Ammo For Sale

« « When seconds count | Home | Gun Porn » »

Making up law out of whole cloth

Trump Administration Set to Announce Pointless, Legally Dubious Bump Stock Ban

WizardPC:

I was promised National Reciprocity and the Hearing Protection Act.

I got a bumpstock ban.

20 Responses to “Making up law out of whole cloth”

  1. Tim Says:

    Maybe the whole point is for it to be challenged & struck-down by SCOTUS?

    Then DJT can give this issue the ‘ol “Pontius Pilat”?

  2. Sarthurk Says:

    Well, this is all a bunch of bullshit. Just because there were rifles with “bumpstocks” on them at the scene of the Masacree in Vegas, doesn’t mean they were actually used there.
    Are there any public documents as to what caliber(s) of rifles were used to do this deed?

    And besides, someone with SKILZ can bumpstock any semi rifle, and maybe pistol.

  3. Paul Says:

    Next liberals will want a trigger ban. No triggers… no bang!

  4. Carl "Bear" Bussjaeger Says:

    Sarthurk, the only weapon which investigators have said was USED was the revolver with which the killer himself was shot. No ballistics have been released. And in a FOIA dump, the ATF revealed they were not allowed to examine any firearms from the scene.

  5. Drake Says:

    Who can prevent the ATF from examining a crime scene?

  6. Standard Mischief Says:

    Trump is weak on the RKBA, only jumping on the bandwagon in 2016.

    OTOH we had Clinton running on a pro-mandatory confiscation platform.

    We did gett Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, and while I still have grave concerns from these folk for the 4th and 5th Amendments, we should get back on restoring the RKBA shortly.

    If not soon, right after RBG realizes she can’t fulfill her duties any longer.

  7. Ron W Says:

    @Standard Mischief, speaking of the 4th and 5th Amendments, how can “universal background checks”, so badly wanted by fake liberals, be enforced without violating those rights? Once upon a time, real liberals, championed those rights. No more, especially when it comes to violating the 2nd!

  8. one-eyed Jack Says:

    So one case (supposedly) of a bump stock used in a violent crime since the beginning of time and we need a ban? Jack.

  9. JTC Says:

    Legally dubious? Maybe.

    Pointless? Maybe not.

    In spite of numerous occasions when something The D said or did was questionable to me, ultimately only the former AG was a major fuckup and now he’s gone.

    We’ll see what 2020 brings; I’m thinking reciprocity and mufflers are highly probable, with from now until then used to fill up a bunch of fed court benches, most importantly -please God let it be- on the highest one.

  10. Dave Says:

    I voted for Supreme court picks. Anything else that happens that isn’t a Hillary Clinton led dumpster fire is probably a bonus.

  11. Remington 870 Shooter Says:

    Ban can change nothing about mass shootings. Good guys with guns can stop them.

  12. Patrick Says:

    I’m with Dave.

    SCOTUS picks, for the win.

  13. Heath J Says:

    Also with Dave.

    And I enjoy seeing that evil harridan thwarted.

  14. KM Says:

    @JTC – “We’ll see what 2020 brings; I’m thinking reciprocity and mufflers are highly probable”

    I love a dreamer as much as anyone but those 2 provisions will NEVER see the light of day in a Dim controlled House.

    What will be interesting is when the stroke of a pen makes bump stocks “illegal” and the court filings start 2 minutes later.
    I’m getting popcorn ready…

  15. JTC Says:

    KM, your last para neatly and accurately renders your second irrelevant, hence the focus on fed judges over the next two years by which time many of the lower ones and at least one more of the highest ones may stand (or sit) ready to hear landmark cases on Constitutional infringements.

    Beyond reciprocity of state government permission slips is the right properly recognized by many of them with many more pending as an immutable one, with national protection of it within sight.

    Noise suppression and hearing protection? Common sense just waiting to be recognized as such.

    And while we’re asking black-robed adults to apply that, we can petition them to use it for modernization of antiquated prohibitions of other NFA targets like MG’s…the definition of which as we all know is about to include these junk stock accessories. Pretty sharp end-around of dim agendas.

    A three-fer of corrections to Constitutional infringements ripe and ready for the Supreme Court come 2020. A grand plan? Could very well be.

  16. KM Says:

    KM, your last para neatly and accurately renders your second irrelevant

    The courts might rule that the EO is junk and a law needs to be passed by congress. That would be a plus in the first stage but I bet they could get the votes from squishy Rs to do it.
    They could say ‘screw it’ and give their rubber stamp to the whole process out of some ‘greater benefit’ to public safety. (that’s a ream job and it wouldn’t be the first time)

    With bump stocks on a semi-auto being called ‘the equiv of full auto’, I fear there will be numerous attempts to register, ban, et al. We all know a little is never enough for a power hungry politico.

    Expecting reciprocity or a silencer thumbs up out of a Dim controlled House would, IMHO require divine intervention.

    I pray you’re right and I’m dead wrong but the ability for politicians of BOTH parties to disappoint has no bounds.

  17. Lyle Says:

    “I was promised National Reciprocity and the Hearing Protection Act.”

    I don’t recall being promised either of those by DT. I remember only some vague flattery of gun owners and the NRA.

    Anyway; asking for national reciprocity is a bit like the Jews demanding standardization of their required yellow Star of David armbands– It means first having surrendered the basic principles, then wanting to argue the details of your impending enslavement and eventual extermination. Demanding a hearing protection act is to recant on the 2A, conceding that it carries no authority and no force, otherwise there’d be no need for a HPA.

    One can certainly support those measures, and it may even be good tactics to do so. Just don’t pretend to uphold the 2A afterwards, else you’re being a public hypocrite. Just say that you prefer tactics to principles, a short term gain for a likely total loss later, and be honest about it, and never mention the Bill of Rights again.

    Keep it in mind; only crazy old kooks who fail to understand the modern world in which we live will mention the Bill of Rights. Either you’ve set the fundamentals aside as a smart tactician (“temporarily”, you lie to yourself ), and you’re thus “pulling the wagon” as you see it, while others enjoy the ride as they criticize you, or you’re a crazy, worthless old kook upholding the fundamental of unalienable rights, a fundamental which, a) clearly no one takes seriously, and b) is poisoning the dialogue.

  18. Jay Dee Says:

    No different from the recent article in firearms news where the geniuses at the BATFE have decided that one bolt-action AR-15 upper is a firearm and requires a serial number.

    Treating the upper receiver as if it is a firearm causes problems. Guns using these upper receiver assemblies will have now two serial numbers from two different manufacturers. Essentially they are two different guns.

    Let’s say a convicted felon is arrested in possession of one of the guns. A prosecutor can now charge the suspect for possession of two guns not one. Understand that convicted felons should be banned from possessing guns but the ATF is doubling the penalty for illegal firearms possession by administrative fiat for this one gun. Other guns that do not have serialized upper receivers are still just one gun.

    If a convicted felon is arrested for possessing one of these upper receivers the suspect can now be charged with illegal possession of a firearm even though it is only half a gun which cannot be safely fired without the other half. In this case, the ATF has created a new law literally out of thin air.

    If you go to your local gun dealer and buy a lower receiver, it has a serial number. You have to fill out an ATF form 4473 and undergo a background check. If you buy this particular upper receiver the ATF now wants you to fill out a form 4473 and undergo another background check. If the dealer assembles this upper receiver to lower receiver, do you fill out one or two 4473s and undergo one or two background checks? Which serial number goes onto the 4473? Can the dealer assemble this upper receiver to a lower receiver prior to sale?

    If the dealer cannot assemble the two when may the gun owner assemble and use this gun?

    For states that limit purchase quantities, does this count as one or two guns?

    Finally, this one upper receiver assembly does nothing that another upper receiver assembly cannot do. If this one requires a serial number with attendant requirements for background checks, why shouldn’t all upper receiver assemblies require serial numbers? Depending on the estimate, there are anywhere from 10 to 60 million unserialized upper receivers in the United States. Does the ATF really believe that they can reverse their decision a half century later and everyone will immediately rush out to comply?
    I’m not sure what the ATF intended but they’ve created a mess. Perhaps the best explanation is that the ATF is attempting to “grow the business” anticipating a supportive Congress.

  19. Ron W Says:

    I don’t find any delegated powers in the Constitution for A, T or F, alcohol , tobacco or firearms. There is certainly no delegated power in the Constitution for any gun laws pertaining to the People. And without enumerated delegated powers, the Federal government may lawfully do NOTHING.

  20. Sebastian Says:

    Maybe the whole point is for it to be challenged & struck-down by SCOTUS?

    No. There is literally zero chance a bump stock ban will be struck down by SCOTUS. This is meant to head off much worse legislation that could threaten semi-automatics as a category. There’s a chance the reg could get axed based on ATF not having the authority, but that’s probably unlikely. Bump stocks are getting banned one way or another.

Used three kinds of generics. I liked the Levitra Pills more, although the others acted quite well. Perhaps it all depends on the characteristics of each organism.