First Attempted Bump Stock Prosecution Withdrawn

Even Sen. Feinstein Knows the Trump Bump Stock Ban is on Thin Legal Ice

courtesy Denver Post and AP

In Houston just yesterday, a federal prosecutor appears to have gotten cold feet. Right before the trial began, in the face of an ATF expert prepared to testify that bump stocks do not a machine gun make, the prosecutor withdrew the bump stock possession charge, proceeding only with charges facing less resistance. From the Houston Chronicle:

Senior U.S. District Judge Gray H. Miller convicted Ajay Dhingra, 44, on three remaining counts that he lied when he purchased a handgun, rifle and ammunition, and illegally possessed a weapon as a person who had been committed for mental illness.

Experts had conflicting views on the [bump stock] matter, said defense attorney Tom Berg. But Rick Vasquez, a retired ATF agent and firearms expert, would have told the court the bump stock did not meet the statutory definition of a machine gun. The prosecution dismissed [the] case, he said, because the government couldn’t prove beyond a reasonable doubt the bump stock was a machine gun.

Perhaps that’s because a bump stock is not a machine gun? Just a hunch.

comments

  1. avatar James Ivy says:

    Basically they didn’t want to try a case about bumpstocks for fear of it being scrutinized. Who would of thought

    1. avatar Pete says:

      I’m sure that the appointment of ACB to the SCOTUS has put a stop to many Gun Control wet dreams.
      They were probably hoping for a Biden appointed liberal that would take the State’s side in every case.

      1. avatar Miner49er says:

        You do know, it was the Obama/Biden administration that approved bump stocks in 2014, right?

        And the Trump administration, under direct orders from the Donald himself, made bump stocks illegal and initiated this prosecution of a citizen for possession of a bump stock.

        The narrative is one thing, but the facts of reality are often at odds with the propaganda ministry directives.

        1. avatar Shire-man says:

          Hurr, durrr…..look over here at this meme stock and pay no attention to the author of the Assault Weapons Ban which fucked your life for a decade.

        2. avatar FedUp says:

          I don’t believe that was the Obama Administration, I think it was BATFE Technical Branch, doing technical stuff without political interference. Sad to say that, at least in this instance, letting ATF do ATF stuff makes you a good President.

        3. avatar uncommon_sense says:

          Miner49er,

          This particular comment of yours is factually accurate and demonstrates that President Trump is nowhere near perfect when it comes to defending our inalienable right to self-defense.

          The really fun question is, “Has Trump done more harm than good in the pursuit of our right to keep and bear arms?”

          On the whole, I believe the benefits of federal judges that Trump appointed (and Republican Senators confirmed) outweighs the detriments of Trump’s influence to criminalize bump stocks.

          If all goes well, the very judges that Trump appointed will negate unconstitutional policies, laws, and/or orders from both the Executive branch and Congress. That will be a huge win in my book and does more good than the (hopefully) temporary harm of criminalizing bump stocks.

        4. avatar Debbie W. says:

          What a cornered DJT did is reversible whereas if Congress did it not so easily reversed. For the bump stock crybabies and other politically inept snot nosed twerps whose POTUS bashing rhetoric serves democRats be thankful it was not hilliary clintoon and her ilk. The far superior binary triggers, etc. advertised on this site would not exist.

        5. avatar Someone says:

          We do know, you told us at least hundred times.
          Obama let this one slip by, because he was concentrated on big picture. If he succeeded in his efforts to ban semi auto rifles and standard capacity magazines, bump stocks would not matter, since we would have nothing to attach them to.

          But don’t let facts interrupt your lying narrative about Obama/Biden pro gun rights leanings. Sleepy Joe Biden brags about his crucial role in passing AWB and promises us another, this time permanent one.

        6. avatar LarryinTX says:

          I’ll be standing by on 21 Jan 2021 so I won’t miss Joe Hiden directing ATF to reverse that order. However, I won’t be holding my breath. And, my plan is for no more judges or justices to be confirmed until after the next presidential election, a clear surrender on my part to what Dems have been demanding for a year. Hey, when you’re right, you’re right, let’s let the voters decide!

        7. avatar Tarzan says:

          I wish the democrats controlled both houses and Biden is prez. That way they can hurry up and pass all the gun laws they dream about. Then we can all ignore them like politicians do. Let’s get this shït started. Some of us are old and want to blast some of this ammo at the grabbers. Let’s se this stuff for once. Little by little takes to long. When will the door to door grabs start? Then miner can start checking off his hit list. Laws don’t mean shít anymore. Either does the nfa.

        8. avatar frank speak says:

          one bozo in vegas changed everything….

        9. avatar Bterclinger says:

          Best thing for all commie symps to do is find a bump stock and jam it up your brain hole.

    2. avatar Geoff says:

      Just like they won’t pursue cases involving lower receivers not meeting the definition of a firearm.
      www dot thetruthaboutguns dot com/the-atfs-definition-of-an-ar-15-lower-as-a-firearm-is-in-serious-trouble/

      Nicolaysen argued that the definition of a receiver under the relevant federal code differed in various ways from the AR-15 component Roh was accused of manufacturing.
      Under the US Code of Federal Regulations, a firearm frame or receiver is defined as: “That part of a firearm which provides housing for the hammer, bolt or breechblock, and firing mechanism, and which is usually threaded at its forward portion to receive the barrel.” (emphasis added)

      The lower receiver in Roh’s case does not have a bolt or breechblock and is not threaded to receive the barrel, Nicolaysen noted.

      1. avatar Anymouse says:

        It’s a bogus ruling by a know-nothing in a lower court, so don’t get your hopes up. “Hammer, bolt, or breachblock” is satisfied by the AR lower housing the hammer. Since it’s “or,” not all pieces are required. “and firing mechanism” is satisfied by the trigger, sear, and safety/selector also being in an AR lower. Logically, it’s written as “(A OR B OR C) AND D”, with A and B being TRUE. The rest is an optional requirement because it starts with “usually,” which means there is at least one case where this isn’t satisfied but the overall statement remains true.

        1. avatar Mercury says:

          There are at least two ways to read “hammer, bolt or breechblock, and firing mechanism.”

          One way, which you identified, reads “[A or B or C] and D”. This would make an AR lower a receiver (legal firearm). However, this is a semantically strained reading to say the least. When making a conditional statement for which one item in a list is a requirement, and two or more others are optional, it is typical of both speech and legal text to phrase it in the reverse order from the above, i.e. “the firing mechanism, and the hammer, bolt or breechblock.” That may not sound like much, but you’re talking about criminal charges here. Just pointing out how awkward that reading sounds is all it takes to establish reasonable doubt that a crime was committed. That leads me to reading two, which I think is much more reasonable based on the age of the law in question:

          (A and [B or C] and D)
          This is a much more reasonable way of reading the sentence, again both in common speech and in legal parlance. In law, the first reading would almost certainly have been drafted “hammer, or bolt, or breechblock, and firing mechanism” were it meant that way and not rearranged as in the previous example (in common speech, you just wouldn’t arrange it that way at all if you meant option A.) This, obviously, eliminates the AR lower as a firearm. I have heard it argued that this also eliminates pistol frames, but it’s not a mechanical leap to say that the rails are part of the slide mechanism and therefore the bolt, so I don’t see that one standing up. Removable fire control modules maybe, if the rails are on the frame and not the FCG, although you could also reverse that and say the frame is the housing, since you can’t attach a slide to such a FCG. But I digress. The point is there’s more than enough ambiguity to sink a criminal charge, especially when the more reasonable sounding option (that is, to the ear,) is the one that negates the charge. Frankly, the intent behind the law ceases to be relevant at that point because it’s basically unenforceable, however if we were to speculate I would suggest that the intention was not to turn anything that can hold trigger and a hammer into a firearm, but rather only those triggers and hammers which might also be connected to a pressure bearing mechanism that could ignite a cartridge or other charge. Were that the intention, a nail gun would be a firearm lower reciever which just isn’t attached to a bolt or breechblock yet. In fact, this is necessarily a consequence of the interpretation you’ve posited. Any trigger that can release a hammer for any reason is a firearm, whether or not a bolt or breechblock is handy to hook it up to.

  2. avatar FedUp says:

    Appeal on 2nd/14th Amendment grounds, that there’s no overriding government need in prohibiting firearms to a class of people (mental patients) who have a lower propensity to commit violent crime than the rest of us?

  3. avatar Dennis Sumner says:

    Yeah, still throwin sh*t against the wall, see what sticks! A**holes!!!

  4. avatar Craig in IA says:

    If said person was alleged to have lied a couple of times on a 4473 (assuming he bought from a dealer) I’d think a prosecutor would have enough if convicted to put him away for a while. I’m not familiar with the case so I’m not sure if “someone” put him up to trying the bus stock angle.

    1. avatar Arc says:

      If hes smart enough to lie on the 4473, is he really that mentally ill?

  5. avatar WI Patriot says:

    Prosecutus Interruptus…

  6. avatar tsbhoa.p.jr says:

    we should only have revolvers, bolts and levers. i’m waiting for them to prosecute one of them new fangled self- loathers.

    1. avatar GS650G says:

      Levers hold too many for their tastes. It’s the assault weapon of the old west.

      1. avatar tsbhoa.p.jr says:

        they’ll never get my self- cauterizing flare gun.

    2. avatar LarryinTX says:

      You do realize that a revolver is semi-automatic, right? Fires one shot every time you pull the trigger, with no other actions (lever, bolt, etc.) required.

      1. avatar Mark N. says:

        Weird, not one of seven revolvers do that. y are defective

      2. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

        “You do realize that a revolver is semi-automatic, right?”

        Huh?

        Not single-action.

        With the hammer down, pull the trigger all you want, *nothing* will happen, except finger-exercise…

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Not single-action.”

          The point of LarryinTX’s comment was not the technical accuracy, but the political opening. To the public, there are only three types of firearms: full-auto, semi-auto, single-shot. The anti-gun mob tells the public over and over that to avoid labeling a firearm “automatic”, it must be restricted to firing one shot with a single pull of the trigger. Then introduce the revolver, and the public has no choice but to deduce it is semi-auto. Same with bolt action rifles. (bolt action rifles also have a forearm that prevents heat from being transferred to the shooter’s hand).

          Larry is pointing out that the anti-gunners might successfully restrict revolvers under regulations directed to what gun owners know as semi-auto firearms. In short, with anti-gunners, the words mean what they say they mean, and re-defining words on the fly is perfectly logical and legitimate. Remember, to anti-gunners, the Second Amendment applies only to organized militia, and flintlock long guns and pistols. Trying to establish laws defining revolvers (which cannot fire even one shot without a trigger pull) as “semi-auto” is not a reach exceeding the grasp.

      3. avatar tsbhoa.p.jr says:

        i only haz an sa… but yeah.

  7. avatar LKB says:

    Elephant in the room . . . had the government gotten a conviction, the appeal would go to the Fifth Circuit, which thanks to PDT’s nominees now has a majority of textualist, pro-2A active status judges. IMO, very unlikely that the current Fifth Circuit en banc would buy into the BATFE’s tortured “reinterpretation” of clear statutory language.

    If I was planning a 2A test case, I would definitely file it in a district court in Texas / Louisiana / Mississippi.

    1. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

      What type of 2A challenge would you like to see first?

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        Machine guns, take out the entire NFA 1934 right off the bat. The only case ever brought was about short barrel shotguns, on the basis they were not “weapons of war”, that being (as part of that case) the definition of all guns which enjoyed the protection of 2A. Guess what? There is zero question that a select fire M16 was a weapon of war, that is precisely what the control freaks have been claiming for decades. Except they somehow “forget” that is the only type of weapon protected, according to the only case to reach the court. In today’s environment, we’re looking at the derivative, a suppressed, select fire SBR.

        1. avatar LKB says:

          Challenging the NFA as a test case is a bridge too far, and not a wise tactic IMO. We need to get either strict scrutiny or THT test enshrined as 2A law, and THEN you start pushing that envelope.

        2. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

          “Machine guns, take out the entire NFA 1934 right off the bat.”

          Let’s start a bit smaller, like ordering the machinegun registry re-opened.

          It having being open for about 50 years covers the ‘tradition’ Kavanaugh has implied influences his decisions on constitutionality…

      2. avatar LKB says:

        I’d love to see some sort of “may issue” challenge or AWB challenge. However, since Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi all have very pro-2A laws (including state preemption of local laws), there really are no good candidates from this circuit.

        Best bet will be challenges to various federal laws / regs / rules. A challenge to the bump stock rule is one possibility, but I do not think that is the best candidate (and a favorable opinion would likely all but guarantee Congressional action on the subject).

        Assuming a Biden/Harris administration, I anticipate it won’t be long before we have either EO’s or new BATFE regs/rules/practices that could be challenged. Those need to be challenged in a Fifth Circuit case.

        Additionally, an easy test case would be another Mance v. Sessions (challenge to federal prohibition of handgun sales by FFL’s to out-of-state residents). Last time, district court (ND Tx) found it unconstitutional, but a CTA5 panel reversed. The petition to rehear the case en banc (2018) failed 8-7, and the cert petition died in the post NYSR&PA armageddon (thanks for nothing, Judas Roberts!) Since then, however, two PDT nominees (Oldham and Wilson) have filled the open CTA5 slots, which means if the case were decided today it likely would be a 9-8 vote to take the case en banc.

        Because there is now clear Fifth Circuit precedent on this point, the plaintiff will lose the district court case almost instantly, and a CTA5 panel decision summarily affirming it is also a given. However, it would provide a quick way to tee up another bite at both en banc rehearing and a cert petition, both of which have much more favorable audiences now.

        1. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

          “A challenge to the bump stock rule is one possibility, but I do not think that is the best candidate (and a favorable opinion would likely all but guarantee Congressional action on the subject).”

          If the SCOTUS rules bump stocks are expressly constitutional, what could the congress do about them?

          Outlaw something the court just said is protected? Please clue me on the logic…

        2. avatar LKB says:

          The bump stock challenges are based on statutory interpretation, not 2A: whether bump stocks can be construed to be “machine guns” under the NFA.

          While the BATFE position that they are is goofy and illogical, trying to get the courts to find bump stocks to be inherently protected by 2A runs into the same problem as trying to set aside the NFA right now — it’s just a bridge too far until we first have the groundwork firmly laid for 2A being protected as a fundamental right.

  8. avatar Dave G. says:

    Bump Stop???

    Jeremy, read your headline again.

    1. avatar Ranger Rick says:

      The Southern District of Texas AUSA hit a “Bump Stop” in his prosecution of a Bump Stock.

      1. avatar Miner49er says:

        Yes, Donald Trump’s political appointees continue to advance the cause of gun control, next up will be pistol braces.

        “Patrick Ryan is the 23rd presidentially-appointed United States Attorney for the Southern District of Texas and, as such, is the chief law enforcement officer responsible for prosecuting and defending the interests of the United States in one of the largest districts in the nation.

        Patrick began serving as U.S. Attorney on Jan. 8, 2018, following his presidential nomination in November 2017 and subsequent unanimous Senate confirmation.”

        1. avatar Chief Censor says:

          Seeing that Texas and Florida are supposed to be red states, it’s weird they are so backwards on the 2A. Arizona is blue, but less restrictions.

        2. avatar LarryinTX says:

          What’s weird is you two reinforcing your own circular bullshit.

        3. avatar Mark N. says:

          The POTUS does not get to decide which charges are filed or prosecuted in the thousands of cases filed annually in federal court. Plus here there was an alternative basis for the prosecution (maybe) about the mental health issue. Which of course begs the question: since he filled out a 4473, why wasn’t the sale halted? And as to the mental health issue, at least one court (others coming to a different conclusion) that a teenage short term admission for depression was an unconstitutional basis to deny the purchase of a firearm decades later. (to say nothing about the over-inclusiveness of the federal ban since the vast majority of mental health patients are not violent, violence being the harm presumably sought to be prevented. Something something something about laws impeding the exercise of civil liberties need to be narrowly tailored and all that.)

      2. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

        Read it three times and it still made no sense.

        1. avatar James Campbell says:

          Whiner49er commented?………

          https://youtu.be/2q35PgSXhKg

  9. avatar GS650G says:

    Once again we see the rules and regs serve to discourage sales and possession. When its time to ring up someone for violating they backed down since they know it’s on shaky legal grounds.

    Wait until they try to take legally acquired property from people who committed no crimes. Or force them to trade property for money at a price the gov determines to be fair.

    1. avatar Ranger Rick says:

      The government always offers fair prices and trade, just ask the Indians.

      1. avatar Chief Censor says:

        Yup. They are totally willing to make a deal and sign a paper that has as much legal weight as the US Constitution itself. They would never break that contract/law out of greed. After all, they are Christians. Only delusional paranoid schizophrenics would think the US Army would follow orders and murder an entire group for their private property.

        Don’t listen to what those anti American teachers are claiming is US history. It’s all lies. They’re just haters.

        1. avatar Hugh Glass says:

          There were wars. Blood was shed. United States of America won.

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “There were wars. Blood was shed. United States of America won.”

          Until August 16, 1945.

      2. avatar LarryinTX says:

        Yeah, who did we buy Louisiana from, again?

        1. avatar Mark N. says:

          Somehow I don’t think it was the Native Americans. In fact, I rather suspect they had no say in the deal.

        2. avatar Arc says:

          I recall we bought it from Napoleon who needed money for his war effort in Europe; one of the first instances of the US spending more than what congress authorized. They brushed it under the rug and authorized a little more to cover the expense which was actually a very good deal.

          The natives never did anything with the land and there were so few of them, they could hardly be said to have been there at all. A hand full a squatters that left no lasting cities, no monuments, no great works of art, nothing, save for a few chipped stones and rock arrangements. The French claimed the land which was essentially empty, the French had military might, so we worked it out with the French.

          The only lasting city that I recall off the top of my head in North America is Mesa Verde and even then, it’s not that impressive, not even in person.

          Also, we own it now by right of conquest; that kind of happens when you lose wars. Even today, natives get billions of dollars from the US taxpayers and have amounted to precisely: nothing.

        3. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “I recall we bought it from Napoleon who needed money for his war effort in Europe; ”

          New Orleans was founded in 1718. Only the French would build a city below sea level, but…what does it say about Americans who paid good money to own said city? Paid good money, and didn’t demolish the settlement?

        4. avatar Tacitus25 says:

          “Only the French would build a city below sea level, but…what does it say about Americans who paid good money to own said city?” — It says the Americans wanted control of the Mississippi.

        5. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “It says the Americans wanted control of the Mississippi.”

          The US could have controlled the river above NO, and let the city remain in French hands, razed the city, blockaded approaches from the sea, or created fee-collecting checkpoints for people trying to leave the city northward. The best action may have been to fill it in to sea level, then sow it with hordes of mosquitos.

          Or, as reparations from WW1 and 2, force France to finance the operation, defense and restoration from disasters….in perpetuity.

          The cost to the US for disaster recovery, just over the last 70yrs, is far and away more than the original purchase price for the entire Lousiana Purchase.

    2. avatar Tacitus25 says:

      Why do all that when it’s just easier to buy it?

  10. avatar Cooter E Lee says:

    I’m surprised they didn’t want to drop “possessed a weapon as a person who had been committed for mental illness.”

    Having been committed for mental illness or dodging it thus far – That hits pretty close to home for most of these types.

  11. avatar Docduracoat says:

    I’m still angry at Donald Trump for banning bump stocks.
    I turned in all three of my bump stocks and sold my znapfire bump trigger devices.
    They worked perfectly and I could do aimed 3 round bursts or hip fire mag dumps.
    So I went out and bought a Full Auto SWDM 11/nine for $8,100.
    Bought the LAGE M11/15 upper for it, to convert it to Shoot 5.56—$3,000
    Put a Lage side folding stock on it. Another $200
    So now I am waiting for the form 4 to come through. Maybe 6 months if I’m lucky?
    10 or more if I’m not.
    For $11,300 it is the cheapest way to get a full auto AR looking carbine.
    I was very happy with my $300 bump stocks.

    1. avatar Ralph says:

      “I’m still angry at Donald Trump for banning bump stocks.”

      Relax. Biden will make them legal again.

      1. avatar Chief Censor says:

        That’s possible seeing he was vice president when Obama’s ATF man made them totally legal along side arm braces and binary triggers. Manufacturers also created all kinds of weird legally allowed guns that followed the law as written, those guns were not allowed under Trump.

        Under Kamala a lot of white old men will get up and start to work on defending the 2A. It’s too bad we need a “black” woman to get these “patriots” to defend the constitution.

        Biden is not liked by women, minorities and the youth. They voted for him to get rid of Trump. They are not totally opposed to the Republican party. These demos are the new gun owners of 2020 and beyond. With their help we can force Democrats to stop increasing gun control and possibly reverse some. We didn’t have any chance under Trump and his new Republican party.

        The main problem is not having an outreach program for those demos. The NRA is dead and they didn’t care for those demos anyway because their core demo didn’t want “multiculturalism” and women that weren’t “gun bunnies.” It won’t matter in about 10 years due to the fact most of them will be on their death bed or in the grave. At that point we can move on to better things, hopefully by then we wouldn’t have lost a lot.

        1. avatar Tim in Texas says:

          You think Biden will ask the ATF to reverse it’s decision to ban bump stocks?!?! Please tell me you’re going to hold your breath for that one

        2. avatar JG says:

          Hate to break it to you but the Democrat party is not coming back to the 2A. The radicals are in control and will continue to push further and further left.

          Harris is no friend to the 2nd Amendment. Whether she is president or Biden remains there for a while, they are coming for everything but that double-barrel.

        3. avatar Chief Censor says:

          @Tim in Texas

          Even Dianne Feinstein stated what Trump did is not right and a new law is a must. “Regulations aren’t going to do it, and the ATF has said as much in a letter to a congressman a year or so ago,” Feinstein said.

          So, if they want gun control they will have to go through the proper legal process, which we know will not happen at the federal level. Creating such laws are going to be appealed to the courts. Republicans believe the courts will side with them over the Democrats.

          New gun control will be harder to do in the next 4 years. Unfortunately, for the Democrats they don’t have Republicans to take the fall and they don’t have enough control to do it on their own. Of course the Republicans can cave again and sign the death warrant for the party.

          Biden is likely to want to die with a favorable reputation like Abraham Lincoln. Started out being a very racist person, then tricked people into believing he never was. Trump was the opposite. Biden gave a speech, after his victory, about being a man of all people. He can’t take guns from women and minorities while claiming to be helping them against that racist Trump base. Same goes for Kamala now that she is saying she is black.

        4. avatar Hannibal says:

          While your optimism is refreshing, it’s not borne out of Biden’s campaign or even statements days before the election. He will rationalize it by saying that he’s attacking guns, not people.

          That said, with gun control declining in support (even as that support was largely uninformed to begin with) and the political world as it is, I think we are better off under Biden for guns. It’s the only way there may be ANY pushback from the GOP on gun control.

          But… it’s going to remain a suckstorm market for awhile and I think a Trump presidency would have seen ammo\gun prices drop pretty quickly.

    2. avatar Matt in Oklahoma says:

      Your as much a part of the problem as President Trump turn in

    3. avatar The Crimson Pirate says:

      If I had a bump stock or trigger device I would not turn it in. I never had any interest in the until they were banned.

      I’d like some binary triggers, but can’t currently afford them. They seem much more useful.

      What I do have is a pistol brace and an 80% receiver. It is possible I may have more before inauguration. If the democommies succeed in stealing this election I WILL NOT be turning them in.

      Fuck Biden, Harris, Wolf (PA Governor), Kenney (Mayor of Philadelphia, who canceled Thanksgiving and Christmas), the ATF and anyone else who thinks I shouldn’t have a pistol brace, an 80% reciever, or take my wife to visit her family for the Holidays.

      1. avatar Chief Censor says:

        You really must not like Trump and Republicans like Rick Scott.

      2. avatar James Campbell says:

        Oh, speaking of election steal attempts (thanks for reminding me TCP), Week 3………..

        https://youtu.be/RpIG2I8HK-o

        1. avatar LOL @ CAMES says:

          Your BDS is going to make the next four years very difficult for you. The floor nurse is probably going to have to increase your daily Ativan dosage. You 🤡.

      3. avatar frank speak says:

        do you know you can’t even have non-firing replicas delivered to you in PA?…gotta’ lay that one on Shapiro….

    4. avatar CWT says:

      I have a feeling your definition of aimed and mine are very different.

    5. avatar frank speak says:

      $8100?….and I can remember when one could be had for less than the cost of the stamp!

  12. avatar sound awake says:

    i never wanted one until i shot one
    i was just getting ready to buy one
    then vegas happened
    i had the perfect platform to put it on too

    1. avatar Chief Censor says:

      Right when they started to sell belt fed semi autos.

      Now we are trying to stop Trump from taking arm braces.

      At least we didn’t have to fight for suppressors after Trump wanted to get rid of them. Maybe because that one was done by a black American who worked for the government for many years?

  13. avatar Chief Censor says:

    They simply don’t want to have Trump’s executive order challenged in court because that will ruin their newly found ATF powers Trump handed to people like Biden and Kamala. One person getting off on a charge is worth the extreme power Republicans and the NRA gifted to Democrats.

    1. avatar JG says:

      Trump didn’t change anything about the ATF’s powers. The ATF has always been out of control. Biden will put them under control to catalog every 4473 and go house to house. Don’t think it can happen, a team of 2 auditors can go through and catalog 5 years of 4473s from a busy gun store in 2-3 days. Just wait until Biden/Harris expand the agency and sent armies of auditors out to build their registry. All in the name of saving just one innocent life.

  14. avatar James Campbell says:

    Are they going to ban thumbs and fingers, and pants with belt loops/pockets?

    The “thumb in belt loop” and “finger in pocket” methods work just fine.

    It’s really simple to bump fire without a bump stock, a few minutes of practice and ANYONE can do it. It’s really nothing more then a good way to turn an accurate weapon into a “bullet hose”, and make 100s of dollars in ammo disappear in a few seconds. A useless range stunt.

    This bump stock ban has NOTHING to do with people bump firing firearms, EVERYTHING to do with desensitizing firearm owners to MORE restrictions by making them hand over playware. These actions also makes it look like the leftarded leaders are “doing something”, but ONLY in the eyes of those who know ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about firearms.

    Pro 2nd A Patriots will NO longer accept ANY additional restrictions OR limitations. In fact, we want previous limitations REMOVED.

    1. avatar Shire-man says:

      It’s all part of the great reset apparently.
      Silence dissenting voices.
      Redistribute wealth at will.
      And only teach party approved “science.”
      Which is where things will get really fun as the party attempts to ban basic knowledge like physics.
      The party isn’t yet powerful enough to rewrite the physical laws of nature but they can certainly beat, berate and murder people until they are forgotten.

      An ignorant populace afraid to speak out of turn or accumulate is the new progressive.

      1. avatar Chief Censor says:

        Both parties don’t care for science until it satisfies their needs. Republicans believe viruses don’t exist and masks don’t work. Democrats believe sex/gender is just a concept and a few degrees of heat will destroy the entire planet.

        Trump lost the presidency because he refused to accept science and was transferring wealth from the American people to corporations to save them from the pandemic profit loses.

        1. avatar Tim in Texas says:

          Nothing but facts in there. I know that every single Republican I’ve ever spoken to has told me that there are zero viruses ever because they simply don’t exist.

          It’s impossible for there to be a nuanced message that the response to a virus is what’s fake. That the virus isn’t bad enough to warrant shutting down the economy and throwing the country into a recession or depression. Has to be that Republicans think viruses aren’t real huh?

          All you have to do is take a deep breath, hold it long enough to shove your head up your own a$$ and say “Orange Man Bad” on repeat

    2. avatar AY TEE EFF says:

      Be advised your continued possession of bump stocks is illegal.

    3. avatar Hannibal says:

      “The “thumb in belt loop” and “finger in pocket” methods work just fine.”

      Not so great if you’re trying to shoulder the firearm. And neither pants nor pockets were designed and marketed for it.

      There will always be rubberbands and people who know how to use them, just like there are coat hangers that can be twisted and cut in a particular way. You can’t stop the signal. But when you start trying to market and commoditize the system, you make it vulnerable.

  15. avatar Chris T in KY says:

    Another big problem the “gun community” has, it is uncomfortable with having guns in the hands of poor people. Many are very uncomfortable with poor people having “Machine Guns”. An $800 AR-15 + a $175 bumpstock = a cheap but effective rapid fire weapon. For the average income law abiding citizen.

    The Las Vegas mass murder was committed by a rich white man. Who could afford any real machine gun he wanted. Rich criminals can always afford guns. The government can’t ever make them too expensive for the law abiding rich, or rich criminals to buy.

    1. avatar frank speak says:

      machine guns were becoming too affordable and plentiful back in the eighties…thus making the situation uncomfortable for many politicians…even republicans were talking about placing..[easily convertible]..AR-15’s under the NFA….

  16. avatar Alan says:

    What usually issues forth from the ATF/BATFE regarding firearms could rightfully be characterized as “a load of crap”. They were both correct and honest though when they ruled that a Bump Stock attached to a Semiautomatic Rifle did not create a Machine Gun.

  17. avatar Do u know how big and for how many years the 2020 Election Fraud had been planned for.... along with the Kung Flu mail in voting Scam by the Globalist takeover Cronies??? LONG AGO! Are we that foolish we did not know? says:

    Do u know how big and for how many years the 2020 Election Fraud had been planned for…. along with the Kung Flu mail in voting Scam by the Globalist takeover Cronies??? Are we that foolish we did not know?

    SMALL DIG: SOROS, PELOSI, FEINSTEIN ALL Tied To The Election Software Used In Michigan Called ‘Dominion’ That Switched 6,000 Votes From Trump To Biden. Many States Currently Use ‘Dominion’.

    https://centipedenation.com/first-column/the-election-software-system-in-michigan-that-switched-6000-votes-from-trump-to-biden-is-called-dominion-it-is-used-in-30-states/?__cf_chl_jschl_tk__=5354cb1ac10edef94504bb2f4ac1d2f2bd079e61-1605738554-0-AT8EPBEfLhrlEtWd59wgwA0w5JRdJVdvMI4FD7AMiaQzxCMCny0m0MeENp8DQQj2sUgg8STvG5SJdRDDGXVqOtsT0xqdmtj-YxEuP8_DuuBrntDBZ_zmFghUIzqNZBqCE87VAcLSqGxWJjeDSbft9vo7YwJVIncNHFTBo5yZ6k7ul0KdaLeevqQATuJc_kcMUOIJ72hnUhw1A9Ov8WMjy54I05DyasFwqAaywD2Q-A5NZPSSG2_Hug28e8XMmGEHtQ2SzkcSceNKSoVvuM2c6MqvM9nb3-zAhtdrJ6ZbehrLToayx-c2YS-028G9sr7FpJZz8eUnfKiaB5l8fgt768437Q3lV93T2LEp1vztwSz7dpQSXR1q4w-u9IM0mAQerBNWE0d-nH69AJdng8KFra1pFLtlitxHVRxDPsdhYTyspneu-fI6Nn6eD1XYkMvjiEDqjwVrYUwac6Vhjdx4WhCDG5qGHM1pNgf5M1-GfkmEQAJSf_LAzOYjJ0ikDNde9w

    1. avatar Hannibal says:

      If Trump Derangement Syndrome was a thing among the left- what is this?

  18. avatar Michael Murray says:

    How can there be a case? Everyone turned them in, right?
    I’m sure it will be the same when Joe the Sock Puppet outlaws AR possession.

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