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.

Hope they also change the status of suppressors

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.

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.

Agree.

I agree with everything you said.

Didn't Trump sign this into law?

Who cares what you think Elmer Fudd.

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

No.

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

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.

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!