texashuntingforum.com logo
Main Menu
Advertisement
Affiliates
Advertisement
Newest Members
TexasHunter30, mainaic, Eoe093, Jonathan P, HSavage
67114 Registered Users
Top Posters(All Time)
dogcatcher 103,841
bill oxner 71,746
stxranchman 56,283
SnakeWrangler 53,027
RKHarm24 44,585
rifleman 44,451
BMD 41,089
Gravytrain 38,342
Facebook
Forum Statistics
Forums45
Topics433,142
Posts6,515,963
Members67,114
Most Online19,184
Feb 5th, 2020
Print Thread
Bump Stocks Get New Life as Federal Court Agrees to Rehear Case #7969740 09/11/20 02:35 PM
Joined: May 2016
Posts: 1,006
Y
yotehater Offline OP
Pro Tracker
OP Offline
Pro Tracker
Y
Joined: May 2016
Posts: 1,006
Courts to review bumpstock ban

Who cares what you think Elmer Fudd. The 2nd Amendment shall not be infringed by a couple of liberal whacks. Anarchy will not prevail.


One shot is all it should take.
Re: Bump Stocks Get New Life as Federal Court Agrees to Rehear Case [Re: yotehater] #7969805 09/11/20 03:12 PM
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 53,027
S
SnakeWrangler Offline
THF Celebrity
Offline
THF Celebrity
S
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 53,027
Hope they also change the status of suppressors


Originally Posted by Sneaky
I believe in science and I’m an insufferable dickhead
Originally Posted by beaversnipe
Actually, BBC is pretty damn good

"You Cannot Simultaneously Be Politically Correct And Intellectually Honest!"
Re: Bump Stocks Get New Life as Federal Court Agrees to Rehear Case [Re: yotehater] #7969869 09/11/20 03:52 PM
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 9,904
G
Grizz Online Content
THF Trophy Hunter
Online Content
THF Trophy Hunter
G
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 9,904
I don't have any use for a bump stock, but this nonsense decision should be overturned. I'm not sure how anyone with a functioning brain could look at the definition for a machine gun and say a bump stock fits that definition. Equally troubling is the fact they changed a long standing ruling with the stroke of a pen and didn't even grandfather the current owners or compensate them for something they legally purchased.


Re: Bump Stocks Get New Life as Federal Court Agrees to Rehear Case [Re: Grizz] #7969877 09/11/20 03:58 PM
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 4,270
U
unclebubba Online Content
Extreme Tracker
Online Content
Extreme Tracker
U
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 4,270
Originally Posted by Grizz
I don't have any use for a bump stock, but this nonsense decision should be overturned. I'm not sure how anyone with a functioning brain could look at the definition for a machine gun and say a bump stock fits that definition. Equally troubling Even more troubling is the fact they changed a long standing ruling with the stroke of a pen and didn't even grandfather the current owners or compensate them for something they legally purchased.


FIFY up

I too don't care about bump stocks. They are inaccurate and useless IMO. However changing their long standing viewpoint on the law to suddenly make a firearm part illegal concerns the hell out of me. Hopefully it will get overturned quickly.

Last edited by unclebubba; 09/11/20 03:59 PM.

Originally Posted by txhuntingguide
If I choose to hunt in a coon tail hat, a pink tootoo and hip waders that is my fine...
Re: Bump Stocks Get New Life as Federal Court Agrees to Rehear Case [Re: Grizz] #7970028 09/11/20 06:05 PM
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 17,094
skinnerback Online Content
THF Celebrity Chef
Online Content
THF Celebrity Chef
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 17,094
Originally Posted by Grizz
I don't have any use for a bump stock, but this nonsense decision should be overturned. I'm not sure how anyone with a functioning brain could look at the definition for a machine gun and say a bump stock fits that definition. Equally troubling is the fact they changed a long standing ruling with the stroke of a pen and didn't even grandfather the current owners or compensate them for something they legally purchased.



Agree.

Re: Bump Stocks Get New Life as Federal Court Agrees to Rehear Case [Re: Grizz] #7970075 09/11/20 06:40 PM
Joined: Jan 2012
Posts: 21,406
T
TXHOGSLAYER Online Content
THF Celebrity
Online Content
THF Celebrity
T
Joined: Jan 2012
Posts: 21,406
Originally Posted by Grizz
I don't have any use for a bump stock, but this nonsense decision should be overturned. I'm not sure how anyone with a functioning brain could look at the definition for a machine gun and say a bump stock fits that definition. Equally troubling is the fact they changed a long standing ruling with the stroke of a pen and didn't even grandfather the current owners or compensate them for something they legally purchased.



I agree with everything you said.


See y'all around the campfire.

Originally Posted by FiremanJG
I love a happy ending.

Originally Posted by MikeC
Never underestimate a meth head!


Re: Bump Stocks Get New Life as Federal Court Agrees to Rehear Case [Re: yotehater] #7971160 09/12/20 07:50 PM
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 4,192
T
TXGUNNER308 Online Content
Extreme Tracker
Online Content
Extreme Tracker
T
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 4,192
Didn't Trump sign this into law?


Initial Success or Total Failure

Re: Bump Stocks Get New Life as Federal Court Agrees to Rehear Case [Re: yotehater] #7971411 09/13/20 12:22 AM
Joined: May 2016
Posts: 1,006
Y
yotehater Offline OP
Pro Tracker
OP Offline
Pro Tracker
Y
Joined: May 2016
Posts: 1,006
Who cares what you think Elmer Fudd. bang

Listen to you scream when they come after the ... fill in the blank.


One shot is all it should take.
Re: Bump Stocks Get New Life as Federal Court Agrees to Rehear Case [Re: TXHOGSLAYER] #7971472 09/13/20 01:25 AM
Joined: Dec 2012
Posts: 8,740
S
Simple Searcher Offline
THF Trophy Hunter
Offline
THF Trophy Hunter
S
Joined: Dec 2012
Posts: 8,740
Originally Posted by TXHOGSLAYER
Originally Posted by Grizz
I don't have any use for a bump stock, but this nonsense decision should be overturned. I'm not sure how anyone with a functioning brain could look at the definition for a machine gun and say a bump stock fits that definition. Equally troubling is the fact they changed a long standing ruling with the stroke of a pen and didn't even grandfather the current owners or compensate them for something they legally purchased.



I agree with everything you said.


[Linked Image]
"Man is still a hunter, still a simple searcher after meat..." Robert C. Ruark
Re: Bump Stocks Get New Life as Federal Court Agrees to Rehear Case [Re: TXGUNNER308] #7983536 09/22/20 01:10 PM
Joined: Oct 2017
Posts: 65
T
TOM-M Offline
Outdoorsman
Offline
Outdoorsman
T
Joined: Oct 2017
Posts: 65
Originally Posted by TXGUNNER308
Didn't Trump sign this into law?


No.

The DOJ amended BATF regulations, classifying bump stocks as machine guns by bastardizing the language of both the NFA and GCA:

Quote
"This final rule amends the regulatory definition of “machinegun” in Title 27, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), sections 447.11, 478.11, and 479.11. The final rule amends the regulatory text by adding the following language: “The term ‘machine gun’ includes bump-stock devices..."
LINK

In short, the "4th Branch" of government....unelected bureaucrats....were once again the tool of bypassing the entire legislative process, coming up with yet another rule that has the full force and effect of law.


And BTW, the ATF had issued numerous letters determining that bump stocks were NOT machineguns prior to the Las Vegas shooting. For whatever that's worth.

Re: Bump Stocks Get New Life as Federal Court Agrees to Rehear Case [Re: TOM-M] #7984327 09/22/20 08:37 PM
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 4,192
T
TXGUNNER308 Online Content
Extreme Tracker
Online Content
Extreme Tracker
T
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 4,192
Originally Posted by TOM-M
Originally Posted by TXGUNNER308
Didn't Trump sign this into law?


No.

The DOJ amended BATF regulations, classifying bump stocks as machine guns by bastardizing the language of both the NFA and GCA:

Quote
"This final rule amends the regulatory definition of “machinegun” in Title 27, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), sections 447.11, 478.11, and 479.11. The final rule amends the regulatory text by adding the following language: “The term ‘machine gun’ includes bump-stock devices..."
LINK

In short, the "4th Branch" of government....unelected bureaucrats....were once again the tool of bypassing the entire legislative process, coming up with yet another rule that has the full force and effect of law.


And BTW, the ATF had issued numerous letters determining that bump stocks were NOT machineguns prior to the Las Vegas shooting. For whatever that's worth.


I believe they did that under the direction of Trump.


Trump Fed Bump Stock Ban


Initial Success or Total Failure

Re: Bump Stocks Get New Life as Federal Court Agrees to Rehear Case [Re: TXGUNNER308] #7984446 09/22/20 09:44 PM
Joined: Oct 2017
Posts: 65
T
TOM-M Offline
Outdoorsman
Offline
Outdoorsman
T
Joined: Oct 2017
Posts: 65
Originally Posted by TXGUNNER308
Originally Posted by TOM-M
Originally Posted by TXGUNNER308
Didn't Trump sign this into law?


No.

The DOJ amended BATF regulations, classifying bump stocks as machine guns by bastardizing the language of both the NFA and GCA:

Quote
"This final rule amends the regulatory definition of “machinegun” in Title 27, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), sections 447.11, 478.11, and 479.11. The final rule amends the regulatory text by adding the following language: “The term ‘machine gun’ includes bump-stock devices..."
LINK

In short, the "4th Branch" of government....unelected bureaucrats....were once again the tool of bypassing the entire legislative process, coming up with yet another rule that has the full force and effect of law.


And BTW, the ATF had issued numerous letters determining that bump stocks were NOT machineguns prior to the Las Vegas shooting. For whatever that's worth.


I believe they did that under the direction of Trump.


Trump Fed Bump Stock Ban


Correct. But he DID NOT sign anything regarding bump stocks into law, instead using (abusing?) the regulatory "system" to the same effect for all practical purposes...big difference between the two, IMO, and what I was attempting to point out.

Rotten deal, all the way around.

Re: Bump Stocks Get New Life as Federal Court Agrees to Rehear Case [Re: TOM-M] #7985081 09/23/20 12:50 PM
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 4,192
T
TXGUNNER308 Online Content
Extreme Tracker
Online Content
Extreme Tracker
T
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 4,192
Originally Posted by TOM-M
Originally Posted by TXGUNNER308
Originally Posted by TOM-M
Originally Posted by TXGUNNER308
Didn't Trump sign this into law?


No.

The DOJ amended BATF regulations, classifying bump stocks as machine guns by bastardizing the language of both the NFA and GCA:

Quote
"This final rule amends the regulatory definition of “machinegun” in Title 27, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), sections 447.11, 478.11, and 479.11. The final rule amends the regulatory text by adding the following language: “The term ‘machine gun’ includes bump-stock devices..."
LINK

In short, the "4th Branch" of government....unelected bureaucrats....were once again the tool of bypassing the entire legislative process, coming up with yet another rule that has the full force and effect of law.


And BTW, the ATF had issued numerous letters determining that bump stocks were NOT machineguns prior to the Las Vegas shooting. For whatever that's worth.


I believe they did that under the direction of Trump.


Trump Fed Bump Stock Ban


Correct. But he DID NOT sign anything regarding bump stocks into law, instead using (abusing?) the regulatory "system" to the same effect for all practical purposes...big difference between the two, IMO, and what I was attempting to point out.

Rotten deal, all the way around.


Semantics...he pushed for the ban, bottom line.


Initial Success or Total Failure

Re: Bump Stocks Get New Life as Federal Court Agrees to Rehear Case [Re: TXGUNNER308] #7985120 09/23/20 01:24 PM
Joined: Oct 2017
Posts: 65
T
TOM-M Offline
Outdoorsman
Offline
Outdoorsman
T
Joined: Oct 2017
Posts: 65


Quote
Semantics...he pushed for the ban, bottom line.


Call it what you wish, and the simple fact that Trump pushed for the ban is most definitely irrefutable, but "outlawing" via regulation vs. legislation are 2 wildly different things.

I would contend that the regulation route is far more dangerous. It requires near zero accountability. And allowed Trump to not have to sign a damned thing.

Re: Bump Stocks Get New Life as Federal Court Agrees to Rehear Case [Re: TOM-M] #7985423 09/23/20 05:18 PM
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 4,192
T
TXGUNNER308 Online Content
Extreme Tracker
Online Content
Extreme Tracker
T
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 4,192
Originally Posted by TOM-M


Quote
Semantics...he pushed for the ban, bottom line.


Call it what you wish, and the simple fact that Trump pushed for the ban is most definitely irrefutable, but "outlawing" via regulation vs. legislation are 2 wildly different things.

I would contend that the regulation route is far more dangerous. It requires near zero accountability. And allowed Trump to not have to sign a damned thing.


I'm sure something was "signed". He just didn't pick up the phone and demand the regulation be changed.


Initial Success or Total Failure

Re: Bump Stocks Get New Life as Federal Court Agrees to Rehear Case [Re: TXGUNNER308] #7985651 09/23/20 07:38 PM
Joined: Oct 2017
Posts: 65
T
TOM-M Offline
Outdoorsman
Offline
Outdoorsman
T
Joined: Oct 2017
Posts: 65
Originally Posted by TXGUNNER308
Originally Posted by TOM-M


Quote
Semantics...he pushed for the ban, bottom line.


Call it what you wish, and the simple fact that Trump pushed for the ban is most definitely irrefutable, but "outlawing" via regulation vs. legislation are 2 wildly different things.

I would contend that the regulation route is far more dangerous. It requires near zero accountability. And allowed Trump to not have to sign a damned thing.


I'm sure something was "signed". He just didn't pick up the phone and demand the regulation be changed.


Goodgawdamighty....... bang




Yeah, I'd imagine Trump signed the memo to the AG, but he didn't sign the bump stock ban into law as you posed in your question of 9/12/20. "Sign into law" being generally accepted as the ratification part of the process of legislation passed through Congress and landing on the President's desk for a John Henry. The fact that he used the regulatory system rather than the legislative process to define bump stocks as machine guns is the ONLY point I've attempted (and apparently failed miserably) to make in this discussion since my first reply (that I'm guessing you didn't like for whatever reason) to your question.

Look, I'll run, not walk, to vote for Trump here in a matter of days. That said, I think we might be on the same page here: that Trump earned some very deserved skepticism so far as the bump stock ban may relate to upholding the 2A/gun rights in general. I think he crapped in a corner of his nest regarding this ban, and you can bet your boots that I believe vigilance here is most definitely in order throughout Trump's next term - assuming he wins.


Take care. cheers

Re: Bump Stocks Get New Life as Federal Court Agrees to Rehear Case [Re: TOM-M] #7986014 09/23/20 11:46 PM
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 4,192
T
TXGUNNER308 Online Content
Extreme Tracker
Online Content
Extreme Tracker
T
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 4,192
Originally Posted by TOM-M
Originally Posted by TXGUNNER308
Originally Posted by TOM-M


Quote
Semantics...he pushed for the ban, bottom line.


Call it what you wish, and the simple fact that Trump pushed for the ban is most definitely irrefutable, but "outlawing" via regulation vs. legislation are 2 wildly different things.

I would contend that the regulation route is far more dangerous. It requires near zero accountability. And allowed Trump to not have to sign a damned thing.


I'm sure something was "signed". He just didn't pick up the phone and demand the regulation be changed.


Goodgawdamighty....... bang




Yeah, I'd imagine Trump signed the memo to the AG, but he didn't sign the bump stock ban into law as you posed in your question of 9/12/20. "Sign into law" being generally accepted as the ratification part of the process of legislation passed through Congress and landing on the President's desk for a John Henry. The fact that he used the regulatory system rather than the legislative process to define bump stocks as machine guns is the ONLY point I've attempted (and apparently failed miserably) to make in this discussion since my first reply (that I'm guessing you didn't like for whatever reason) to your question.

Look, I'll run, not walk, to vote for Trump here in a matter of days. That said, I think we might be on the same page here: that Trump earned some very deserved skepticism so far as the bump stock ban may relate to upholding the 2A/gun rights in general. I think he crapped in a corner of his nest regarding this ban, and you can bet your boots that I believe vigilance here is most definitely in order throughout Trump's next term - assuming he wins.


Take care. cheers


To your smart azz reply...raising my hand with middle finger extended, salute!


Initial Success or Total Failure

Previous Thread
Index
Next Thread

© 2004-2019 OUTDOOR SITES NETWORK all rights reserved USA and Worldwide
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.3