Bump Stocks are now banned

[MrFish]

If this gets repealed because the BATFE didnt have the authority to change the congressional definition of a machine gun, then holy shit, we might see a whole bunch of other things become legal again. Like third hole AK's and Dragunovs for example

If it doesn't get repealed then we just gave an agency power to change law without congressional oversight. It's absurd that it took this long, even more absurd that Trump pushed for this.

 

[FrommerStop]

I never had one but even if I did I would not go digging one up any time soon.

IF it gets repealed and the next day you show up at a range with one would LEO be able to arrest you because it would be obvious that you had one and did not destroy it by the deadline?

Most clubs do not allow them. If the law is repealed by the courts I assume you are ok. The big question is if anyone already convicted of it would have their convictions overturned.

 

[FrommerStop]

If it doesn't get repealed then we just gave an agency power to change law without congressional oversight. It's absurd that it took this long, even more absurd that Trump pushed for this.

View attachment 91801

I think Trump takes his marching orders from Wayne LaP. relative to guns.

 

[FLT]

If it doesn't get repealed then we just gave an agency power to change law without congressional oversight. It's absurd that it took this long, even more absurd that Trump pushed for this.

View attachment 91801

No need to worry about It ,if biden Is elected you won’t have a rifle to put it on.

 

[wildrider666]

If a Law is Ruled unconstitutional, all convictions for violations are subject to be overturned; normally via individual Appeals. After such a Ruling, LE can't Charge a person retroactively for violations that are alleged to have occurred while the Law existed as the Ruling applies from the date of enactment of the Law. It's important to make sure if a unconstitutional Ruling applies in total or only to part(s) of the Law. Either way its too soon to do a salvage dive at the site of your canoe accident.

If Fed Case goes down the crapper, they will probably ask for the Ruling to be held in obeyance for XX months IOT make the change correctly through Congress while "maintaining the same level of Public Safety". Currently, only the Plaintiff(s) enjoy continued BFD use and that would continue, everybody else who complied with the Law remain SOL. Courts move slow and as we have seen; If SCOTUS gets it and it favorable to the gun grabbers at the last lower Appeal: SCOTUS won't take the Case. If it's favorable to the 2A at the last Court level the probably will hear the Case to reverse it based on their current political leanings.

We wonder during this long case, WHY DOJ/BATFE hasn't gone to Congress to fix "the Law"? The clear reason is they want to continue their power grab well beyond "Administrative Oversight". If they Win, they can change the wording and interpetion of any Law under their perview (all Gov Agencies will have the have the same power!). Meanwhile, Congress sits on their asses abdicating their power; rather than allow BFD to regain legality.

 

[FrommerStop]

If a Law is Ruled unconstitutional, all convictions for violations are subject to be overturned; normally via individual Appeals. After such a Ruling, LE can't Charge a person retroactively for violations that are alleged to have occurred while the Law existed as the Ruling applies from the date of enactment of the Law. It's important to make sure if a unconstitutional Ruling applies in total or only to part(s) of the Law. Either way its too soon to do a salvage dive at the site of your canoe accident.

If Fed Case goes down the crapper, they will probably ask for the Ruling to be held in obeyance for XX months IOT make the change correctly through Congress while "maintaining the same level of Public Safety". Currently, only the Plaintiff(s) enjoy continued BFD use and that would continue, everybody else who complied with the Law remain SOL. Courts move slow and as we have seen; If SCOTUS gets it and it favorable to the gun grabbers at the last lower Appeal: SCOTUS won't take the Case. If it's favorable to the 2A at the last Court level the probably will hear the Case to reverse it based on their current political leanings.

We wonder during this long case, WHY DOJ/BATFE hasn't gone to Congress to fix "the Law"? The clear reason is they want to continue their power grab well beyond "Administrative Oversight". If they Win, they can change the wording and interpetion of any Law under their perview (all Gov Agencies will have the have the same power!). Meanwhile, Congress sits on their asses abdicating their power; rather than allow BFD to regain legality.

There is the constitution and bill of rights, but if the people do not maintain vigilance and vigilante legal actions like through the GOA and NRA (when it is on the ball), gun rights go straight to the crapper.
Remember Biden was the lead senator pushing the '94 crime bill with the assault weapons ban of 1994.
If Biden puts the AR into NFA and starts to prohibit them, machineguns anyone? There is the thought of 'Might as well be hung for a lion than go out on your knees like a lamb.'

 

[wildrider666]

If we view the ACTUAL TEXT of the definition of "Machinegun" you will note it has not been changed to include the DOJ/ATF BFD language and the document is correct as of Sep 08, 2020! DOJ made an "interpetation" and added BFD language, then referenced that new interpretation to ban ll types of BFDs.

https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:26%20section:5845%20edition:prelim)

If we look at 27 CFR 478.11 Meaning of Terms "Machine gun": the BFD language is there. Also interesting is the Sunset provision of the 94 AWB, all the old/expired language was lined through and voided. I'd see it lined out and the reference why. Several years passed and there wasn't a Federal Assault weapon definition ANYWHERE in the CFR. Even wiki had to state their info was from commonly accepted terms. Yet, here it lists "Semiautomatic Assault Weapons" and lists several and includes copies and duplicates with subcategories in rifles, pistols and shotguns also list "features". These "Semiautomatic Assault Weapons" already fall under their correct category, there's no Fed Laws that list semiautomatic assault weapons as a violation of anything: SO WHY HAVE THEY RESURFACED UNDER THESE TITLES? Some Agency has been cooking the books!

 

[IronBeard]

Here's a novel idea: How about constitutionality has to be established/validated prior to any law being brought up for a vote or an executive action being implemented? This current process of laws being passed by mob rule (vote) or personal whim (executive action being discussed) is contrary to the constitution and the republic that is supposed to be built on and governed by it, IMO. Does no one else see an underlying problem here?

 

[wildrider666]

If the BFD Ban was the result of a "Presidential Executive Order" (EO), any future President could terminate it as has been done numerous EOs in the past. Several resources refer to the BFD Ban as originating as an EO but I've never seen it. Anyone ever read the EO? If we move to the closest Official Document (Link) which is a Memo (reads like a Press Release): it clearly states how action was started and that it was well underway by the time the Memo was published.

"Accordingly, following established legal protocols, the Department of Justice started the process of promulgating a Federal regulation interpreting the definition of "machinegun" under Federal law to clarify whether certain bump stock type devices should be illegal."

Machinegun was clearly defined in the actual Law and "Interpetation"(adding to its definition administratively)
Resulted in a major change to EXISTING LAW.

https://publicpool.kinja.com/subject-presidential-memorandum-on-the-application-of-1823170075

 

[FrommerStop]

If the BFD Ban was the result of a "Presidential Executive Order" (EO), any future President could terminate it as has been done numerous EOs in the past. Several resources refer to the BFD Ban as originating as an EO but I've never seen it. Anyone ever read the EO? If we move to the closest Official Document (Link) which is a Memo (reads like a Press Release): it clearly states how action was started and that it was well underway by the time the Memo was published.

"Accordingly, following established legal protocols, the Department of Justice started the process of promulgating a Federal regulation interpreting the definition of "machinegun" under Federal law to clarify whether certain bump stock type devices should be illegal."

Machinegun was clearly defined in the actual Law and "Interpetation"(adding to its definition administratively)
Resulted in a major change to EXISTING LAW.

https://publicpool.kinja.com/subject-presidential-memorandum-on-the-application-of-1823170075

For 2018 to may 2019
I did glance at titles at https://www.federalregister.gov/presidential-documents/executive-orders/donald-trump/2018 for executive orders and did not see ban on bump stocks, but it might be part of an executive order and one would have to open the PDFs and read them.

I look elsewhere and found this that is governmental gobbly gook. One with more patience than I could read it. I doubt that trump did an EO on it, but they quote various EOs in their legal process.



Under a rule: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/12/26/2018-27763/bump-stock-type-devices
Bump-Stock-Type Devices

A Rule by the Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives Bureau on 12/26/2018

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Review
A. Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 13771




Executive Orders 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review) and 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health, and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility. Executive Order 13771 (Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs) directs agencies to reduce regulation and control regulatory costs. This final rule is expected to have an impact of over $100 million in the first year of this regulatory action. Details on the estimated costs of this final rule can be found in the rule's economic analysis below.



The Attorney General has determined this rule is a “significant regulatory action” that is economically significant under section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866 because, as discussed, the rule will have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more. Accordingly, the rule has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. This rule is a significant regulatory action that clarifies the meaning of the statutory definition of machinegun and reflects the public safety goals of the NFA and GCA. Further, this rule is a regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13771. See OMB, Guidance Implementing Executive Order 13771, Titled “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs” (Apr. 5, 2017).


This final rule is intended to interpret the definition of “machinegun” within the NFA and GCA such that it includes a bump-stock-type device, i.e., a device that allows a semiautomatic firearm to shoot more than one shot with a single pull of the trigger by harnessing the recoil energy of the semiautomatic firearm to which it is affixed so that the trigger resets and continues firing without additional physical manipulation of the trigger by the shooter.

 

[FrommerStop]

If Trump did not do an executive order on it, it might make it even easier for the bump stock ban to get reversed in front of a 'FAIR and JUST' court if as wild rider states it has no basis in existing law.
It really depends on the judges.

 

[wildrider666]

No "EO", just Hey Jeff (Sessions) take a look because I don't like them. Very disturbing they specifically used language to infer they would follow the Law, then stole Congressional Authority writing a definition in conflict with the one specifically written by Congress.

 

[FrommerStop]

What is common is the degree of incompetence that gun banners display when they try to write laws. The recently ruled invalid amendment to the Florida constitution banned tube fed .22s as assault weapons while allowing AR and AK pistols.

 

[IronBeard]

No "EO", just Hey Jeff (Sessions) take a look because I don't like them. Very disturbing they specifically used language to infer they would follow the Law, then stole Congressional Authority writing a definition in conflict with the one specifically written by Congress.

Take the guns first, and then worry about due process pretty much summed it all up for me. Not as 2A friendly as advertised/campaigned upon. What bothers me more is that no one but Pence openly opposed that remark.

 

[IronBeard]

What is common is the degree of incompetence that gun banners display when they try to write laws. The recently ruled invalid amendment to the Florida constitution banned tube fed .22s as assault weapons while allowing AR and AK pistols.

I'm more inclined to believe that what often comes across as ignorance/incompetence is often not. They are purposely vague, or otherwise "off," as a means of both hiding and furthering their agenda. The more informed tend to laugh off and discount something that seems utterly stupid, "high capacity clips," until it shows up for a vote.

Once they secure the votes, and cement the vague/stupid as law, they come out and tell you what the vague/stupid really means to them, even though you will not find that written. They make the laws purposely vague so they can interpret them as they please. That's the real problem nation wide, IMO. Laws not only need to be undeniably constitutional, they need to be written in a clear, understandable manner that requires no "professional" interpretation.

 

[G-rat]

This...

 

[wildrider666]

Hell, it would be great if the title of the Bill/Law actually matched the main body text and only contain very closely related subjct matter. Currently, they could be titled Save our children (Who doesn't want that Right) and contain everything from gun control, climate change mandates, free colledge and medical care and so on. When its opposed, the sponsors side claims opponents don't care about "Childrens Lives". Its optics and sound bytes to pass garbage as a bed of roses.

 

[wildrider666]

An interesting event: Machinegun Charge for BFS dropped by prosecutors. Point made was DOJ/BATFE can change regulations but in Court: they still must prove a BFS is a Machinegun. We can assume that:
1. They can't prove it.
2. They don't want a any Court to Rule against them, the Regulation, the BAN!

Are Bump Stocks Still Alive? Feds Drop Charges Because They Couldn’t Prove Devices are Machine Guns

A bump stock case in Houston is making waves in the pro-gun community after federal prosecutors dropped bump stock-related charges.

www.gunsamerica.com

 

[M60Gunner]

This reminds me of when they also got spooked by attorneys challenging their definition of the receiver being the firearm.

Design of AR-15 could derail charges tied to popular rifle

DALLAS (AP) — A subtle design feature of the AR-15 rifle has raised a technical legal question that is derailing cases against people who are charged with illegally buying and selling the gun's parts or building the weapon.

apnews.com

 

[FrommerStop]

This reminds me of when they also got spooked by attorneys challenging their definition of the receiver being the firearm.

Design of AR-15 could derail charges tied to popular rifle

DALLAS (AP) — A subtle design feature of the AR-15 rifle has raised a technical legal question that is derailing cases against people who are charged with illegally buying and selling the gun's parts or building the weapon.

apnews.com

Sometimes one has got to love lawyers.