Forums46
Topics538,031
Posts9,732,153
Members87,055
|
Most Online25,604 Feb 12th, 2024
|
|
|
Bump Stocks Get New Life as Federal Court Agrees to Rehear Case
#7969740
09/11/20 02:35 PM
|
Joined: May 2016
Posts: 2,420
yotehater
OP
Veteran Tracker
|
OP
Veteran Tracker
Joined: May 2016
Posts: 2,420 |
Courts to review bumpstock banWho 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: 65,527
SnakeWrangler
THF Celebrity
|
THF Celebrity
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 65,527 |
Hope they also change the status of suppressors
I believe in science and I’m an insufferable [censored] 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: 12,221
Grizz
THF Celebrity
|
THF Celebrity
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 12,221 |
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: 9,935
unclebubba
THF Trophy Hunter
|
THF Trophy Hunter
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 9,935 |
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 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.
|
|
|
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: 28,031
skinnerback
THF Celebrity Chef
|
THF Celebrity Chef
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 28,031 |
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: 29,132
TXHOGSLAYER
THF Celebrity
|
THF Celebrity
Joined: Jan 2012
Posts: 29,132 |
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.
LETS GO BRANDON
|
|
|
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: 9,836
The Dude Abides
THF Trophy Hunter
|
THF Trophy Hunter
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 9,836 |
Didn't Trump sign this into law?
I am still looking for the perfect apron, one with reinforced knee areas would be perfect.
|
|
|
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: 2,420
yotehater
OP
Veteran Tracker
|
OP
Veteran Tracker
Joined: May 2016
Posts: 2,420 |
Who cares what you think Elmer Fudd. 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: 11,913
Simple Searcher
THF Celebrity
|
THF Celebrity
Joined: Dec 2012
Posts: 11,913 |
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.
"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: The Dude Abides]
#7983536
09/22/20 01:10 PM
|
Joined: Oct 2017
Posts: 112
TOM-M
Woodsman
|
Woodsman
Joined: Oct 2017
Posts: 112 |
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: "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..." LINKIn 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: 9,836
The Dude Abides
THF Trophy Hunter
|
THF Trophy Hunter
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 9,836 |
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: "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..." LINKIn 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
I am still looking for the perfect apron, one with reinforced knee areas would be perfect.
|
|
|
Re: Bump Stocks Get New Life as Federal Court Agrees to Rehear Case
[Re: The Dude Abides]
#7984446
09/22/20 09:44 PM
|
Joined: Oct 2017
Posts: 112
TOM-M
Woodsman
|
Woodsman
Joined: Oct 2017
Posts: 112 |
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: "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..." LINKIn 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 BanCorrect. 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: 9,836
The Dude Abides
THF Trophy Hunter
|
THF Trophy Hunter
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 9,836 |
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: "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..." LINKIn 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 BanCorrect. 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.
I am still looking for the perfect apron, one with reinforced knee areas would be perfect.
|
|
|
Re: Bump Stocks Get New Life as Federal Court Agrees to Rehear Case
[Re: The Dude Abides]
#7985120
09/23/20 01:24 PM
|
Joined: Oct 2017
Posts: 112
TOM-M
Woodsman
|
Woodsman
Joined: Oct 2017
Posts: 112 |
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: 9,836
The Dude Abides
THF Trophy Hunter
|
THF Trophy Hunter
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 9,836 |
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.
I am still looking for the perfect apron, one with reinforced knee areas would be perfect.
|
|
|
Re: Bump Stocks Get New Life as Federal Court Agrees to Rehear Case
[Re: The Dude Abides]
#7985651
09/23/20 07:38 PM
|
Joined: Oct 2017
Posts: 112
TOM-M
Woodsman
|
Woodsman
Joined: Oct 2017
Posts: 112 |
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....... 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.
|
|
|
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: 9,836
The Dude Abides
THF Trophy Hunter
|
THF Trophy Hunter
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 9,836 |
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....... 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. To your smart azz reply...raising my hand with middle finger extended, salute!
I am still looking for the perfect apron, one with reinforced knee areas would be perfect.
|
|
|
Moderated by bigbob_ftw, CCBIRDDOGMAN, Chickenman, Derek, DeRico, Duck_Hunter, hetman, jeh7mmmag, JustWingem, kmon11, kry226, kwrhuntinglab, Payne, pertnear, rifleman, sig226fan (Rguns.com), Superduty, txcornhusker
|