’t see this surviving the dozens of cases and their appeals filed in every district in the nation.

          I agree with this to a point. I’d expect the suits to succeed in some districts and fail in others which tees up a SCOTUS hearing. That one is for all the marbles. Again, risky but potentially very rewarding with a very wide ranging set of results in terms of the overall regulatory state.

    2. avatar RA-15 says:

      THEUNSPOKEN. ” the party of gun control is left and right ” if you would have made that statement a few months ago , I would have disagreed. But reality sucks and you are absolutely correct.

  10. avatar The Rookie says:

    BOOOOO!

  11. avatar JMR says:

    Don’t worry guys if we elect Trump and reatin
    A majority of the senate and house along with the NRA we’ll get national reciprocity and de-list suppressors.

    Lol, didn’t believe it at that time, not surprised by this at all, both parties are anti freedom.

  12. avatar Jamie in North Dakota says:

    Oh no!!! Now we won’t be able to buy and own AR’s, AK’s, semi-auto pistols, 30 round mags, hollow points and BGC will be mandatory on every gun exchange…oh wait. I couldn’t care less if Bumpstocks are or aren’t banned they have nothing to do with our right to keep and bear arms. KAG 2020!

    1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

      I couldn’t care less if Bumpstocks are or aren’t banned they have nothing to do with our right to keep and bear arms.

      What a gobsmackingly naive and shortsighted stance to take. The government just outlawed Jerry Miculek’s trigger finger.

      1. avatar Jamie in North Dakota says:

        Sure Chip, let me know when quick fingers are ordered cut off and turned in. Your comment sounds like the unhinged crazy sh!t leftists have been throwing out since Trump was elected. SMH

        1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          Sarcasm isn’t your strong suit, is it?

          Here is the actual wording:

          …”bump fire” stocks, slide-fire devices, and devices with certain similar
          characteristics – are “machineguns” as defined by the National Firearms Act of 1934 and
          the Gun Control Act of 1968 because such devices allow a shooter of a semiautomatic
          firearm to initiate a continuous firing cycle with a single pull of the trigger.

          And here is the justification:

          Specifically, these devices convert an otherwise semiautomatic firearm into a machinegun by functioning as a self-acting or self-regulating mechanism that harnesses the recoil energy of the semiautomatic firearm in a manner that allows the trigger to reset and continue firing without additional physical manipulation of the trigger by the shooter.

          That statement is self-refuting. If a device “allows the trigger to reset” then by definition that device requires an additional pull of the trigger in order to discharge a round.

          Note the “…without additional physical manipulation of the trigger by the shooter.” Nowhere does the statutory language state who or what pulls the trigger – only that if multiple rounds are discharged via a single pull of the trigger, than the firearm is a “machinegun”.

          Do you not understand that this ATF rule is wholesale rewriting of legislation? Do you not understand that ATF is legislating by fiat with this rule? Do you not understand that, if this action is allowed to stand, then it sets the precedent for ATF to perform additional legislation by fiat?

          What could possibly go wrong with that?

          (Oh, sorry: I suppose I should point out to you that the final question was also sarcasm.)

      2. avatar RA-15 says:

        Chip. I don’t think Jerry is worried , he has two hands 🙂

      3. avatar Manse Jolly says:

        Agree.

        1. avatar Manse Jolly says:

          with Chip.

          When Edit button coming back?

    2. avatar New Continental Army says:

      It’s a tired line but it’s true: slippery slope. Trump set a dangerous precedent a future democrat will use. I proudly voted for Trump in 2016 too, and I’m not ashamed to say it. But you can’t be blind in your support of him. This was wrong. Given the likely democrats in 2020 I’ll still even vote for him then, but we have right to be suspect of him now and realize he’s probsbly lost 2020 now.

      1. avatar Ash says:

        He’s lost my vote, along with many others. I’d rather have the benefit of looking my enemy in his/her eyes.

    3. avatar S.Crock says:

      James wins the most fudd like comment of the day. I legitimately can’t understand how or why “pro gun” people try to justify or excuse this attack on the Second Amendment just because it came from the right.

      1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

        It’s not merely an attack on the second amendment; equally troubling – if not moreso – is the attack on separation of powers, with the executive branch legislating by fiat.

        1. avatar Rick says:

          So how is that different than DACA with Obama, fake NatSec tariffs, generally all modern executive orders?

          The imperial presidency has been a growing problem since 9/11, Trump is just the lastest taking advantage.

        2. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          It is no different from DACA.

          But, say what you will about Obama (and I can say plenty), he did not cross the line of legislation-by-EO with respect to the second amendment.

          Trump loses major points from me for this action.

  13. avatar Chip Bennett says:

    The upcoming lawsuits should be interesting.

    Not only is the implementation (ironically, a variation of DiFi’s, “Mr. and Mrs. American, turn them all in”) unconstitutional, but the interpretation is explicitly contradictory to the statutory language it claims to execute (by statutory definition, a “machine gun” requires more than one round to be fired with a single trigger pull; a bump stock does not meet this definition).

    Trump screwed the pooch on this one. The courts will bail him out – if by no other means than the certain injunction due to the unconstitutional taking.

    1. avatar pwrserge says:

      You do realize that “sue and settle” has been a left wing strategy for decades? Right? A federal agency under DNC control can’t get a law passed. They write a stupid regulation. Their puppets on the left sue against the regulation. The federal agency they settles and put in the settlement the exact regulation they wanted but couldn’t get through congress.

      1. avatar Geoff "You'll shoot your eye out, kid!" PR says:

        Remember that SCOTUS case mentioned here a few days back that has the potential to gut the regulatory state, by eliminating arbitrary rulings?

        If they prevail on that one, this just may fall under that…

        1. avatar pwrserge says:

          Mhm… Like I said… I’ll wait for the dust to clear from all the pickups being raced to the nearest federal district court to file injunctions and lawsuits

      2. avatar rosignol says:

        I hope you’re right, but you seem pretty optimistic about this.

        If the Trump administration is learning to wage lawfare and adopting sue-and-settle tactics, that’s great news, but I’d prefer the technique be proven and refined on other subjects before being pointed at gun laws.

        1. avatar pwrserge says:

          So do I, but then again, the legislative branch didn’t leave Trump a lot of options. They were refusing to take up major 2nd amendment protection legislation.

          Do I 100% think this is a “sue and settle” case? No. Do I think it’s probable? Yes. Does it matter if it isn’t? No. Very few judges, especially originalist judges would allow the executive branch to simply invent new legislation wholesale. Better yet, by linking this rule to the 1986 ban, they give plaintiffs standing to challenge that ban in its entirety.

          It’s an interesting throw of the dice if what I think is actually the case. In any event, I will reserve my judgement until this plays out in court. There are a lot of issues that can be raised in a legal challenge to this rule and quite a few of them have overwhelmingly positive long-term implications. If it stands, I won’t be supporting Trump in the GOP primary. However, I don’t see this being upheld.

  14. avatar tsbhoa.p.jr says:

    well, thank goodness for sober rational people. just the thought of someone owning this product in my area makes me all jittery. i hope to finally sleep soundly when i know that these have finally been turned over to the authorities from the dangerous weirdos that wield them. perhaps by friday i can get some rest. hallelujah.

    1. avatar Manse Jolly says:

      I have a brand new 100 count pack of rubber bands.

      …cause physics is a thing yanno.

      just sayin..

    2. avatar Florian geyer says:

      1. I don’t know you, so im not going to immediately insult your intelligence and I’ll assume you’re being sarcastic.

      2. If you’re not being sarcastic, think (if you possess such an increasingly rare ability) on the prospect that this ruling has now turned many of your neighbors and fellow citizens from being law abiding, responsible gun owners, into armed felons with machine guns. Sleep well.

  15. avatar LarryinTX says:

    Trump Admin!!! Acting AG!!! Did Congress pass a new law? No?? Then FOAD. If you really feel a need to get rid of yours, mail it to Chucky S. or Nancy P., then drop a dime on them.

  16. avatar LarryinTX says:

    Why do my posts disappear?

    1. avatar tsbhoa.p.jr says:

      try waiting a bit. reposts have been showing up as multiples, and the (wordpress?) overlords have said they don’t understand the metric/ logarythm process.
      just that some stuff gets snagged and detained.

  17. avatar 2A says:

    Private Property confiscation. Huh sounds a lot like Venezuela. How’s that working out.

    1. avatar RA-15 says:

      2A. Its working out fine , if one considers digging through garbage to feed themselves , and their families.

  18. avatar former water walker says:

    Herr Trump is bored being President. I doubt he’ll get re-elected…while BS are not something I care about THIS is a democrat move. Like what Donnie “was” not long ago. NY sensibility😡

  19. avatar FantaSea says:

    I believe this combined with Trump’s failure to build any semblance of a wall is going to hurt him in a big way in 2020. He’s certainly lost my vote after this. Really, I don’t see any point in voting any more. We end up losing no matter who we vote for. Just a matter of how fast we lose. At this point we might as well vote Democratic to hasten a reset.

  20. avatar Owen says:

    So when the lawsuit about this comes, could it also unravel the NFA? Makes me wonder.

    1. avatar TheUnspoken says:

      Depends on if they actually take the case, the only precedent we have so far is that the Supremes won’t take the case. Still waiting for them to prove that wrong. I am sure they are just awaiting that perfect case to say “machine guns and grenade launchers and silencers for all, and you can open carry and conceal carry without license, any mag size or belt fed you like, carve these words in stone!”

      The fact is the second amendment has just been further breached, and we are just hoping that maybe the Supreme court will eventually save us from our leaders. Unless or until that happens, it seems the second amendment is nothing but worthless words, devoid of substance and meaning. The right to keep and bear arms has and can be infringed.

  21. avatar Stateisevil says:

    I wonder what President O’ Rourke will deem a machine gun after the first mass shooting under his tenure. Incredible tyranny. As much as I love seeing the MSM squirm, I didn’t vote for Rick Scott and I won’t be voting for Donald again either. But, this is exactly what I expected.

    1. avatar Cory C. says:

      Good points.

    2. avatar UpInArms says:

      You might want to wait and see who’s on the ballot before you make any declarations.

      That being said, I doubt if I’ll ever vote for a Democrat again for the remainder of my days. (which does not guarantee a vote for a Republican, either).

      1. avatar Biatec says:

        No I’m voting third party if the libertarians get a good candidate. Hillary would be better because at least there would be a real backlash then because she would be doing far worse things. It’s pointless voting for republicans at this point.

        1. avatar New Continental Army says:

          So, what if the democrats take all three branches then? What’s your plan then?

        2. avatar HP says:

          If that happens, I’ll be moving to a free state. Living in upstate New York, I’m constantly reminded by commenters here that I’m an idiot for not leaving my family and friends and going to a free state, so that’s what I’ll do. Yep, a free state for me. That’s the ticket! So many of you have been right all this time! Just move to a free state!

        3. avatar New Continental Army says:

          …ok… I’m not one of those people. I think you’re letting some of commenters here get to you. There’s not going to be any free states to move to if the dems get a full sweep.

        4. avatar Biatec says:

          New continental Army I don’t know what you mean. If the dems take everything it will just be quicker and hten people might actually do something about it. Every generation we lose more of our rights. Might as well stop voting for the lesser of 2 evils.

      2. avatar Rusty Chains says:

        I have voted Democrat in exactly one election in the past, and that was over four decades ago. At this point, what have the Republicans done for me, other than pretend to ocassionally stop the worst excesses of the Democrat/Socialist party.

        We stand at the edge of a cliff with a black abyss before us, and only the hope for the passing of RBG while she can be replaced with someone who will actually support and defend the Constitution. God help us!

  22. avatar pwrserge says:

    Can we all agree that we need to see what the final result of all the lawsuits and injunctions is before we throw one of the few presidents to actually love America in the past 50 years under the bus? Trump has done a lot of crazy things before and they have, thus far, worked out. Until the ban is upheld by the SCotUS, I’m willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.

    1. avatar New Continental Army says:

      I don’t know man, I’m not gonna go on some huge anti Trump binge like the media wants us to do, but I think it’s time to accept the fact Trump simply doesn’t see the constitution the way we do, and that really shouldn’t be a surprise to anyway. Seems to me, he’s trying to “do something” to placate the anti gun crowd while unsuccessfully trying not to piss off gun owners. He’s success and goal driven, not rights driven. Now is not the time to give up on “turn on him” though, now is the time to play the great game, and pretend to be his friend, and pressure him for the next conservative SCOTUS justice, that’ll help strike down this very thing. Meanwhile we do everything we can to keep congress from going solid blue. I think the right needs to learn how not just to fight hard and be enraged, but learn to be underhanded, sneaky, and two faced just like the dirty leftists are.

      1. avatar pwrserge says:

        We’ll see… right now, I’m not exactly happy, but then again, he’s done some crazy things in the past that have worked out. He’s earned the benefit of the doubt. If he shuts down the government to get his wall built, it will only reinforce my opinion. Until the court cases get resolved, I’ll wait and see.

        1. avatar Geoff "You'll shoot your eye out, kid!" PR says:

          ” If he shuts down the government to get his wall built, it will only reinforce my opinion.”

          There just so happens to be news in that department :

          “The White House could back down from its demand for $5 billion in border wall funding in a year-end spending bill, press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders says.”

          https://www.cnbc.com/2018/12/18/white-house-suggests-it-will-back-down-on-5-billion-border-wall-demand.html

        2. avatar pwrserge says:

          CNBC? Let me know when it actually happens and not based on some “unnamed sources” made up on the spot.

        3. avatar New Continental Army says:

          Trump has a back up plan for the wall, if he can’t get it in the traditional way, he’s going to expand the military budget and have the military build the wall. Mattis is already on board with this because he gets full funding in every other military project.

  23. avatar M1Lou says:

    If they can just ban bump stocks by fiat, doesn’t this open the door to severe restrictions on most anything by the stroke of a pen? Semi-autos are almost machine guns, like bump stocks are almost machine guns, so they should be banned also?

  24. avatar LickedButt says:

    Predictions;

    1) this will be enough to cause Trump to lose in 2020
    2) If the courts do not quickly stop this, there will be lots of violence, even attempts on Trump’s life
    3) all out civil war is close

    1. avatar Hannibal says:

      You’re nuts if you think enough people care about bump stocks for anything to come of it.

      We had a federal assault weapon ban and there was no civil war.

      1. avatar Jamie in North Dakota says:

        HANNIBAL, you’re exactly right, I laugh at all the keyboard warriors on here claiming to be ready for war over a bumpstock ban…good luck with that.

  25. avatar Bcb says:

    I hope no one turns any in.

  26. avatar Stev says:

    The first step towards going after semi-autos. “You’ll ban a bump stock used to kill 58 people but not the dangerous handguns that kill thousands?” Strap in, ladies and gents.

    1. avatar Jamie in North Dakota says:

      The first step forward? LMAO! They’ve been trying to ban semi-autos long before fricken bumpstocks were even invented, find a new BS talking point.

  27. avatar Ralph says:

    It would take a giant set of brass balls for any government official — judge or President — to support bumpfire stocks after Las Vegas. Those stocks were history the second that the murdering [email protected] started his massacre.

    The ban will be challenged and the challenges will ultimately fail, even if the process used to ban them was defective. Bumpfire stocks are indefensible.

    1. avatar Cloudbuster says:

      Way to be a defeatist cuck. One way to be absolutely positive you won’t win is to not fight.

    2. avatar Geoff "You'll shoot your eye out, kid!" PR says:

      “Bumpfire stocks are indefensible.”

      Are registered machine guns indefensible?

      That’s the relief we should seek, make ’em legal with registration…

      1. avatar Hannibal says:

        Sure, and if you can find one before ’86 on the registry you’re good. Otherwise they’re out.

        This is just a loser issue. Yes, it’s a stupid law. No, it’s not going to stop anyone. But politically, there are too few that care enough to overwhelm the bullshit narrative.

    3. avatar Jamie in North Dakota says:

      Agree with Ralph 100% and those that don’t are in serious denial or delusional.

  28. avatar Florian geyer says:

    So wait, are they saying the devices themselves are machine guns or that when the device is attached to a firearm, the firearm then becomes a machine gun?

    1. avatar Charlie Foxtrot says:

      According to the new regulation, a bump stock is the same as a drop-in auto sear. It is the actual machine gun. See “§ 478.11 Meaning of terms” in https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/5635249/Bump-Stock-Final-Rule.pdf

  29. avatar Cloudbuster says:

    The chances of them being able to trace any particular bump stock to any particular person are tiny,. Hopefully this will be ruled unconstitutional when challenged in court. In the meantime. Do not comply. Do keep your mouth shut about what you own unless you’re volunteering to become the test case.

    1. avatar pwrserge says:

      Oh, I can already hear the lawyermobiles revving up to race to a pile of district courts. I expect a preliminary injunction by January.

      1. avatar Geoff "You'll shoot your eye out, kid!" PR says:

        ” I expect a preliminary injunction by January.”

        Won’t the injunction be valid only in the states served by the district federal court that issues it?

        1. avatar pwrserge says:

          Nope. Thanks left wing for giving us precedent with the travel ban.

        2. avatar Stateisevil says:

          Serge, you are delusional if you think a kourt is going to defy this fatwah. You are quite a loyal fanboy though, I’ll give you that.

        3. avatar pwrserge says:

          You mean how no court will ever strike down Obamacare? Oh… wait…

        4. avatar ThisEnd^ says:

          The US Supreme Court made the “ACA” Constitutionally Protected Law in 2012…

        5. avatar pwrserge says:

          … and that ruling just got overturned in a lower court as the “tax” interpretation no longer applies.

          https://dfw.cbslocal.com/2018/12/14/federal-judge-texas-strikes-down-obamacare-unconstitutional/

        6. avatar ThisEnd^ says:

          And how does a Federal Judge in Texas, overrule a judgement made by the US SUPREME COURT in 2012…

        7. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          It’s really not that difficult. The original challenge was against the individual mandate. SCOTUS upheld it as a (new, wholesale-invented by Roberts) “tax”. Congress repealed the ACA “tax” in 2017, thereby removing the individual mandate. Then, the states challenged the unfunded mandate on state social security. The most recent ruling found the ACA funding mandate on state social security to be unconstitutional.

          Note that none of these challenges have anything at all to do with the constitutionality of the federal government regulating a private contractual relationship between insurance companies and the private citizens they insure.

        8. avatar ThisEnd^ says:

          And yet the ACA still exist! Even the Federal Judge ruling in Texas doesn’t nullify the ACA! It just passes the buck back to SCOTUS…

        9. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          Um, okay?

  30. avatar Matt in Oklahoma says:

    Sold out by Trump and the NRA.

  31. avatar Manse Jolly says:

    and what about ‘drop in Triggers’ with very short resets?

    Was there an exception carved out? Or is everyone at ATF simply saying thats not on their radar…yet.

  32. avatar Ben says:

    Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss.

  33. avatar Wright Winger says:

    All my bump stocks were lost in that terrible boating accident I had last July.

  34. avatar fat willy joe says:

    Months now various states has passed laws banning them, but how many have been turned in? hardly any. There might be thousands of these out there.

    1. avatar CZJay says:

      Well that is fantastic for the government. Now they have a reason to no-knock your compound. It’s going to be fun for those tacticool operators that are sitting around waiting to use their full autos and explosives.

      Hold my beer and watch this!

  35. avatar CZJay says:

    /me ROFL

    “What judge is going to rule against the feds? How about any judge that thinks giving the DOJ precedent to change the meaning of words is a bad idea? This is a slam dunk without even approaching 2nd amendment grounds. The statute, as written, does not give the ATF the authority it claims it has.” –pwrserge

    “And the law doesn’t give the government/IRS the ability to take money from the people yet they interpret it to give them such powers. That’s how a corrupt government works. It doesn’t matter what the law says, it matters who enforces it. You won’t be enforcing shit.

    Don’t forget they changed the definition of: regulation, public safety, public good, interstate commerce, etc.” –czjay

    “It’s a rather big step from changing the definition of ‘regulation’ through an act of congress to changing the definition of the word ‘pull’ by administrative fiat. Again, I’m not worried about the bump-stock ban. Not because I don’t have a bump-stock, but because I know enough about how the process works to know that any talk of such a ban is just meaningless hot air. I’d bet that right after the DNC gets crushed in the mid-terms the DOJ will come back and say ‘Sorry, we looked at the comments and don’t particularly want to fight several hundred legal battles that we will almost certainly lose.'” –pwrserge

    1. avatar pwrserge says:

      You know CZ, people can be wrong. Just because the DOJ decided to try and prop up a retarded regulation doesn’t mean that every single one of the dozens of courts it will be challenged in will uphold it.

      1. avatar CZJay says:

        There is a different kind of game being played. You seem to not have a clue what it is. You are playing by rules of a different game entirely. I tried to explain the game to you many times. Maybe now you will join the rest of us so we can finally score. Don’t be shy.

        Don’t forget they put in Kavanaugh. As I told you before, he is not friendly to the people and the 2nd Amendment like Republicants think. He is a good old boy with his “I support the 2nd Amendment, but…” mentality.

        I forecasted a lot of things correctly because I have no bias and I am not delusional. Hopefully others will see clearly now that the rain is gone.

        1. avatar pwrserge says:

          Pardon me for not running around like my ass is on fire over what could turn out to be a major long-term victory for us.

        2. avatar ThisEnd^ says:

          They also put in “Gorsuch”! And so far Gosuch isn’t playing ball…

    2. avatar CarlosT says:

      CZJay:

      And the law doesn’t give the government/IRS the ability to take money from the people yet they interpret it to give them such powers.

      Sixteenth Amendment:

      The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

      The Constitution explicitly authorizes exactly that, as you can see from the full text of the Sixteenth Amendment as I’ve posted above. Maybe that’s something you think should not be allowed, but it definitely is. If you want it to not be authorized, that would require a Constitutional amendment.

      1. avatar pwrserge says:

        Holy shit, I agree with Carl… Ok… somebody get the HVAC guys on the phone, I got a call from a red man with horns on his head complaining that his basement is frozen over.

      2. avatar CZJay says:

        What is the definition of “income”? What is the definition of “wages”?

        You go to do the whole lawyer interpreting thing. You may think an assault rifle is a full auto firearm whereas the lawyers and judges will have a completely different definition. This is why in law things must be defined within the text, hence why politicians have a hard time writing bans that would get rid of guns like the AR-15 without repealing the 2nd Amendment.

        1. avatar CarlosT says:

          Hey, Serge, no kidding, right? Feels weird 🙂

          Anyway, CZJay, a lot of this isn’t all that gray. Sure, there are details that are worked out in statute and case law, but the underlying question of whether individuals can be taxed was definitively settled.

          As for the subject at hand, this should never have gotten this far. We’ll see what happens in the courts. It should die, but that requires the courts to apply the law, and not just promulgate a favored policy outcome.

  36. avatar bob says:

    You can blame Trump for this, or you can be realistic and see the forest through the tree’s.

    By allowing this, it allows law suits against it, which, can be taken to the courts, and if properly pressed can cement supreme court ruling to find attached devices not within NFA classification or better yet, find the NFA in violation of the 2A

    So instead of sulking and trying to blame someone for what the masses pushed for, try focusing on the reason it got this far.
    Trump did not single handed pull a bump stock ban out of thin air, just more who wanted the ban spoke up than the ones who didn’t.

    Call or visit your local representatives, join law suits, fight back.
    Or sit behind a computer and complain about how Trump hurt your feelings.

    1. avatar Charlie Foxtrot says:

      Right, more 4D beer pong by the NRA! LOL

      You do understand that if the legal case against this succeeds, we are back where we started, right? The legislature has to take this up, now with a Democrat House.

      You do understand that if the legal case against this fails, we have precedent for an “assault weapon” ban with no grandfather clause, right? That is worse than the Australian ban, by the way, where there was a Constitutional mandate for a buy-back of outlawed private property.

      We lost this fight the moment the NRA put its opinion out on this matter, blaming the tool and not the shooter.

      This is what Charlie Sheen called, “winning”!

      https://youtu.be/pipTwjwrQYQ

      1. avatar pwrserge says:

        Not necessarily. It depends on the legal issues raised in the challenges and which of those are heard on appeal by the SCotUS. (… and I can practically guarantee this will eventually hit the SCotUS.) If we play our cards right, we can get the 1986 ban struck down along with state level bans. It’s a golden opportunity for a solid 2nd amendment case backed up by 5th and 14th amendment issues that the left has been trying to deny us ever since it became obvious we’re going to have a fairly originalist SCotUS for a while.

        1. avatar Charlie Foxtrot says:

          Remember what Kavanaugh said about precedent? How do you envision the 1986 ban get struck down? On what grounds?

          As for state bans, if the federal ban simply gets struck down because it doesn’t include a buy-back, that isn’t much of a help. If it gets struck down because of a missing grandfather clause, that isn’t much of a help either. Both would require new federal legislation with these missing features. Congress and the President don’t seem to have a problem with writing such legislation. If there is a federal bump stock ban, then state level bump stock bans are not needed.

          In order to completely eliminate state and federal bans on bump stocks, SCOTUS would need to decide that they are arms protected under the 2A. I don’t see that happening! I see a “reasonable restriction/regulation” decision instead, if they take it at all.

        2. avatar CZJay says:

          Assuming the government isn’t colluding, that they will hear the case in the first place and they will rule 100% on the side of the people and the Constitution. That has yet to happen… There is always some excuse of “public safety,” “interstate commerce,” “common usage,” “reasonable regulation,” etc. In other words, even if you win you lose.

          So don’t count on this miracle you have in your head. Sure, it’s a possibility, just not probable considering the current corrupt governments/politicians in the U.S.

          If you want it you must take it, no one is going to give it to you.

        3. avatar pwrserge says:

          Simple. The 1986 ban has never had a hearing in the SCotUS due mostly to a lack of standing for a good case. It’s hard to argue that a complete ban on something is a “reasonable regulation”. Better yet, since the entirety of the constitutionality of the NFA rests on the government’s authority to levy taxes, refusing to collect said taxes puts it on shaky constitutional grounds. We also have the US v Miller precedent of weapons “useful for militia purposes” which select-fire rifles eminently fit.

          This completely sets aside the 5th and 14th amendment issues in this case. The lack of a grandfather clause in this rule is a slap in the face of 5th amendment protections.

          The reality is that few judges are going to sit back and let an administrative agency re-define the English language and effectively write new laws. This is especially true given the other cases currently at bar before the SCotUS.

        4. avatar Geoff "You'll shoot your eye out, kid!" PR says:

          “Remember what Kavanaugh said about precedent? How do you envision the 1986 ban get struck down? On what grounds?”

          The grounds are, 80-odds *years* of having a full-auto registry with nearly *zero* instances of registered machine guns used in crime.

          Oh, and by the way, gun registration has been an anomaly in America for most of its history. The *vast* majority of states don’t require it.

          Hence, historical precedent is that gun registration is unconstitutional…

        5. avatar ThisEnd^ says:

          I suspect you have forgotten about the “North Hollywood” Standoff of 28 February 1997, which is within that 80 year time frame. Sounds like Automatic Weapons Fire in the background to me…

          https : // youtu . be / I _ 1IvZFwj0M

        6. avatar Charlie Foxtrot says:

          “The grounds are, 80-odds *years* of having a full-auto registry with nearly *zero* instances of registered machine guns used in crime.

          Oh, and by the way, gun registration has been an anomaly in America for most of its history. The *vast* majority of states don’t require it.”

          These are political arguments that the legislative branch would use to decide about changing laws and not the judiciary branch would use to decide about constitutionality.

          The counter argument, by the way, would be that there have been nearly *zero* instances of registered machine guns used in crime, because they were registered. Criminals that are in illegal possession of a machine gun and would use it to commit a crime do not have the duty to register it in the first place.

        7. avatar pwrserge says:

          Striking down the 1986 ban would open the registry, not abolish it. The compelling government interest is clearly served by the registry alone as there were no incidents involving registered machineguns during that period. That’s the beauty of it. The 1986 ban fails any level of scrutiny.

        8. avatar Charlie Foxtrot says:

          I really do not see SCOTUS striking down the 1986 machine gun ban. I don’t see SCOTUS thinking that it is unconstitutional. I also don’t see SCOTUS having the motivation for such a far reaching decision. I further don’t see this or any other case having the standing to challenge the 1986 machine gun ban in a way that SCOTUS would take up that challenge.

          Imagine the cases that need to be appealed if the 1986 machine gun ban gets struck down. The ATF search warrant for the Branch Davidians in Waco was based on a suspicion of a violation of the 1986 machine gun ban!

      2. avatar CZJay says:

        https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2017/10/johannes-paulsen/nras-position-bump-fire-stocks-genius/#comment-3671912

        “The NRA has given strength to the BATFE, they have sided with “gun control” politicians and implied that the BATFE should exist. Now Republicans have to side with the “gun control” group, the NRA leadership and the BATFE for their upcoming elections. We have already seen Republicans calling for more laws/infringements. This puts Trump in a bad position going forward, which is why he is trying to delay the discussion.

        Why does anyone need a stock that is used for range entertainment by a few people? Why would a person need a .50 BMG at a public range if they are not taking out vehicles and aircraft? Why do people need impractical drum magazines, belts and extended magazines for fun mag dumps at the range? Why do people have to have flash hiders if they only shoot at targets at the range during the day? Why is it necessary for people to use infrared or thermal devices to shoot at the range?

        Most people don’t have or need these things. So why shouldn’t they be banned along with the bump fire stocks? Let’s just have guns with no attachments, require thin barrels for semi automatic long guns and regulate the calibers/rounds for specific purpose use that isn’t combat. Since we are at it, let’s make it illegal to have any pistol that can fire a bullet over the speed of sound.

        Come NRA, you have done it before, you can do it again. You can cut off much of the negativity toward your org by being cool with such range toy regulation, as it will keep semi auto guns safe for a little longer. That way the water only rises in temperature slowly; maybe slow enough that your current members will expire before the repeal of the human right of self preservation and private property protection using modern tools. You don’t want your members to have to get off the couch anytime soon (if ever).” –czjay

        https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2017/10/johannes-paulsen/nras-position-bump-fire-stocks-genius/#comment-3672036

        “The problem with kneeling down is the fact that it’s a concession to disingenuous people who are proposing things that wouldn’t have done anything to stop the attack. The current strategy from “gun control” groups is to maintain the fear of firearms. The NRA is playing into that by agreeing that the bump fire technique is too deadly/dangerous to go unregulated. Now the public is going to see that EVEN the NRA agrees that “gun control” is necessary and that the Vegas attack would have been less deadly if there was more laws. Fact is, the attack was less deadly because the man had a bump fire stock on his rifles and not so reliable mags. The problem with saying that to the public is that it will require a lot of work to show people who don’t want to listen in the first place.” –czjay

  37. avatar CZJay says:

    You guys will sit there and take it up the bum from your oh so loved government. Then you will vote for Republicants once again. Trump 2020! Red tsunami!

    We are winning like never before. So tired of winning, make it stop. This 4D chess is on another level. Alex Jones was so right, what an oracle.

    By the way, screw those French surrenders, they never stand up against their shitty socialist government like Americans do. Americans kick ass and take names. Americans are all about that death before surrender: from their cold dead hands and all that.

    Remember how many of you said you would fight back when they come to confiscate? You ready? Are you willing now that push comes to shove? You’re not going to rationalize now are you?

  38. avatar Ben says:

    Art of the deal at work, thanks Trump!

    Surprisingly Draconian.

  39. avatar Chiefton says:

    While throwing accuracy aside, if you can pull a trigger as fast (or almost as fast) as a bump stock would that make you illegal? At what speed would you be “illegal”? I am certain Jerry Michulek is as fast as a bump stock. Is he now illegal?

  40. avatar Founding Father. says:

    I think they have a serious problem. A stock in itself not attached to a weapon is useless. I don’t see how just having one that’s not attached to anything could be illegal. It’s not a firearm! Simply remove it and keep for a appropriate time. I think a automatic trigger sear could be labeled the same way if not attached to a weapon. It’s not a firearm. This is the first step by our government to get to our semi automatic weapons. This will not end well if the courts don’t step up. Get ready for a rubber band and belt loop ban. Actually they will outlaw semi autos first. They smell blood and are going into a frenzy. Unfortunantly we are going to have to be the ones to stop them . There will be a lot of blood in the waters. I don’t even own one of these stocks and I’m pissed!

    1. avatar Bcb says:

      As well you should be. I see very little compliance with a turn in. The real question is what will our 2A community do if the feds try to seize the neighbors stuff?

  41. avatar Tinfoil. says:

    The Obama administration ATF liked these things. Then they orchestrated the false flag event in Vegas to bring this to the forefront opening the door for more regulations. This was planned from the start. Trump hopefully will lose this in the court system. If not get ready for more serious regulations. There is a War on its way.

  42. avatar Charlie Foxtrot says:

    The Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) filed their lawsuit: https://www.firearmspolicy.org/guedes-v-batfe

    The NRA has yet to issue any comment.

    1. avatar CZJay says:

      The NRA came up with the idea. They support it.

      1. avatar Charlie Foxtrot says:

        The NRA just issued a statement: https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2018/12/daniel-zimmerman/nra-disappointed-by-trump-bump-stock-ban/

        Yes, they came up with that idea, but don’t want to publicly acknowledge that.

  43. avatar Alan says:

    Once again it is demonstrated to any who might be interested, that neither the DOJ, the current home of the BATFE, nor it’s misbegotten child know the difference between a semi-automatic rifle and a machinegun. Also, again demonstrated beyond question, is the sad fact that, regarding the management of the BATFE and a Street Whore, no disrespect of the last mentioned intended, little difference is discernible.

  44. avatar Chris T in KY says:

    I will not comply.
    But I know that many on TTAG support Trump on this issue. Many of you, (Liberal Gun Owners) came out of the closet after it was announced that a Bump Fire AR-15 was used at the Las Vegas shooting.

    But as I said before the rich will still have their machine guns and other NFA items.
    Rich men like the Las Vegas shooter. And rich men like the Dupont Chemical heir who murdered several people, with his very expensive gun collection, and was in a stand off with the police. Yes I know there are conservative gun owners, FUDDS, who support this ban as well.

    No rapid fire weapons for the poor allowed.

    1. avatar Chris T in KY says:

      BTW
      From 2017: Marion Hammer: NRA Never Wanted Legal Machine Guns, Bump Fire Stocks

      https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2017/10/luis-valdes/marion-hammer-nra-never-wanted-legal-machine-guns-bump-fire-stocks/

      1. avatar Phil Moore says:

        This is just the beginning. Need to draw a line in the sand, NOW. Who provided just who has these devices. Factory made or self manufactured? They have no friggin idea who has them. And, who is going to cut them up and tell them they did? Don’t ask, don’t tell. Yeah, they are just a cheap piece of plastic or metal forging, maybe 500000 of them or MORE.

  45. avatar Paul says:

    Let’s see now … they’ve banned a gun add-on that guys who probably couldn’t hit the broad side of barn anyway could use to burn more ammo at not hitting anything … hmmm? Other than making more bad laws this doesn’t really bother me. No great loss. I prefer hitting what I shoot at as opposed to just shooting up ammo really fast. This just seems like an effort to make it look like “hey we did something”. Meh … stupid laws from stupid lawmakers that will accomplish nothing in the long run other than to set up more stupid laws. And while I think Trump is a bit of a dumb ass …”better a crazy old billionaire that has no idea what his doing than a criminal b!+ch that knows exactly what she’s doing”

    1. avatar CarlosT says:

      This is epically missing the point. Personally, even if the NFA disappeared tomorrow or if they were giving away bump stocks, I wouldn’t be interested. The point, however, is that this is an abuse of power and a corrupt distortion of the law. A bump stock does not meet the legal definition of a machine gun, and just rewriting the law by executive fiat doesn’t change that fact.

      If this is allowed to stand, what’s to stop this or another administration from making ARs NFA items with a stroke of a pen? Or standard capacity magazines? The Legislature should be legislating, and more and more, the Executive is usurping that power.

      1. avatar Geoff "You'll shoot your eye out, kid!" PR says:

        “If this is allowed to stand, what’s to stop this or another administration from making ARs NFA items with a stroke of a pen?”

        Not a damn thing. I predicted the way they will attack semi-autos in general is not an outright ban, but to assign them as NFA devices…

  46. avatar Fudds McKenzie says:

    4D chess, MAGA. Would you rather Hillary? Praise Kek for this infringement we are about to recieve.

  47. avatar koolaidguzzler says:

    Fact: weapons are regulated in the US.
    Fact: they always have been.
    Fact: it’s been proven constitutional repeatedly and recently.
    Opinion: bumpstocks are stupid. Hardly anyone owns them. Hardly anyone wants them.
    From a policy pov, it’s stupid for gunowners to beef this one too stridently.
    There’s far far bigger fish to fry.
    And that slippery slope argument that NRA and GOA shove down our throats — mostly myth not supported by fact.

  48. avatar Ted Unlis says:

    On page 83 of the 157 page DOJ final ruling ATF explicitly stated the bumpfire ban IS NOT applicable to binary triggers.

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/3713978/posts?page=8

  49. avatar RNM says:

    Hey, if the government shuts down…does that delay this? Buys the lawsuits some time?

    1. I sincerely doubt it! The ATF is an Enforcement Arm of the US Government. Only those in the Non-Essential Services of the US Government are effected (i.e. Department of Labor, Department of Education, Treasury Department, State Department, FDA, etc)…

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