Bump stuck ban going away?

[bowfreak]

So we can dig them up and use again?

LMAO

 

[MAXman]

I also believe Trump did it that way because it COULD be overturned.
And in doing so would also undo other things.

All those Fair-Weather Republicans forget his kids are Three-Gun champions...
and he has a Concealed Carry Permit in both NY and Florida.
The plan he has for things may not be clear to them,
but he can be one seriously thoughtful & long-planning SOB when he's a mind to.

Remember, he LOVES to honk people off,
simply because it makes them SLOPPY...
and while they're being all caught up in emotions,
he's slipping up behind them with a sockfull of wet sand

And frankly, to think about what Trump is doing,
it helps to really think about Penn & Teller instead.

I hope the ATF rulings on the bump stock and similar are overturned, even considering I would never buy one for myself. The bumpstocks were low lying fruit and not enough gun owners were totally opposed to their banning. So the republican leadership decided to as in the old russian analogy to throw one passenger off the sled to the attacking wolf pack so the rest of the passengers could escape.

LOL
YUP, only way to save a gun is ban it, ammaright?!

 

[wildrider666]

The true scoop on ATF (DOJ) alleged "Admission" at Link. They (ATF) are now saying they didn't change the "Law" of the NFA, they "just": broadened the interpretation. Hell, if Agencies could just broaden the scope and create new law there would be little need for Congress. The The NFA (1934) Contained the origional Fed Legal definition of Machinegun. The GCA (1968) changed that definition (interesting, they deleted the semiautimatic reference, obviously because a firearm can't be classified as both). As is the only lawful means: Congress specifically wrote their intent. DOJ wrote a NEW definition soley to justify the simultaneous BAN BFD upon its "new Rule" passing only Administrative processes.
We must also ask the obsurd to find the truth: Is a "Person" machinegun part? You can't get more than one shot with "just" one pull of the trigger.

https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/no-the-atf-didnt-hand-us-back-bump-our-stocks/

 

[Ross7]

It appears Justice Gorsuch has taken an interest, though at best they're gonna wait till the issue works its way through the lower courts.

SCOTUS Will Not Review Trump’s Bump Stock Ban – At Least Not Now

 

[Ric-san]

I guess it time to return the site of my “boating accident” and start looking around....

 

[FrommerStop]

My major concern is stopping the ATF from bending the law to suit their purposes. In the current form of most bump stocks that I have seen is they do not interest me and none the ranges that I use permit their use. It is not difficult if you set up an AK with lighter trigger and shorter legal stock to get bump fire and I have changed out one tapco trigger because that was happening. I put in a different tapco trigger, the doubling went away. Very easy to shoot over a berm with full auto.

 

[Snake-Eyes]

My major concern is stopping the ATF from bending the law to suit their purposes. In the current form of most bump stocks that I have seen is they do not interest me and none the ranges that I use permit their use. It is not difficult if you set up an AK with lighter trigger and shorter legal stock to get bump fire and I have changed out one tapco trigger because that was happening. I put in a different tapco trigger, the doubling went away. Very easy to shoot over a berm with full auto.

I stopped agreeing with your post after the first sentence.

On behalf of other gun owners who don't want ANY restrictions on gun rights based upon the inability of some people to shoot straight, I'll add my input for this "public record exchange of ideas": it doesn't matter if the shoestring or plastic stock or whatever helps a novice shooter to "shoot over a berm". You picked up the weapon, you modified it, and you pulled the trigger, so those bullets and their trajectories are YOUR responsibility... not the hell damn MINE.

Just like it isn't my fault when a criminal misuses a gun, it also isn't my fault if a novice misuses a gun. In both cases, it wasn't the gun's fault either, so what backward-ass logic makes it the fault of some random law-abiding Citizen and their guns?

Libtard Commie logic, that's what backward-ass logic. It festers in the diseased brains of Un-American Freedom-hating commie socialists bent on seeing this great Nation implode.

 

[FrommerStop]

It is only the last sentence that seems to have set you off.

Very easy to shoot over a berm with full auto.

And I certainly did not advocate any laws, but simply state a fact and one of my personal fears that someday I might put a bullet over a berm and the following diatribe follow. To sad to even say LOL.

I stopped agreeing with your post after the first sentence.


On behalf of other gun owners who don't want ANY restrictions on gun rights based upon the inability of some people to shoot straight, I'll add my input for this "public record exchange of ideas": it doesn't matter if the shoestring or plastic stock or whatever helps a novice shooter to "shoot over a berm". You picked up the weapon, you modified it, and you pulled the trigger, so those bullets and their trajectories are YOUR responsibility... not the hell damn MINE.

Just like it isn't my fault when a criminal misuses a gun, it also isn't my fault if a novice misuses a gun. In both cases, it wasn't the gun's fault either, so what backward-ass logic makes it the fault of some random law-abiding Citizen and their guns?

Libtard Commie logic, that's what backward-ass logic. It festers in the diseased brains of Un-American Freedom-hating commie socialists bent on seeing this great Nation implode.

As board member of a local club I am very concerned with people shooting over our berm. And for sure I do not want federal regulations over that subject. What followed that you disagreed with are just my personal thoughts and nothing that i want into law. Any mishandling of a gun on club property that I belong is to some extent my responsibility, at least morally. I believe that only the executive officers can be sued and the clubs that I belong do carry insurance.
If it is your property and the projectiles and other things do not leave what you own then no one should be concerned.

 

[Little Jack]

It is only the last sentence that seems to have set you off.
And I certainly did not advocate any laws, but simply state a fact and one of my personal fears that someday I might put a bullet over a berm and the following diatribe follow. To sad to even say LOL.




As board member of a local club I am very concerned with people shooting over our berm. And for sure I do not want federal regulations over that subject. What followed that you disagreed with are just my personal thoughts and nothing that i want into law. Any mishandling of a gun on club property that I belong is to some extent my responsibility, at least morally. I believe that only the executive officers can be sued and the clubs that I belong do carry insurance.
If it is your property and the projectiles and other things do not leave what you own then no one should be concerned.

this is silly

 

[Snake-Eyes]

This is a gun forum. Most folks here are responsible gun owners. When someone types in a search engine and one of these threads pops up, our reaponses reflect on this forum and the generic "gun community".

I just wanted the opposing viewpoint on the page, so it didn't erroneously look like everyone agrees with you.
"Even saying nothing, says something."

Your opinion is yours. Mine is mine.

 

[Little Jack]

This is a gun forum. Most folks here are responsible gun owners. When someone types in a search engine and one of these threads pops up, our reaponses reflect on this forum and the generic "gun community".

I just wanted the opposing viewpoint on the page, so it didn't erroneously look like everyone agrees with you.
"Even saying nothing, says something."

Your opinion is yours. Mine is mine.

This is.... reasonable.

 

[FrommerStop]

This is a gun forum. Most folks here are responsible gun owners. When someone types in a search engine and one of these threads pops up, our reaponses reflect on this forum and the generic "gun community".

I just wanted the opposing viewpoint on the page, so it didn't erroneously look like everyone agrees with you.
"Even saying nothing, says something."

Your opinion is yours. Mine is mine.

OK .........................

 

[Rebel_Rider1969]

I want one for my 15-22! Left hand. DIE DILLOS!!!!!!

 

[FrankT]

I want 3 of them!

 

[Ross7]

I want the ATF to not be able to arbitrarily reclassify guns and accessories. But we can't always get what we want.