DK Firearms

Bump Stocks are now banned

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Gulf Coast States

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • wildrider666

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Joined
    Sep 26, 2012
    Messages
    8,753
    Points
    113
    Location
    Panama City Beach, Fl
    In the Governments own words referencing NFA of 1934, changes incorperated by Title II of the Gun Control Act of 1968:
    "Title II also amended the NFA definitions of “firearm” by adding “destructive devices” and expanding the definition of “machinegun.”"

    Pay attention: that's expanding the definition of "machinegun" BY specific CONGRESSIONAL intent and ACTION! DOJ does not have equal authority to Congress. Delegated Authority does not allow changes to specific intent provided by Congress (thats Case Law). If it required Congerssional approval last time "the defination of machinegun" was expanded: it requires Congressional approval to change it again. Clearly an un Constitutional abuse of power by the DOJ. Nothing else is needed to kill/overturn the Rule Change. Maybe some Lawyer will figure it out too.

    https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regulations/national-firearms-act
     

    MAXman

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Joined
    Aug 4, 2014
    Messages
    2,560
    Points
    83
    Location
    Milton fl
    In case anyone is interested, NPR ran a piece this morning outlying how 2018 was a victory for gun control advocates. They referenced bills in Vermont and Florida and the recent ban of bump stocks. In all three they gave shout outs to the republican executives in charge of the states, and President Trump.

    I thought it was, uh, interesting.
     

    Realtor

    Marksman
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Joined
    Jun 5, 2018
    Messages
    821
    Points
    63
    Location
    Pensacola FL
    In case anyone is interested, NPR ran a piece this morning outlying how 2018 was a victory for gun control advocates. They referenced bills in Vermont and Florida and the recent ban of bump stocks. In all three they gave shout outs to the republican executives in charge of the states, and President Trump.

    I thought it was, uh, interesting.

    Whew, I'm glad their willing to tell me "It's okay, and they did a good job". I was worried there for a minute....
     

    Chuck32571

    Shooter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Joined
    Oct 29, 2018
    Messages
    18
    Points
    3
    Location
    Pace, Florida
    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/t...cially-bans-bump-stocks/ar-BBR7ZA2?li=BBnb7Kz

    If you own them you have 90 days to turn them in.

    "Those who possess the devices, which make it easier to fire rounds from a semi-automatic weapon by harnessing the gun's recoil to "bump" the trigger faster, will have 90 days to turn in or otherwise destroy them from the date that the final rule is published in the federal register -- likely this Friday -- according to senior DOJ officials."

    I'm not in favor of the government, or state for that matter, stepping into the banning of "Bump Stocks" strictly due to the act of one crazed person.
     

    Jeb21

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Joined
    Jul 27, 2014
    Messages
    2,098
    Points
    0
    Location
    Cantonment
    In the Governments own words referencing NFA of 1934, changes incorperated by Title II of the Gun Control Act of 1968:
    "Title II also amended the NFA definitions of “firearm” by adding “destructive devices” and expanding the definition of “machinegun.”"

    Pay attention: that's expanding the definition of "machinegun" BY specific CONGRESSIONAL intent and ACTION! DOJ does not have equal authority to Congress. Delegated Authority does not allow changes to specific intent provided by Congress (thats Case Law). If it required Congerssional approval last time "the defination of machinegun" was expanded: it requires Congressional approval to change it again. Clearly an un Constitutional abuse of power by the DOJ. Nothing else is needed to kill/overturn the Rule Change. Maybe some Lawyer will figure it out too.

    https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regulations/national-firearms-act

    You are correct, and this is why Obama determined that any significant regulation will have to come from a statute rather than an executive order. Trump, who knows all of the best people, the smartest people, decided that no the executive branch could chip away at our gun rights without an act of Congress. He is wrong and the pending lawsuits should prove that, provided that Trumps appointed judges are willing to go against Trump. Unlikely but possible.

    Sad that he did not take just a few minutes from the last two years to do something positive for gun rights. But hey, gotta build that wall, gotta get rid of Obama care, gotta generate more power from coal. Gotta send out those tweets. All of those things are more important than our gun rights.
     

    FrommerStop

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Joined
    Apr 7, 2016
    Messages
    6,897
    Points
    113
    Location
    NWFL
    You are correct, and this is why Obama determined that any significant regulation will have to come from a statute rather than an executive order. Trump, who knows all of the best people, the smartest people, decided that no the executive branch could chip away at our gun rights without an act of Congress. He is wrong and the pending lawsuits should prove that, provided that Trumps appointed judges are willing to go against Trump. Unlikely but possible.

    Sad that he did not take just a few minutes from the last two years to do something positive for gun rights. But hey, gotta build that wall, gotta get rid of Obama care, gotta generate more power from coal. Gotta send out those tweets. All of those things are more important than our gun rights.
    What Trump has done is very wrong for sure relative to bump stocks.
    So you are saying we should all hug exPres Obama and wish he had appointed more progun judges like RBG.
    And also are you saying that all of this is wrong: [/QUOTE] build that wall, gotta get rid of Obama care, gotta generate more power from coal. Gotta send out those tweets. [/QUOTE] You really sound like a democrat playing games. Are you really in favor of no more antigun laws. My point is I respect someone that is honest about what they believe, not someone that is sailing under a false flag.
     

    Jeb21

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Joined
    Jul 27, 2014
    Messages
    2,098
    Points
    0
    Location
    Cantonment
    I am angry that gun rights were not ever addressed. I am angry that, once again, gun rights could have protected but those in charge failed to do so. Politicians are first in line to take our donations and last in line to protect our gun rights.

    As far as hugging Obama, I know that there are a lot of gun shop owners, who made a ton of money because of the panic buying caused by his election and re-election. But no I don't expect any gun owner to hug Obama.

    My point about Obama, is that even he, who presumably had folks in his administration who shared his hatred of guns, concluded that there was no legal way to chip away at gun rights through executive action and that only a statute would be the legal way to accomplish this goal.

    Now we have Trump, allegedly a friend to the 2A and he openly advocates for taking the guns first and giving due process later. He gets his temp AG to sign an order taking away bump stocks, despite the fact that this action is probably not legal.

    As for my party, I am and have always been a Republican. However, my favorite Republican was John McCain. I know that many of you claim he is a RINO. The reality is that the GOP has taken a hard right turn in the last two decades. The last true Republican president we had in my opinion was George H. W. Bush.
     

    JBryan314

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Joined
    Jul 5, 2013
    Messages
    1,467
    Points
    38
    Location
    Jay, Florida
    It's ok. All Democrats and most Republicans are totally ok with this. MAGA y'all. The government is mostly under control of Republicans, so I'm just glad that it was OUR guys that banned me from owning this particular firearm accessory, and I'll be sure to always just vote straight Republican to ensure that the next time we have something taken away from us by our betters, that it's OUR guys taking it away.

    In other matters, if we are going to be invaded by a horde of third world savages with no intention of abiding by our customs or laws, learning our language or even respecting our boundaries and safety, by God they'd better be coming here and doing those things LEGALLY.

    This was brought to you by your good old Republican Party.
     

    Ross7

    Virtuoso
    GCGF Supporter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Joined
    Jun 30, 2014
    Messages
    2,638
    Points
    113
    Location
    NW Florida
    The Firearms Policy Coalition has decided to reposition itself and now challenge whether Acting AG Whitaker can even sign off on the Final Rule.

    ...look at how judges - especially liberal judges - have treated Second Amendment issues. The answer is not well and certainly not consistent with the intent of Heller and McDonald. Thus, even if you get an "Obama judge", you stand a chance of winning because they can rightfully say they are not deciding a Second Amendment issue but rather an Administrative Procedures Act issue.

    Actually, it would be helpful to get a Obama or Clinton appointee who has nothing but disdain for President Trump and who would see this as a way of slapping him down. They get some perverse pleasure out of it and we get an anti-gun rule stopped.

    Moreover, this doesn't stop Guedes or the case filed by Gun Owners of America on the merits as they will continue. This really is three-dimensional chess.

    FPC V. Whitaker - A Procedural Attack On The Bump Stock Ban
     

    wildrider666

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Joined
    Sep 26, 2012
    Messages
    8,753
    Points
    113
    Location
    Panama City Beach, Fl
    I think the Procedural Attack on Acting AG is valid but short on permanent result. Gov could have Sessions Deputy sign it. It would only restart the 90 day clock.
     

    Realtor

    Marksman
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Joined
    Jun 5, 2018
    Messages
    821
    Points
    63
    Location
    Pensacola FL
    Their grasping at anything to save face. they all know this had blown up in their face, just doing damage control at this point.... More to come, their kicking the can down the road. to little to late..... IMO
     

    wildrider666

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Joined
    Sep 26, 2012
    Messages
    8,753
    Points
    113
    Location
    Panama City Beach, Fl
    I don't think anyone would argue the point that "the Las Vegas mass shooting instigated the drive to Ban BFS", except the Fed Gov. You've read that right. Throughout the Rule, the Gov references the Las Veges mass shooting, expanded awareness (especially to those with criminal intent) that BFS exist and the carnage they could impart creating a threat to Public Safety. However the Rule NEVER states that any type of BFS was used during the Las Veges shooting!

    DOJ was pressed on this point by Commeneters who referenced several FOIA Requests on BFS use in The Las Veges shooting that have not been answered! DOJs response was BFS type devices were "ALLEGEDLY USED" at the Las Veges shooting. One would reasonably believe that the DOJ would have full access to all pertinent facts and Case records, especially if those facts would support DOJs position. There is only a conspicuous and glaring absence of that with the use of "allegedly", possibly to avoid contextual perjury. So, BFSs "allegedly" create a threat to public safety. For the Record, the NFA of 1934 states frequent criminal use in crime for taxing them not public safety.

    Congress specifically wrote the definition of machine gun in the NFA of 1934.
    Congress specifically expanded the definition of machinegun in the GCA of 1968.
    The Courts (Case Law) state that if Congressional Intent is clear, it may not be changed or modified by those given administrative or implementing authority.
    DOJ Rule changes and expands the definition of machinegun in 2018. Clearly, Government Agency Overreach!


    DOJ has stated that ATF (Lawyers and Technical Branch) did not interpet the existing Law correctly and the DOJ (Lawyers) have interpeted it correctly. If thats true, it would stand up to Judicial Review by the Courts. However, as we (and DOJ) all know, it would not the Courts scrutiny. That fact is the sole reason for the Rule: to change the Rule to match "DOJs new interpretation". The ATF says "the Sky is Blue. DOJ says "The Sky is Black". Justification: because DOJ wrote a Rule stating the Sky is Black.
     

    wildrider666

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Joined
    Sep 26, 2012
    Messages
    8,753
    Points
    113
    Location
    Panama City Beach, Fl
    yes it was reported several of the rifles in Vegas had bumpstocks attached

    Yes, widely reported: that issue generated a lot of press by itself but no confirmation from DOJ who is using it as an example, if not the sole reason to support a "Public Safety" issue and why they got involved in the first place as directed by Trump. BFSs had been around for years and suddenly DOJ determines AFT is incompetent and BFS are machineguns (once they change the Rule).

    I've never liked or owned a BFS. My problem is with the way its being banned which could be applied to any or all firearms. Agency changes Congressional Intent and strip anything they want while conveniently discrediting the Technical Experts. Agency Overeach is nothing new, the EPA and BLM have done it for decades.
     

    FrommerStop

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Joined
    Apr 7, 2016
    Messages
    6,897
    Points
    113
    Location
    NWFL
    I have been trying to find out why the NRA has been acting the way that they are. I went to an anti gun source to get their take and I think they have closed to nailed the reason why. I certainly do not to follow them 100%, but I think the NRA is trying to separate semi-auto fire from full automatic in their lobbying.

    https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/bump-stock-rule-771259/
    Why is the NRA not kicking and screaming — or suing? The organization has long touted the distinction between civilian semi-automatic rifles and military guns with fully-automatic capability as the reason civilians should be able to own weapons like the AR-15. The sale of devices like bump stocks that put automatic-fire capability in the hands of the masses had threatened to undermine decades of public marketing and court arguments. Those arguments, however, are not on the level. The unpleasant truth is that semi automatic fire is more accurate than automatic fire. The military instructs soldiers use semi automatic fire in nearly all combat scenarios. And some experts believe Paddock could have killed more people if he’d not used a bump stocks to spray the concert, and instead had targeted his shots into the crowd.

    The new bump-stock rule is already facing legal challenges. A lawsuit brought by the Firearms Policy Coalition argues that bump stock owners must be compensated for devices that ATF had previously ruled legal: “ATF’s abrupt about-face on this issue..smacks of agency abuse or dereliction of duty in following the law.”

    This suit also puts to a test the authority of Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker, who executed the rule. Whitaker’s appointment by President Trump to act in the stead of Jeff Sessions, who resigned in November, has been challenged as contrary to law that indicates Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein should have moved into the acting role. (Trump has nominated former attorney general William Barr has as a permanent replacement.)

    “Defendant Matthew Whitaker is unable to lawfully perform the duties and responsibilities of Attorney General,” the suit argues. “Since he lacks the authority to sign the Final Rule as Attorney General, the Final Rule must be struck down as invalidly enacted.”
     
    Top Bottom