The Constitutional Risk Trump is Taking with the Bump Stock Ban

bump stock ban

Courtesy Luis Valdes

I really don’t care much about bump stocks. Well actually, I do and here’s why.

What I really care about is the protection of constitutional liberty and the ownership of personal property. Bump stocks are just the item du jour being targeted. As many of our readers know; I owned one as a range toy. For me I don’t need any reason to own a bump stock other than than it brings a smile to my face when I use it.

I’ve been fighting and trying to raise awareness of what is happening here in Florida, but on the federal level we are also very much at risk. According to Reuters, the President recently stated the following during a White House news conference:

Donald Trump New York City Concealed Carry License

“We’re knocking out bump stocks. We’re in the final two or three weeks, and I’ll be able to write out bump stocks. We are now at the final stages of the procedure,” President Trump said.

I believe we should be concerned with the President ordering an agency of the executive branch to effectively re-write a law passed by Congress to mean something completely different than what was originally passed.

The National Firearms Act of 1934, Gun Control Act of 1968, and the 1986 Firearm Owners Protection Act clearly spell out what is and is not a machine gun.

The National Firearms Act defines “machine gun” as “any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.” 26 U.S.C. 5845(b).

A bump stock in no way meets any of those criteria. And that’s why the ATF approved them for sale back in 2010.

The issue at hand is that we have the President overtaking and bypassing Congress by usurping the power of our elected representatives based on what he perceives as popular demand. This is very much a crossing of jurisdictional authority that the Founders wanted to prevent when they drafted the Constitution.

President Trump is doing something similar to what President Obama did with DACA. Except that with this move, the president is setting a dangerous precedent for future administrations to use to impose new and more restrictive gun control laws at a whim.

If the executive branch can re-write the law by fiat through new regulatory interpretation, unilaterally banning certain types of firearms or firearm accessories, there’s nothing they can’t do. The next administration could declare that all semi-automatic firearms that can fire more than X number of rounds per minute are machine guns. That is no more, or less, arbitrary than the current proposed rule.

In the past, when the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms declared open bolt semi-automatic firearms to be readily convertible to machine guns in 1982; they banned any future production. But they didn’t restrict the ownership of any (up to then) currently-produced guns. But because of that ruling, you can’t even build an open bolt single shot firearm without a Special Occupation Tax because, according to ATF, it can be readily converted to a machine gun.

This bump stock ruling could similarly eventually be applied to anything that can be bump-fired, meaning any semi-automatic firearm can now be targeted.

We’ve seen this on the state level when Massachusetts’ Attorney General Maura Healey issued a notice to all firearms vendors and manufacturers that once compliant rifles are now considered assault weapons per the Similarity Test and Interchangeability Test. She ruled that they fall under the interpretation that once-legal firearms are now Copy or Duplicate (and therefore a prohibited), even if it is marketed as “state compliant” or “Massachusetts compliant.”

The other major issue is that, in the past, production while restricted in the future. Ownership of already-produced items wasn’t banned. Open bolt firearms and later Striker Street Sweeper shotguns, when classified as destructive devices, have all be grandfathered and protected for continued ownership. But this new ruling on bump stocks could very well make their possession illegal.

Such a reimagined regulation of bump fire stocks and a ban on ownership would force a lawsuit to overturn it and prevent future arbitrary regulatory changes. If gun rights supporters were to ultimately lose, it would open ourselves up to future arbitrary, non-legislative gun control by fiat.

Given the 50/50 nature of the electorate, there’s a very good chance that we’ll have another Democrat administration in two or six years. Is this kind of regulatory power something you’d want to see President Kamala Harris wield? Or President Beto O’Rourke?

If the ATF reclassifies bump stocks as machine guns as most observers expect, that’s exactly what President Trump will do. This is a very disturbing abuse of executive and regulatory authority, and yet another piece of the cake we are losing.



  1. avatar Dennis says:

    I don’t support this ban either, but I don’t think it was “ordered” by Trump (although his support of it is unquestioned). Back in March the ATF unilaterally introduced the classification revision and it is now official. And now … what to do about the “grandfathering” issue. What a can of worms!

    And since it’s just a “regulation” it could effectively be reversed by another administration. The Liberal icing on the cake would be for it to be turned into a concrete “legislative” ban in Congress — which Democrats would love!

    Μολὼν Λαβέ 🇺🇸

    1. avatar Eric in Oregon says:

      With the NRA’s blessing, Trump did direct the ATF to criminalize bump stock ownership. It was his weird response to the (entirely unrelated to bump stocks) Florida school massacre.

      1. avatar barnbwt says:

        Trump had been making moves against bump stocks ever since Vegas; he was forced by law to follow a set procedure which is why it took as long as it did. After Vegas, he directed the ATF to perform research on how broad a ban would be, canvassing gun dealers for estimates of how many were in circulation. By Parkland, the new ban had been tentatively drawn up, and was posted publicly for the mandatory comment period on the federal register mid-summer; Trump brought up bump stocks after Parkland so revive interest in the topic and give the gun-banners an easy win to help drag their other pet causes over the finish line (age restriction, red flag laws). After one of the recent shootings, he brought it up yet again that they were going to be banned by the final rule promulgation in a matter of weeks. And here we are.

      2. avatar Douglas says:

        I think you may be wrong about the NRA. They took the stance that bumpstocks should be regulated, but dealt with like suppressors, requiring a tax stamp, to further impede ownership and add another layer that the law abiding would be screened. They did NOT call for criminalizing the lawful owners. That seems to be Trump’s capricious action, probably against the advice of the NRA, as he is apt to do.

    2. avatar barnbwt says:

      You’re joking, right? He stated publicly, multiple times, he made this the DOJ’s priority, and there’s an executive action (remember Obama?) with his name on it. Keep believing he’s pro-gun if it makes you feel better.

  2. avatar Thom Ream says:

    Right on the money. “It’s only a…” is the real issue. What’s next? This week you can’t call someone a fag or nigger, but next week it might be “liberal” or “stupid” (yes, I know it’s a double redundancy…!). Before you think it’s not your problem, just change a few words. So, yes – it IS your problem, and mine. Don’t give ’em an inch.

    1. avatar ollie says:

      Folks who shoot a lot and generate worn out parts should never throw those clapped-out items away. Might need them some day to flesh out a donation.

  3. avatar HP says:

    “Given the 50/50 nature of the electorate, there’s a very good chance that we’ll have another Democrat administration in two or six years. Is this kind of regulatory power something you’d want to see President Kamala Harris wield? Or President Beto O’Rourke?”

    I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, if the Democrats manage to regain the Presidency and both houses of Congress, they aren’t going to worry about regulating anything. They’ll draw up and pass a full semi-auto ban. It’s only a matter of time. I’m not excusing Trump or anyone else in this mess, I’m just saying semantic games with the ATF aren’t going to be something we’ll have to worry about. It will be worse.

    1. avatar SteveO says:

      Try Gavin Newsom, not ‘Beto’.

      He’s going to do the gov term here in cali then springboard to national. He’s got the political and financial backing, young age, the looks and the polished message. He’ll have credentials as being the governor of the state that ranks somewhere around the 6th highest economy in the world. He’s got a supermajority in state assembly and senate that will be unchecked and unhinged. He’s got ideas, and he’s going to get them implemented. Then, as we all know, what starts in california will eventually go federal.

      He’s the one I’m afraid of.

      1. avatar Bob Jones says:

        California’s looming return to Mexico will upset Newsom’s apple cart.
        The state already has a 20% poverty level and the demographic changes are unstoppable.

      2. avatar barnbwt says:

        Beto’s too stupid to be elected (Obama was not stupid, despite his many, many faults)
        Newsome’s too lazy to get elected (Obama was not a lazy campaigner, despite being a lazy president)

        Only chance they have is to hook up with a Dick Cheney sith-lord character, and honestly the Democrats don’t have many good ones that fit the demographics they’ve made necessary in their candidates.

      3. avatar Chris T in KY says:

        Gov Gavin Newsome will insure the rich NFA item owners (movie firearm prop businesses) in California, are well protected with goverment regulations. But you the “great unwashed” will not have an NFA item in your possession inside the state of California.

        The rich who ever they are, will always have machine guns or any NFA item they want.

        1. avatar Craig in IA says:

          Bloomberg will be the democrat’s nominee, bet on it. The dems will dance at the chance that he’d bring ex-repub Never-Trumpers with him. He’ll attempt to run a Trump-like campaign and use a lot of his own money but it won’t work. He’s never been more of a “Republican” over his lifetime than Trump was, and like Donald, he’ll run where he thinks he can win. He’s already been to IA a couple of times, I figure NH, too. Can’t wait until someone approaches me to run the 2nd Amendment part of his campaign.

    2. avatar barnbwt says:

      With this reg, they can order mag and semiauto bans at will.

  4. avatar Sam I Am says:

    “Take the guns first, due process second.”

    Kinda sounds like a neat campaign slogan. It is a bit short-sighted when applied only to TROs only. There is so much to like about the concept.

    All this “innocent until proven guilty” is a load of right-wing, gun nut, fascist, “cold dead hands”, strict constitutionalist, liberty-loving crap. If you have guns, and beat someone up, or want to, it only makes sense to enforce a “cooling off” period where your guns are out of reach until it is proven you will not kill someone. If you haven’t done anything wrong, why balk at proving it – “What the hell do you have to lose?” You have to prove you are innocent before you buy a gun, why shouldn’t you have to prove your are still innocent when buying stuff to make guns go?

    1. avatar SoBe says:

      Do you mean that the writers of the bill of rights could not possibly have intended “innocent until proven guilty” to be read literally as they could not have intended “shall not be infringed” to be taken literally either? After all, the concepts originate in English law (mostly) and French revolutionary ideas. Every one knows no one in England or France at that time was presumed innocent. Why not do covert and electronic surveillance of anyone who intends to purchase a firearm for an unspecified length of time to see if they really meant to go to the range, by which time they found a new hobby, or if they really intended harm, by which time they hung themselves (if suicidal), or bought a lot of fertilizer, gasoline, highjacked an airplane, etc., (if a mass killer) at which time you may proudly state that another senseless gun related death was averted. I see your point.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        Snag, pull to set, drop in the net, bring into the boat.

        1. avatar Edward R. Franklin says:

          Do you really have nothing better to do?

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Do you really have nothing better to do?”

          Do you really have no sense of humor?

    2. avatar frank speak says:

      valid …that quote could have far-reaching repercussions…what was he thinking?

      1. avatar barnbwt says:

        He was thinking he could ban bump stocks and similarly too-dangerous/scary firearms, and take them from their owners, with or without congress & the courts.

      2. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “…that quote could have far-reaching repercussions…what was he thinking?”

        Despite being a 2A absolutist, I do have very mixed thoughts about preventative actions to protect someone who is seriously threatened. All my adult life, there were stories of people harassed and beaten, until one day they were murdered. The cry then was, “Why didn’t the police do something”? Indeed, why is it we must wait until someone is killed?

        There is not a world where everyone in the country is armed and prepared to shoot an attacker/abuser. There is not a world where the craven do not prey on the weak. Do we just accept the law of the jungle, or is there a way to “even the odds” without the need for someone being killed? Is being brutalized just the price of living? How do we stop obvious predators before it is too late? How do we do it without blatant violations of civil rights? Paper is not the answer, never will be. Is there nothing between useless paper, and a bullet?

        Or is life just a bitch, and then you die?

        1. avatar Elaine D. says:


          Thing is, there is no real good way to do that “prevention” thing.

          Although ERPOs are not a thing in my state, I have been researching them as they are written in other states. These laws are an attempt to “fill the gap” between mental health and law enforcement. But based on what I’ve looked at so far, I don’t see how they can really do that.

          It’s easy to understand where the “do something” impetus is coming from, but the “how” of that involves trying to interface fields of practice that are markedly different in terms of their scope and training, and no one knows how to do that. LEOs are not trained in mental health and mental health people are not trained in violence assessment or prevention. It’s like what people want is some kind of super robot adept in both, but that doesn’t exist, and I’m not sure it can.

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          Maybe as a society we are actually at equilibrium: anti-gun hordes would rather thousands more people die from inability to use a gun as defense against deadly attack, and pro-gun hordes find it just part of life that some innocents will be killed because preemptive action against domestic abusers is unconstitutional pre-crime punishment. Innocents die under either theory; in the end, it all washes out?

        3. avatar Elaine D. says:


          I actually think we are at a point where both sides are incredibly frustrated – which I certainly am as someone who has feet in both camps – and that frustration is causing either more digging in to previous positions or a slew of “well someone’s gotta do something so let’s just try X or Y” which isn’t very well thought through.

          It seems to come down to “regulate the arms or regulate the people.” Public perception right now is that “regulating the people” isn’t doing enough – laws aren’t being enforced, people with violent histories do the same things again and again, etc. So then it shifts to “well, if the people aren’t gonna be regulated, regulate the guns.” And in a way that’s seen as easier, because guns are objects and they don’t fuss or have complicated mental health issues to deal with. The constitutional problems associated with that pathway are a distant consideration for people who do not own guns and don’t care to own them and are therefore uninterested in the potential wider fallout of such regulations.

          Add to that (this is my perspective) that the NRA has failed rather dismally at bringing in new and different groups of gun owners who would be interested in the issues. I read the other day that 55 million Americans are estimated to own guns, the NRA represents maybe 5 million, or even less – no one knows. Less than 10%.

          And then add to THAT that I am guessing that most gun owners own only handguns and have little interest or knowledge in the more specialized guns involved in hunting, competition and sports, and training programs. As such there’s no particular vested interest in protecting those things. And their usefulness is hard to explain to those who have never used them or needed what those tools provide.

        4. avatar Sam I Am says:

          The focus on the tool is simply mush-brained naivete’. The thinking that removal of one tool will result in a near-zero amount of undesired result. Thinking that since we can’t fix people, we must protect them by removing a legal tool from their reach. It is no different than concluding that we cannot stop theft and robbery, so we should confiscate the wealth of law-abiding citizens in order to protect them from theft and robbery. Gun grabbers would sacrifice over a million lives each year (CDC data regarding DGUs), in the belief that being unable to stop a deadly attack by defensive use of a gun results in honorable deaths, and society thus prospers.

          A clear-eyed analysis of the favored solution of removing guns from society is precisely what the ancestors of today’s crop of children in adult clothing reviled – destroying the village in order to save it. The ancestors of these idiot children should slap them upside the head, and often.

          Leftists, liberals and progressives really believe that more laws would stop the committed killer; another naive incantation – if 16 laws are broken in order to commit crime with firearms, where is the data/research that establishes that 17 laws will end violent behavior and crime facilitated by a firearm. Is 17 the right number? 20? 35?

          Isn’t creating more laws the very act of trying to fix people?

        5. avatar Elaine D. says:


          Sure. I have heard the same argument made, convincingly, about mandatory seatbelt laws and such. I do think that it’s probably only a certain type of gun owner who even thinks about any of this to any particular degree, a small subset of owners who are a much smaller number than that 55 million. People who don’t own and don’t like scary guns don’t feel like they need to care about it, and scary gun owners can’t make them care about it; hence the impasse.

        6. avatar barnbwt says:

          Taking away one specific means (even if it’s the most effective) of doing harm to themselves or others is a piss-poor step toward prevention, though, by ANY argument. We have procedures for committing people who are nuts, like these laws are intended to target, yet anti-gunners would rather see them run amok so long as they do not use firearms doing so.

        7. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “… yet anti-gunners would rather see them run amok so long as they do not use firearms doing so.”

          No disagreement here.

        8. avatar Elaine D. says:


          Thing is, it’s not that easy. Because: according to all of the FBI data I have looked at, active shooters mostly own their guns legally, and are NOT mentally ill. Hence the entire commitment process would not even apply to them, if you take this data at face value.

          Now, I question whether this data simply means that these people had not visited a mental health professional and been DIAGNOSED as mentally ill, because it sure does seem that there’s something seriously wrong in these cases. But obviously they hadn’t done anything that would have required mandatory mental health treatment, or they did and it was left up to them to pursue the mandate (the Virginia Tech shooter). The bar for forcing mental health treatment is extremely high, in order to keep people from being coerced when they don’t need it, but at the same time, that also means it’s almost impossible to initiate a process that would actually stop someone like this.

          And well, there just aren’t treatments for some things that work. And ASPD is one of those things. There are new treatments that claim to have some success but there’s not much research or data on those as of yet.

  5. avatar Chris T in KY says:

    Rich white men or just the rich will always have machine guns and rapid-fire weapons. The Las Vegas Massacre was committed by a man who was rich by any standard. While he could afford to have purchased a machine gun. He chose to purchase bump stock assisted ARs that are still very expensive to buy in the first place, along with plenty of ammunition.

    This is economic discrimination plain and simple. Historically economic discrimination was used to prevent black people from buying guns in the state of Tennessee. It was the law that you had to purchase the most expensive handgun that was available.

    Sadly the gun Community has done a lousy job over the last 70 years explaining why the ordinary person should be able to own a fully automatic weapon just like government.

    The president’s two sons are gun people. And you can watch them shoot their personal machine guns on YouTube if you choose. They’re not going to lose their machine guns. And neither will the rich donors to the (NRA ?) that Marian Hammer was speaking about in Florida this past summer.

    1. avatar Chris T in KY says:

      Machine guns are for only the rich.

      We are serious only for the rich.

      Very clever and smart people invented the Bump Stock. I love full auto fire. I loved it in my 21 year army career. The only reason I bought an AR-15 was to get the Bump Stock for it later which I did. With a bi-pod its just as accurate, if not more accurate, as my US army M-16 on full auto. So the gun grabbers want to take my “poor Mans Machine gun”. That could be very dangerous.

      This is the Land Of Knob Creek!!

      1. avatar Binder says:

        I have to applaud you. You are the first person who willing admits just how good slide fires are while also trying to keep them. Why don’t you post some videos on Full-30 show these people here what they really can do.

        And just to answer the question as to why a “real” machine gun was not used is Vegas, try and dump more that 3 100 round magazines in any AR-15 and then get back to me. He had 12 ARs for a reason.

        1. avatar WhiteDevil says:

          Alright, I’ll get back to you. I regularly dump several mags during my shooting sessions, in a short period of time, without issue. The 2nd doesn’t distinguish between a rifle and a pistol, full-auto versus semi-auto. The right to bear arms encapsulates every arm created. I think you know these things as your past postings indicate some knowledge of these pertinent issues. What point are you trying to make?

        2. avatar barnbwt says:

          Given the actual evidence we *know* and not unsubstantiated assertions, I say it’s still more likely that at least some DIAS conversions were responsible for the semi-accurate rapid (automatic) fire. Weird shooting angles and mags that go from very heavy to lightweight yet the ROF was quite consistent. Guy was asking shady felons about buying illegal DIAS’s in the weeks before the shooting (specifically because bump fire wasn’t gonna be good enough). ATF experts weren’t allowed to examine the guns at all for six months by the FBI, and DIAS conversions are not externally-visible; the guns were never photographed/videoed being taken apart.

        3. avatar Sian says:

          He had the time, money, and clean background to buy a M1919 or any other legit GPMG, should he have wanted to.

        4. avatar Chris T in KY says:

          Thanks and I’m working on videos.

        5. avatar Chris T in KY says:

          Slide Fire produced a belt fed AR-15, for far less, than a real machine gun. If you save up $$$, on that retail job, so many people work at, anyone could buy one. BUT RAPID FIRE WEAPONS are for only the rich.
          Price? Less than $3,000.

          Belt fed AR-15 slide fire

        6. avatar Scoutino says:

          Yes. The reason was that he wanted to get them banned. Like you.
          Much more ammo than 3 C mags can be shot from full auto AR15 before bad thi gs start to happen.

      2. What type of bipod mount are you using, that allows the rifle to freely move for bump-fire?

        1. avatar Chris T in KY says:

          A man invents the Bump Stock. Then another man invents a better way to use the Bump Stock.

          Introducing the Recoil Rail

          Bi pod is best

          There are many videos of bump stock owners using bi pods. Very accurate. Yes a real MG can use a bi pod as well, for more accurate fire.

        2. avatar Chris T in KY says:

          Left side mounted hand hold.

          We humans who love freedom will find away around the slave masters. We always do.

        3. avatar Anymouse says:

          The recoil rail in conjuction with bump stock should be a machine gun. It has an active component that pushes the rifle forward and making a aitomatic firing cycle. It’s like an Atkins Accelerator, except the spring has moved from the butt stock to the bipod/vfg. A bungee cord between the muzzle and front of a table would do the same thing. If it was up to me, either would be legal, but possession of both would be constructive intent.

        4. avatar Chris T from KY says:

          Any mouse
          You sound like a government troll. The Atkins accelerator was approved by the ATF. And then several months later they “changed” their mind.

          Inventors created a cheap alternative to buying a 40 year old or older, Machine gun. And “they” don’t like it. The rich will always have machine guns. But no cheap rapid fire guns for the poor.

    2. avatar frank speak says:

      not all of us are rich…..

  6. avatar Somd dude says:

    We can only hope that this executive order, after it is signed, will be overthrown by some federal judge…

    1. avatar Craig in IA says:

      “We can only hope that this executive order, after it is signed, will be overthrown by some federal judge…”

      Gee, if everyone wants to blame this entirely on Trump, that’s likely to happen since so many irrational people out there will do away with anything Trump is in favor of. Perhaps there’s method to his madness?

      On the other hand, I’ll take big bets that a Federal Judge to which this case might be presented will not toss it out. Any takers?

      I’m not certain, BTW, that Trump is signing any executive order to this effect- the “gp ahead” for “bump stocks” was interagency within ATFE, not an obama executive order in the first place. Whether or not ATF countermands its original ruling, many states will still move to ban them and they will be successful until someone within each state fixes themselves.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        Federal courts do not block any Trump action that increases the leftward drift of the country.

  7. avatar Patrick H says:

    And just like that, Trump has done more to restrict my constitutional rights in two years than Barack Obama did in eight.

    1. avatar Craig in IA says:

      Uh… you do realize that you have more rights than those acknowledged in the Second Amendment, don’t you????

      This place is really crazy sometimes…

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “Uh… you do realize that you have more rights than those acknowledged in the Second Amendment, don’t you???? ”

        The issue is that if the Second is neutered, the others have no protection from government.

        But keep your eye on the “commerce clause”.

        1. avatar Craig in IA says:

          “The issue is that if the Second is neutered, the others have no protection from government.” Pretty much the mantra expressed by Federalist writers trying to convince the original states to ratify the Constitution. Still, for an apparent moron to make the claim that obama was better on the US Constitution than Trump has been in 18 months is ludicrous and denies any knowledge of what actually occurred over those 8 years of obama actions and the resultant Congressional inactions.

    2. avatar barnbwt says:

      Technically, this will be the largest gun confiscation by feds ever seen

    3. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      Patrick H.,

      I think I disagree with you. Didn’t Obama effectively eliminate import of inexpensive AK-47 and AK-74 rifles, as well as inexpensive ammunition for one or both of them?

      If I am remembering correctly, that executive action priced an entire class of extremely useful firearms and ammunition out of reach of many people.

      (Before Obama, I want to say that you could purchase an inexpensive imported AK-47 for around $200 to $300 and imported ammunition was available for something like $0.14 per round, correct? These days AK-47s cost at least $600 and ammunition is upwards of $0.20 to $0.30 per round last I checked.)

    4. avatar Raoul Duke says:

      Obama signed numerous import bans but if you are one of those who only buy ‘Murican guns then of course you would be ignorant to the amount of damage Obama did in that regard. Works just like a charm everytime!!

      Oh and he banned any U.S. surplus from coming back in unless you join the CMP club and put up with their BS rules so he didn’t just screw over us AK lovers.

  8. avatar Jon in CO says:

    So they get classified as machine guns, that means everyone’s property gets confiscated or they get arrested for unregistered machine guns? No way for registration of said machine gun? No amnesty or registry opening? Seems Trump MIGHT be playing a game of “since this requires registration, new guns can be added.”

    Makes the anti-gunners happy, and makes us newly acquired machine guns and what not in the process. If that happens, are we going to be upset still?

    1. avatar Karl says:

      Only if I can walk into Brownell’s and buy a proper M14 and MP5.

    2. avatar barnbwt says:

      Confiscation without compensation.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “Confiscation without compensation.”

        Actually, no. And this is why “the law” is so much fun.

        “The law” is not about concepts of right and wrong, it is about words and what they can be made to mean.

        “Confiscation without compensation” would be a case where an item is legal, but government decides it has a “compelling interest” in taking it from you. In such cases, “compensation” is required by the Constitution. Such action is called “a taking”. The important consideration is that whatever was taken remains a legal item/activity. Keep that thought.

        In the case of bump stocks (and alcohol in the prohibition era), the activity (possession of alcoholic beverages) was declared illegal by constitutional amendment. Thus, confiscation was proper as the government was capturing or destroying “contraband”. After confiscation, possession of alcoholic beverages remained illegal. Thus, with bump stocks being declared illegal, confiscation of bump stocks is not “a taking”, but capture/destruction of contraband. Bump stocks remain illegal to possess after the confiscation.

        Confiscation of something that is and remains legal is “a taking”, requiring recompense. Confiscation of something that is and remains illegal is removal of contraband, not “a taking” of legal items/activity.

        Let’s get to the next question….is a law declaring an item/activity illegal from this day forward an “ex post facto” law? No. What was legal yesterday is illegal today, and you can be charged with a crime for what are now illegal items/actions. Ex post facto law would declare something illegal today, and allow you to be charged for possessing or acting yesterday in a manner that is illegal today. Example: bump stocks are illegal to possess today, but not yesterday. The state learns that you bought a bump stock last year. If the stated charged you today for having purchased a bump stock last year, that would, indeed, be an attempt to impose today’s law ex post facto.

        1. avatar SoBe says:

          Perfectly explained.

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          Glad to be helpful once in awhile.

  9. avatar CalGunsMD says:

    I fear that with the Dems holding majority in the House, we have a real risk of ANY gun control getting through as part of a concession or “deal” where it will be seen as a reasonable trade for something bigger on his agenda.

    1. avatar barnbwt says:

      Very likely we end up being the negotiating tool for Trump’s dealings with the Democrats. Want a budget passed? Here’s some gun control. Want new Russian sanctions? Here’s your background checks.

      Without a House and President to support its stance, the Senate will be under enormous pressure to cave. I forget the exact rules on this, but if the House sends a gun control bill to the Senate, I think they have to vote on it in some fashion, and we just elected/reelected a number of Republican senators that have been weak on gun rights or openly hostile in recent months…enough of them to form a majority when joined by Democrats.

      1. avatar Anymouse says:

        They don’t have to vote on it. Both chambers of Congress need to pass the same bill for it to become law. The Senate President and Speaker of the House choose which legislation to bring to the floor, and they can bury anything they don’t want to do. Otherwise, we’d have HPA/SHARE/SHUSH passed.

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

    We file suit to force them to re-open the registry.

    We have precedent for this – When the NFA was passed, they allowed existing weapons to be taxed and registered.

    They briefly re-opened the registry several decades later for a period of time. The framework already exists to do this.

    That will be the relief we will seek – Re-open the fucking registry…

    1. avatar barnbwt says:

      The courts will say the plaintiffs have no standing, again, still

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

        The plaintiffs *will* have standing, as they have been ordered to ‘dispose’ of their personal property without compensation.

        Let the ruling be issued, then file suit to re-open the registry.

        The relief we seek will be to lawfully register a MG, and pay for the stamp…

  11. avatar New Continental Army says:

    War is coming. Just embrace it, and you will find comfort, and peace.

    1. avatar Craig in IA says:

      I sure hope you’re out there in front, leading the charge rather than sitting in your underwear in the basement, egging others on.

      C’mon, be the first to fall! Not like some Ayatollah pushing from the safety of the rear…

      1. avatar New Continental Army says:

        I’ve been there and done it already. I’ve merely accepted the fact that it IS going to happen, regardless of what actions we take. My soul is prepared, how is yours!?

        1. avatar Toni says:

          completely agree New Continental Army. Have seen it coming for over 20 years. I also am at peace with standing the line and maybe falling, or maybe seeing it through in the hope that others may know liberty. I dont have kids myself but I do have nieces and nephews

        2. avatar Craig in IA says:

          I’m probably as “old and experienced” as anyone on this site and have spent plenty of my own time and money at shows representing NRA, writing letters and Op Ed articles, lobbying DC, our Statehouse and localities over 2A and other issues. I’ve watched the political pendulum swing back and forth since around 1972 and through it all, I’ve been warned of the impending “war”. I well remember also being warned by all of the intelligencia and movers and shakers about the impending end of times that would occur at 00:01, 1 Jan 2000. I’ll bet some of you are still trying to scarf down those MREs you stored up.

          So let’s set a date, guys- when is the absolute latest that this war- the shooting one in the streets, citizens against US Govt is going to begin. Then let’s put some money on it.

          Predictions of these types are no more realistic than those predicting “global warming”, or is it cooling, or is it some other sort of climate change, that normally occurs in most more northern and southern climes approximately every 3 months or so? As with all other predicters of doom- Give us a real date and time- Cut the BS- Let us all in on it. Then you might be some sort of Paul Revere or Sybil Ludington, until you can, you’re just another guy with a computer and an opinion, based upon: your opinion.

        3. avatar Sam I Am says:

          Agree. I often asked whence the revolution? Given the government encroachment into every element of every day life, just what is it that will be the unstoppable catalyst? When the federal government decided it needed to intervene with armed agents in what was a strictly local matter of an organization having children and firearms in close proximity, was that not an attack by the federal government on law abiding citizens? Which federal law had been broken? How is it that the entire citizenry of the nation did a group shrug when federal agents invaded private property “for the children”?

          People keep waiting for the “jack booted thugs” of government to go door-to-door grabbing privately owned firearms. Meanwhile, the water surrounding the frog becomes warmer and warmer.

        4. avatar Toni says:

          Craig, as much as you would like a date it cant be given. For anyone to give a date when it will happen is just so much cockamamie BS as any other dates for disaster just like Y2K. However, in saying this the longer it all goes on before it does happen the higher the blood price will be to regain liberty. Much liberty has already been lost. In all western countries today the people are economic slaves like it or not. In 1776 part of why they went to war was over excessive taxation. There was no income tax back then but rather it was simply taxes on goods. Now there is both and at a much, much higher rate on either count than back then as well. Then the british tried to take the founders guns which in those days were a large part of how food was put on the table. they stood and said it was not going to happen. What will it take to rouse the III% to take the action needed today….. who knows. Some of us are however ready and waiting for others to be ready to take action. It needs a movement of a certain level of support or it would simply be throwing our lives on the fires that TPTB are stoking to instill fear in the rest. That fear can be a double edged sword however. People can be crippled by it or they can rise and use that fear to fight back. It is a matter of when the lack of liberty becomes intolerable to the point that death is preferable for enough people that it will start.

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

          “So let’s set a date, guys- when is the absolute latest that this war- the shooting one in the streets, citizens against US Govt is going to begin.”

          The day “Australian-style gun control” is signed into law by a ‘Progressive’ president…

        6. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “The day “Australian-style gun control” is signed into law by a ‘Progressive’ president…”

          Ok. This is good; we have a benchmark against which to measure. Finally.

        7. avatar Craig in IA says:

          “The day “Australian-style gun control” is signed into law by a ‘Progressive’ president…” Which of course need not happen, and in reality we’ve never actually been close to it thus far. So- besides actually setting a date- what exactly are YOU doing to insure it (in the quotes) DOES NOT happen? What are you doing to convince those people who are in the vast and uninterested middle with (seemingly) no interest in any of this that the cause is valid for them also, and they should move to our camp on this and other issues? After all, our original Constitutional sytem of government does offer a method to change any of it by the Amendment process (Article 5) regardless of actual legislation or some sort of unspecified executive action.

        8. avatar New Continental Army says:

          I get it. You don’t believe Americans have it in them anymore. Americans are too fat, too lazy, too comfortable and too jaded, to ever resist when push really comes to shove. I get that. I get why you believe it and the logic behind that belief. But I don’t agree. Because we have always been that way, until we aren’t. The reason you haven’t seen a civil war or revolution since the 70s is because the government has for the most part refrained from going full tyrant on the populace. It has certainly committed tyrannical acts in this timeframe but not on the scale to cause conflict. But that will change. The lefts anger and desperation will push them to behave that way the next time they achieve full government control. Wars don’t happen quick, or in a vacuum. The causes of wars often take decades, even centuries to come to fruition. Take the American Revolution for instance. It didn’t just occur due to the events of the 1760s/70s. It was the result of centuries of events going back to the enlightenment and the English civil war. The coming civil war is the result of government behavior and Marxist influences going back to the 1800s. It simply won’t happen because one day the people will just get fed up and start a war. History and wars don’t work like that. It’ll happen when the leftists get just enough power during a time of just enough desperation and anger. We are rapidly approaching this time now.

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

          “Ok. This is good; we have a benchmark against which to measure. Finally.”

          That’s the “Point of no return”, when the clock starts before the inevitable happens.

          How quickly it happens after that point depends on many factors. But that day will be known as the first day of the second American revolution…

        10. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “…that day will be known as the first day of the second American revolution…”


        11. avatar Anymouse says:

          Not when Australian-style confiscation is signed into law. Wait until it’s ruled constitutional, the Supreme Court refuses to hear it, or a court refuses to grant an injunction. When they actually try to take guns is when the balloon goes up.

        12. avatar Craig in IA says:

          “I get it. You don’t believe Americans have it in them anymore. Americans are too fat, too lazy, too comfortable and too jaded, to ever resist when push really comes to shove…” Not at all. What I have witnessed over my lifetime is a swinging back-and-forth of general opinions by the American public concerning firearms, laws, respect for the US Constitution and a host of other related topics. In the late 1960s, general public opinion was such that the government was allowed to restrict rights that were hardly discussed in the mainstream of American life. Once NRA ILA was formed in 1971 a long, uphill battle began to regain some of our liberties, with skirmishes won and lost. The battle began with fights over “Saturday Night Specials”, a term never bantered about now. It’s moved to handguns in general, semiautomatic firearms and background checks, as well as concealed carry on-demand and even relaxing state regulations concerning suppressors. Always some search to do away with human nature. Honestly- no one, not San Fran Nan, nor Charlie Schumer. npr the ghost of Sarah Brady believes gun violence would end if all firearms were suddenly banned to the American public. How could they raise funds?

          Right now, with 40+ states having shall-issue concealed carry, the sunsetting of the semiauto “ban” with no real ability for the Congress to re-instate it nationally, and reciprocity among many states that allows me to legally pack concealed in something like 41 states with my 4 permits, I believe gun owners and those who believe in the Constitution are on the offense, even though the MSM will forever decry otherwise.

          So, it boils down, as I said previously, to intelligent and articulate folks on “our side” to spread the good news to the vast and uninterested middle who at this time have at least a neutral opinion as to firearms in the hands of regular citizens. And again, I ask: what are YOU and a lot of other cynical posters here doing to convince those people who could be drawn to “our side” that firearms do not hurt others without a human causing it? I’d like to think that most of us are actively seeking to introduce colleagues, relatives, people within our social circles and others to shooting activities. I’d like to think that a large number of gun owners and proponents will show up in a civilizes manner and dressed appropriately to give educated and non-hyped testimony at town council meetings, state legislative committee hearings, and anywhere else restrictions and/or relieving existing restrictions on our rights are being discussed. Even if it means taking some time off of work, which I’ve done fairly regularly. It’s that important, or is it. Sadly, what I’ve often witnessed is a pack of cynics hanging together in there own little groups and complaining about “someone else” as the problem. I firmly believe the American public would be solidly behind the Constitution if the evidence was presented in an educated and non-threatening manner.

        13. avatar Sam I Am says:

          Craig, there is no vast middle ground of voters who don’t have a hardened opinion about the freedom to keep and bear arms. If you could just wave a magic wand and make all the “no opinions” vote with you, the result would be statistically insignificant. Pro/Anti gun is not a debate, not a negotiation, not a “teaching moment”. It is a fight to the death that is tottering against freedom.

          2016 electoral votes needed to win = 270
          Trump electoral votes = 304/306 (two Texas electors did not vote)
          Clinton electoral votes = 232
          Differential = 72 (lets go with 304 electoral votes for Trump)
          Flip Texas, Clinton count = 232+38 = 270, on the nose
          Flip Florida, Clinton count = 232+29 = 261, not enough, but flip also Wisc Clinton count = 232+29+10 (271 for the win)
          Flip both Texas and Florida, Clinton count = 232+38+29 = 299 (insurmountable)

          – – This is how close the proposition is between winning and losing America. The 2018 mid-terms tell us the grip of traditionalists on American politics is just as tenuous. There is no middle ground on anything.

          *here ya’ go, ‘Laine.

        14. avatar Craig in IA says:

          “Craig, there is no vast middle ground of voters who don’t have a hardened opinion about the freedom to keep and bear arms.” And I completely disagree. I’ll take my own state as an example, but since passage of “shall-issue” carry 7 or 8 years back, scores of people who never considered carrying a gun for protection have emerged, a huge number of whom never considered even purchasing a handgun prior to the law. In particular, the number of female gun owners has increased rapidly and I’ve been inundated with friends and colleagues asking me to take them shooting and recommend training outlets so they can secure a permit to carry. The majority of these are professional types who have absolutely no linkage to either gun ownership nor shooting in general but are now in the category simply because they now have a reason to be. These people are also very likely voters. One can post as many examples of political polling as he/she/it is able to find surfing around but it will not change this reality.

          I contend that the genie is already out of the bottle in many areas of our battle. With a significant number of average, everyday hunters now using the AR platform to shoot varmints and deer (some estimates in ownership go above 20 million ARs in the US), it’s going to be impossible to ban them nation-wide. It may suck to live in some states but even those can be flipped with the proper tactics, although it will take brains and not threats. And with over 40 states (and still growing, albeit slowly now) offering shall-issue concealed carry and with the number of participants growing it’s also becoming difficult to argue against handguns, something that was standard mantra in the late 1970s/early 80s. MSM and the “Law and Order”-type TV shows will continue to try to villify handguns/semiautos (which are usually full auto on the shows), as well as “Russians” in the US but who is actually watching that stuff anymore?

          So again, it really boils down to many of the actual participants on the firearms side to become the good ambassadors to those who are not yet there and bring them into the fold. I still cringe at the portrait a large number of us put forth to the general public at gun shows and other “gun/hunter-type” gatherings. If we are intelligent it wouldn’t hurt us to look the part. I’ll leave it there for now but I’m sure I’ll be back…

          It would be interesting, however, to offer a wager that in 10 years (I still probably have a good 25 or so left in me), AR platform firearms will be even more plentiful and the number of states honoring concealed carry “on demand” and therefor, handguns will be even higher than on this day in November, 2018. Maybe we can meet somewhere in the middle so I can collect?

        15. avatar Sam I Am says:

          The number of new gun owners you cite is insufficient to alter the political landscape, else it would have been done and done. There are more than you know gun owners who maintain that it is important that they have guns, but not the deplorables.

          “With a significant number of average, everyday hunters now using the AR platform to shoot varmints and deer (some estimates in ownership go above 20 million ARs in the US), it’s going to be impossible to ban them nation-wide. ”

          Actually, no. It is quite easy to ban ARs. It was done, already. While the ban had no appreciable effect on crime, the ban effectively limited new sales. While a different piece of legislation removed the ban, all it takes is a new piece of legislation to reimpose it.

          Banning and confiscation are not the same thing.

        16. avatar Craig in IA says:

          Your assessment of the future of the 2nd Amendment and privately-owned firearms in the US is fairly consistent with what all the Pratt and Browntards were warning back in 1992. It hasn’t happened and I sincerely doubt your predictions of doom and gloom and the polarized American public with no middle ground to work within will, either.

          There has actually been a proliferation of incredibly innovative, creative and above all else, very citizen-useful firearms since Brady and the “Assault Weapon Ban”. The only thing slowing it at present is the fact that since the obama regime a lot of people now have way more guns and ammo than they really need or will ever use.

          So- get off the couch and mentor someone else into the game. It’s often said, and I can attest that male or female, younger or older than me- I have yet to take anyone shooting who has not enjoyed it immensely and most have gone on to purchase their own firearms, even the teachers and musicians I’ve spent the last 50 years around.

          And my wager offer to be collected in 10 years still stands. ARs will neither be banned nor confiscated except, perhaps in a few limp locales. The court battles alone as per compensation, legality, etc would last that long. I’m going to continue to enjoy shooting all my stash. I’m pretty heavily invested in time and equity in the 2nd Amendment and I’m not worried. Of course, I also don’t just sit around and talk about it, either.

    2. avatar Manse Jolly says:

      Accepted it 15 years ago, but it give me no comfort, and no peace.

      I believe we will see major unrest in the next 15 years, I just can’t predict how the unrest will manifest itself at first. I don’t think gun control by itself will be the catalyst, but will play a part.

      Being overtaxed and a terrible economy seems more likely, as well as those that crave power..(Politicians), the media stoking the fires continue.

      I never really wanted a bump stock/slide fire, but now I do.

      Why?..because, eff them, thats why.

      1. avatar Serpent_Vision says:

        Terrible economy? Trump supporters have been telling us how great the economy is for months.

        1. avatar New Continental Army says:

          The economy is great actually. The “trump supporters” are 100% right about that you left wing moon worshipper.

        2. avatar Manse Jolly says:

          Economy is doing much better now…yes…, much better than the previous administrations “new normal”.

          However, the future is unknowable. Only glimpses of the possible.

          Someone once said to me that politics in our country resemble a pendulum.

          Slowly swinging back and forth.

          That swinging motion has accelerated… along with increased extremes along it’s arc.

  12. avatar lowell says:

    I have a question : why did this rule change not include binary triggers? Or hand crank firearms like a Gattling gun? Is it possible that this is new rule is being drafted specifically to provide the 2A community with a Supreme Court challenge when there are at least five people on it that have a history of ruling against gun control laws?

    We’ve all said it ourselves, we don’t want new laws, we want the existing laws repealed or struck down by the court. Well, what if? If Trump can get the court to strike the laws down he doesn’t have to waste any political capital with congress. Individual congressman can grandstand either way while the court handles the dirty work. It’s not at all how our government is supposed to function, but it may be the only way we get any results. I mean the HPA should have been a slam dunk with no Republican votes against and the useless conservatives(that couldn’t even conserve women’s bathrooms) couldn’t get it out of committee.

    One court challenge to this rule change could find the whole NFA1934 under scrutiny.

    1. avatar G SMITHY says:

      To reply to your question it is going to address all rate increasing devices and as arbitrary as it sounds if you’re caught by the wrong cop in the wrong state with a shoe string or a rubber band you could be charged with a felony for having the means to construct a rate increasing device then on top of this problem more than half of the country voted for more liberal madness

    2. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “One court challenge to this rule change could find the whole NFA1934 under scrutiny.”

      The SC disdains 2A cases, preferring to hear and re-hear cases involving the legality of unions collecting dues from non-union members (3 decisions in four years). The SC does not easily rule on constitutional issues directly, preferring to find something, anything, that will let them make a ruling without touching constitutional issues.

      No, I don’t hold out much hope for our now-alleged “pro-gun” SC. I will be happy if the court just refuses to reverse any pro-gun decisions already on the books.

    3. avatar barnbwt says:

      It does include these things, just not by name like “bump stocks.” It actually describes the function of binary triggers far more accurately than bump stocks when outlining why the stocks are considered machine gun conversions.

      Naturally, the companies that make the expensive binary triggers assure us all that there is no way the rule change could be interpreted to include their products so we should keep buying –in fact, that they are the only rapid-fire alternative now that stocks are banned, lol

  13. avatar Mike Hawkizard says:

    FYI open bolt semi’s were grandfathered because there was no law that prohibited them from being possessed without paying the tax.

    The problem with this whole bumpstock thing is the Hughes Amendment. If it didn’t exist, these would be able to be added to the registry. But because of Hughes, there’s no way to do it.

    1. avatar 300BlackoutFan says:

      That’s not quite true. The NFA/GCA does allow for an amnesty period – and would be suitable I believe even given the Hughes Amendment (the amnesty period is to get around the self-incriminating nature of possessing an NFA item – which is, I believe, the only Constitutional Challenge to the NFA).

      However, the current ‘ruling’ (not ‘official’ yet..) has the interesting language (read for yourself here:

      Key points:
      1) Only bump-fire devices are considered MGs. Using your thumb and belt-loop, for instance, are expressly allowed. The linguistic torture they used on this one is staggering. Basically, the handguard is considered a trigger when you add the bump-stock (at least, that’s how I’m reading it)

      2) The DOJ / ATF disagrees that they are not allowed to redefine terms stated in law, as the AG has directed the ATF to develop rules which are in compliance with the stated laws. This is seen as a ‘rule’ change, not a ‘law change’. They admit to redefining the term ‘single function of the trigger’.

      3) No amnesty or registration period is deemed necessary; therefore, current possessors of bump-stock-type devices will be obligated to dispose of those devices (their words!). Pretty clear violation of 5th Amendment. Since they are reclassifying an accessory to a firearm, this is not ‘contraband’. Imagine if they reclassified (eg) a nail gun as a firearm. Also, this reclassification HAS occurred before (eg, Street Sweeper shotguns => Destructive Device), and they required registration of the devices by the owners.

      1. avatar Binder says:

        “Pretty clear violation of 5th Amendment.”

        The Feds will just require that you sue them for the cost of the side fire. Good luck recover the legal fees.
        If you are really worried about goverment over reach, try working on Civil Forfeiture sometime.

        “Basically, the hand-guard is considered a trigger when you add the bump-stock (at least, that’s how I’m reading it)”

        Well this makes it a little more obvious that your “trigger finger” has all the functionality of a stick during the operation of the SlideFire. I would have loved the see the AFT letter for this, EXACT same operating principle.

        1. avatar CZ Rider says:

          Honestly, I can’t understand the lengths you go to to be wrong on this issue. Direct from the US code:

          “The term ‘‘machinegun’’ means any weapon
          which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be
          readily restored to shoot, automatically more
          than one shot, without manual reloading, by a
          single function of the trigger. ”

          Note that it says “function of the trigger”. Not your finger. Not the handguard. Not the entire weapon or your left shoe or Rumplestiltskin or whatever other idiotic thing you want to sit there and cry about having to move. A single function of the *trigger*. Note that there is nothing in that statement to specify what has to cause that function of the trigger. The shooter is not required by law to perform some kind of manual action in order to cause the single function of the trigger.

          Even by that standard, though, the shooter is in fact performing a manual action with every round fired, because they have to exert more effort into the handguard to push it forward against the recoil force of the weapon every time it fires. Instead of applying pressure directly to the trigger to actuate it, they are applying pressure to the handguard to actuate the trigger by forcing it into the finger. If you don’t think that counts as a manual action, try holding a 20lb weight over your head, then have someone add another 20lb and try to hold it up with the exact same amount of force you were using before they added it. Maybe the result will knock a basic understanding of physics into you. If not, feel free to repeat it until you understand.

        2. avatar Binder says:

          And I can’t understand the fact that you somehow think the at the NFA has anything truly to do with HOW a machine gun works, but instead has everything to do with WHAT it does.

    2. avatar barnbwt says:

      Open bolt’s were grandfathered because they still aren’t machineguns; they are *close* to machineguns and very-nearly “readily convertible” as the law says. They were amnestied/registered, but they still cannot be converted to actual full automatic. Likewise, new firearms cannot be made that function the same as these open bolt semi-autos without being considered *actually* “readily convertible” to fully automatic. It is a massive contradiction of law and a rather blatant violation of the Equal Protection clause that exists solely because of ATF discretion.

      It was one of the first wildly egregious ATF abuses of regulatory authority where they reached far up their bum and pulled out an entirely new area of statute, without bothering to have it sent through Congress or the president. Because it involved guns, and not enough voters to make a difference, the courts were all too happy to play along.

      The ruling on the Akins Accelerator that predictably led directly to today’s ban of bump stocks & firearms accessories at large, was more or less the exact same process.

  14. avatar Michael says:

    They’re talking about killing us, we’re upset about bump stocks. They’re talking about neutron bombs. Is it possible to die from an overdose of cognitive dissonance? Let’s get on the same page here, people. Right now we aren’t even in the same library. Those communists are so sure they have us beaten. I’m beginning to think they just might be right. -30-

  15. avatar Matthew the Oilman says:

    I am not happy about” regulating” bump stocks and I will bring it up to Jeff on WGSO in the morning. Any of you key board warriors going to try to bring it up to Rush or Sean tomorrow or the next day? If we don’t get a coherent message out to the wider public them , bump stocks get banned.
    Call your Congress critters ( especially if they have R’s behind their names and politely explain your feeling on the matter.
    I personally feel that our right to bear arms has been infringed enough, thanks very little.

  16. avatar Stev says:

    Liberals are not going to care. The Constitution is going to mean less and less moving forward.

  17. avatar Canon says:

    I’m praying President Chaos was crazy like a fox in regulating bump stocks out of existence; what if the plan was to avoid legislation and have the ATF regulate them and have the courts rule it unconstitutional after the left’s outrage has subsided after the Las Vegas shooting? Maybe not but it very well could work that way.

    1. avatar PistoleroJesse says:

      could restore my faith in the NRA if they already had a case line up for an imediate challenge.

    2. avatar barnbwt says:

      Most gun owners don’t see the danger in banning bump stocks by executive fiat, and you expect a bunch of clueless black robe Fudds (at best) to go out on a limb for us & make machineguns legal?

      You gotta be kitten me.

      1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

        … you expect a bunch of clueless black robe Fudds (at best) to go out on a limb for us & make machineguns legal?

        I fully expect all U.S. Supreme Court Justices to be clueless about firearm design and operation — including bump stock design and operation. The attorney’s who are defending the Second Amendment have an obligation to enlighten the U.S. Supreme Court Justices as appropriate to win the case.

  18. avatar Michael in AK says:

    Just keep jawboning, that will help…soap box, ballot box or cartridge box….the choice is lo g past

    1. avatar Anymouse says:

      You forgot jury box.

  19. avatar Nanashi says:

    This isn’t news. The NRA has always been for arbitrary, tyrannical government so long as they are in charge.

  20. avatar DaveR says:

    “I believe we should be concerned with the President ordering an agency of the executive branch to effectively re-write a law passed by Congress to mean something completely different than what was originally passed.”

    You been asleep for the last two years or what?? This is all pretty much business as usual.

    1. avatar Mad Max says:

      Two years?

      How about 100 years but mostly since 2008.

    2. avatar New Continental Army says:

      2 years.. Yeah, because Obama NEVER did that… not once…

  21. avatar Mad Max says:

    The bump stock ban may be the case that Thomas, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh, et. al. use to strike down the Chevron Defference.

    That is only one of the many ways this assault on the Constitution can be challenged.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “The bump stock ban may be the case that Thomas, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh, et. al. use to strike down the Chevron Defference.”

      Thanks for the opening….

      Many people are placing entirely too much faith in the advent of non-liberal Supreme Court justices. Be careful, it will be a great fall of expectations. We all know Kavanaugh declared he relies on tradition and precedent, that if a thing has been been a violation of the constitution not overturned by earlier courts, the precedent is set, and the guiding interpretation of the law. But do we know just how far from the constitution the sainted Justice Scalia was willing to go? If Scalia was comfortable with government violating the constitution, what should we expect of the other “conservative” justices?

      In Scalia voted with the 6 justice majority that actual innocence is not grounds for a successful habeas corpus relief from imprisonment/death sentence. Amidst the the entire episode was the idea that somehow it would be unfair to the state that a guilty verdict could later be overturned by proof of innocence; the state had a right to have cases settled once and for all. Scalia and Rehnquist called the situation an embarrassing question, and they sought to put an end to the entire concept (except that the question arose again a few years later). Essentially, the ruling declared that even if a person is not guilty of a crime, after procedurally correct trials, innocent persons must pay the price (jail time or death) so that “the system” can have peace.

      Given the number of guilty verdicts overturned due to advancements in DNA and other evidence gathering techniques, at least 100 innocent people have been exonerated and freed from jail/death sentences. Is seems “we the people” were spared the guilt of executing a goodly number of innocent people. However, Scalia would not be happy with those outcomes because the trials were not flawed, and the state needs the satisfaction that cases are settled “once and for all”.

      Given the history/tradition of the Rehnquist/Scalia theory of legal finality, can we expect Gorsuch or Kavanaugh to rule differently? That is, declare that Herra v. Collins was wrongly decided?

      Having SC justices who align more closely with the Constitution than the liberal justices is a good thing. However….aligned more closely is not an avatar for strict originalist leanings. Be sensible about what you can expect from a “right-leaning” Supreme Court (or right-leaning jurist).*

      *I recognize the irony of right-leaning people trying to use the courts to obtain what they cannot achieve at the ballot box…sorta like the Leftists we all hold in contempt.

      1. avatar Mad Max says:

        The three justices mentioned have already stated their opposition to the Chevron Defference and this bump stock case is one that could be used to strike it down.

        Kavanaugh also has already ruled on the DC circuit that semi-auto rifles are protected the same as semi-auto pistols.

        If you can’t depend on the Supreme Court to uphold individual rights there is no hope short of revolution. The scumbag politicians sure won’t and we’ll never be able to convince a super-majority of citizens to support gun rights.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Kavanaugh also has already ruled on the DC circuit that semi-auto rifles are protected the same as semi-auto pistols.”

          That was then, this is now.

          The Heller decision is ignored routinely by governments and courts: SC refuses to review 2A cases since. State laws, and pending national laws ban any semi-auto gun as an assault weapon – in the face of Heller.

          Things might change in the next 25yrs. Just don’t set yourself up for heartbreak in light of predictable outcomes.

        2. avatar Mad Max says:

          Here is one possiblity as to why the SCOTUS hasn’t acted to follow up on Heller and MacDonald:

          Hope they’re right.

        3. avatar Sam I Am says:

          While the article poses interesting thoughts, the fact is the article dodges the question – are there any permissible restrictions on private firearms permitted by the Second Amendment. The writers vote for anchoring the Second Amendment on elements outside the actual wording. And it is here that the entire process of the SC fails – avoiding direct interpretation of the constitution in favor of processes, history and tradition.

          If the SC was correct to decide that the Second Amendment protects an individual right, then the same SC designed the very infringements the words of the amendment prohibit.

          Not a recipe for hope.

  22. avatar doesky2 says:

    The NRA missed a golden opportunity….

    After the las vegas shootup they should have said….

    “If gun-grabber and the media consider bumpstocks to be unlicensed machine guns then let’s have a program where owners of unlicensed bumpstocks can turn them in and get a permit to purchase a fully licensed and transfearable AR15 or AK receiver. We get those evil unlicensed bumpstocks out of circulaton and in their place we get background checked people and licensing.”

    That would have doubled or tripled (or more) the machine gun registry.

    The lack of foresight or creativeness by the NRA is dissapointing to say the least.

    If NRA cared they could still save the day by saying on the day that the law change goes in to effect…..

    “Since we know the turn in rate will be next to zero we propose…..(The above)…so that we can have real change.”

    Once you get that idea in the public you will have bumpstocks owners hunker down and get zero turn in. So when you get zero turn in, go for the exchange program.

    1. avatar barnbwt says:

      That would have required the NRA to support the unwashed masses having access to machineguns, which they obviously do not. That would also have required the NRA to have successfully overturned the Hughes Amendment banning new registries, which they assured everyone would come immediately after their precious FOPA was passed by crooked voice vote. An awful lot like many of the folks here that are certain the courts will strike down this abuse of power.

  23. avatar Big Bill says:

    Why is my (admittedly rather long) comment not visible?
    I tried several times to post it, even got a message saying that it’s a duplicate, after being told it was spam. I’m fairly well known here, I don’t spam.
    And the “notify me of follow up comments by email” button still doesn’t work for me. I’m using Firefox, which I was told is the problem. I tried IE and Chrome; same problem. I was told it was my add-ons. I only use one, AdAware. I turned it off, same problem. If other comment apps can be made to work, what’s wrong here?
    Come on, people, what’s going on?

  24. avatar Clint says:

    What two old regulations will Trump get rid of? If he makes a new one ? That’s his policy right?

    1. avatar barnbwt says:

      His Second Amendment Council is working on that as we speak.

  25. avatar Geoff says:

    Redefining the definition of machine gun is like redefining the definition of sex. It makes no sense.
    It’s always been Male and Female. It’s always been one trigger pull fire continuously.
    A bump stock simply makes your finger move faster and can be done without one with enough practice, even with a pistol.

    1. avatar Geoff says:

      Bump fire without the stock.

      1. avatar little horn says:

        do you guys REALLY not understand the difference? i seriously hope you are just being silly.

      2. avatar SoBe says:

        Enlightening, so that “evil pistol grip part certain to increase deadliness” is actually what keeps the rifle from rapid fire. And think of all the effort that has been wasted trying to ban pistol grips. Once he ignored the pistol grip he could increase the rate of fire. I wonder if there is some similar magic with the removable magazine, collapsible stock or the black color of the rifle; would a pink or chartreuse one fire more rapidly?

    2. avatar barnbwt says:

      Huh; I thought only a fatass could bump fire a pistol off their belly. Neat.

      And only Bill Clinton gets to redefine the definition of sex.

  26. avatar Docduracoat says:

    President Ttump has done more gun control than President Obama dreamed of!
    Hearing protection act and national reciprocity are dead in Congress.
    Bump stock ban by ATF regulation is definately coming.
    Extreme risk protection orders have the Presidents’ approval.
    Our only hope is the new judge(s) on the Supreme Court
    The Republican Party takes gun owners for granted as we have no where else to go

  27. avatar little horn says:

    just keep beating that dead horse guys, it will get up and run any second now!

  28. avatar Chad says:

    The irony, I feel, is that the SCOTUS Trump has been instrumental in building will side with the Constitution. Maybe he is smarter than I have given him credit for after all.

  29. avatar Sora says:

    Look at it this way. YOU WANT Trump to take on the bump stock ban.
    While Trump is in office for 6 more years, we have better change to take down this fight, set it in stone so no future Kamala Harris or Ocasio-Cortez can do this to us ever again.

  30. avatar Smalltown Roger says:
    You don’t even need to stick some pansy-ass thing on the gun that you’d have to take back off to fire normally…

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