Jump to content

Trump to ban bump stocks within two-three weeks.


Raw Power

Recommended Posts

 


WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump said on Monday his administration is just a few weeks away from finalizing a regulation that would ban so-called bump stocks, devices that allow semi-automatic weapons to fire like machine guns.

“We’re knocking out bump stocks,” Trump said at a White House news conference. “We’re in the final two or three weeks, and I’ll be able to write out bump stocks.”

 

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-guns-bumpstocks/trump-says-close-to-finalizing-effective-ban-on-gun-bump-stocks-idUSKCN1MB3C3

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyone have a copy of the proposed regulation they intend to push through. Does it have any provisions in there for grandfathering of units already in possession prior to this going into effect?

https://www.justice.gov/file/1046006/download

 

The big deal on this is there is no grandfather clause proposed last time I read through that. Last time they did this post Hughes Ammendment it was with the streetsweeper/Striker 12 shotguns. You had to register them a destructive device. This was back in the early 90s around the assault weapon ban, but at least there was still a way to keep your property that was formerly legal.

 

Let that sink in, by executive action (not voted on by Senate) the Trump/Sessions DOJ is about to make your property illegal with no compensation and no grandfather clause. They are also redefining a key part of NFA that has remained untouched about the definition of a machine gun which has the consequences of inadvertently sending people to jail for a long time.

 

I just dont understand why anyone would want one

It's not about want, it's about the legal precedence this administration is about to set. If the Repubs ban gun stuff this way what happens when the Dem's are back in control of the executive branch? They will find stuff ban that you will want.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Anyone have a copy of the proposed regulation they intend to push through. Does it have any provisions in there for grandfathering of units already in possession prior to this going into effect?

https://www.justice.gov/file/1046006/download

 

The big deal on this is there is no grandfather clause proposed last time I read through that. Last time they did this post Hughes Ammendment it was with the streetsweeper/Striker 12 shotguns. You had to register them a destructive device. This was back in the early 90s around the assault weapon ban, but at least there was still a way to keep your property that was formerly legal.

 

Let that sink in, by executive action (not voted on by Senate) the Trump/Sessions DOJ is about to make your property illegal with no compensation and no grandfather clause. They are also redefining a key part of NFA that has remained untouched about the definition of a machine gun which has the consequences of inadvertently sending people to jail for a long time.

 

I just dont understand why anyone would want one

It's not about want, it's about the legal precedence this administration is about to set. If the Repubs ban gun stuff this way what happens when the Dem's are back in control of the executive branch? They will find stuff ban that you will want.

 

 

This x1,000.

 

Hunters don't own "assault" weapons, or handguns, so they don't care about them, and they let supposedly pro-gun legislators take away 2nd amendment rights. I don't care about bump stocks, but I sure don't want them banned, especially by someone who claims to be for our gun rights (yet hasn't done anything for them, and who stands ready to do something preposterous against them).

 

Here is what they are taking from law-abiding gun owners, by the ATFs estimate, not to mention the jobs killed by this executive order and the loss of manufacturing income that accounts for many millions of dollars more:

 

whattheywant.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyone have a copy of the proposed regulation they intend to push through. Does it have any provisions in there for grandfathering of units already in possession prior to this going into effect?

 

It was posted.

 

https://www.justice.gov/file/1046006/download

 

There are no provisions for grandfathering. You will have to destroy it, or be a felon. Linking it to the GCA of 1968 means that mere possession of something you bought legally (and for upwards of $300 from my best understanding) would amount to a federal charge, and not a small one either.

 

Trump has already talked about an "assault weapons" ban, and it's likely this is how he will do it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Anyone have a copy of the proposed regulation they intend to push through. Does it have any provisions in there for grandfathering of units already in possession prior to this going into effect?

 

It was posted.

 

https://www.justice.gov/file/1046006/download

 

There are no provisions for grandfathering. You will have to destroy it, or be a felon. Linking it to the GCA of 1968 means that mere possession of something you bought legally (and for upwards of $300 from my best understanding) would amount to a federal charge, and not a small one either.

 

Trump has already talked about an "assault weapons" ban, and it's likely this is how he will do it.

 

 

The government can not legally force a citizen to destroy an item they own or turn it in without compensation. That's in the constitution.

 

I, personally, have no use for a bump stock. I see them as nothing more than a novelty. But, if you want to own one, I support your right to do so. Also, as was pointed out here, weapons can still be bump fired without one.

 

That being the case, I'd be willing to support sacrificing them...as long as we get something in return. Such as national reciprocity or the hearing protection act.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I just dont understand why anyone would want one

I never wanted one. I want one now simply because in a few short weeks i won't be able to get one. Best of all since these are not firearms and required no paper trail to buy there is no way for the government to know who even has them.

 

I despise them, but I nearly purchased one while the Las Vegas shooting was still going on. My first thought when I heard reports of automatic fire was "bump stock....maybe a GAT trigger". This was before it was determined it was a bumpstock. Cabela's had them in stock.

 

I don't mind the ban, but I don't like the lack of compensation/no grandfather/instant felon part of it.

 

My bigger issue with them has always been that these are one of those features specifically designed to thumb its nose at a law. And when it is finally addressed, there will be overreach.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Anyone have a copy of the proposed regulation they intend to push through. Does it have any provisions in there for grandfathering of units already in possession prior to this going into effect?

 

It was posted.

 

https://www.justice.gov/file/1046006/download

 

There are no provisions for grandfathering. You will have to destroy it, or be a felon. Linking it to the GCA of 1968 means that mere possession of something you bought legally (and for upwards of $300 from my best understanding) would amount to a federal charge, and not a small one either.

 

Trump has already talked about an "assault weapons" ban, and it's likely this is how he will do it.

 

 

The government can not legally force a citizen to destroy an item they own or turn it in without compensation. That's in the constitution.

 

I, personally, have no use for a bump stock. I see them as nothing more than a novelty. But, if you want to own one, I support your right to do so. Also, as was pointed out here, weapons can still be bump fired without one.

 

That being the case, I'd be willing to support sacrificing them...as long as we get something in return. Such as national reciprocity or the hearing protection act.

 

 

Fat chance. We're going to get nothing in return. We're getting thrown under the bus, once again.

 

And like you, I have no need for them, but I don't want to see them banned, and I will contact my (unfortunately anti) legislators to express my displeasure. I wonder if they'll want to side with Trump on this one? That will make for interesting politics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

THis a mid term political maneuver, knowing it can be challenged and potentially forestalling legislation that id of farther impact and reach. .

 

That I agree with, I do have to wonder if the Trump administration will even defend it if challenged vs simply repealing it with a smirk and "we tried!" shortly after the midterms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please stop pretending that this is some sort of "genius" tactic,and just accept that Trump and Sessions are not pro-gun.

So far Trump's administration has:

Added more guns to the Bush Era import ban executive action

 

Reinstated Obama's executive order he initially rolled back via the budget bill on certain social security recipients being barred from firearm ownership

 

Stated on a televised congressional session that national reciprocity is "off the table" and suggested taking guns without due process

 

In collaboration with Sessions bypassed the ATF and went straight to the DOJ to attempt to ban bump stocks without legislation

 

I'll give Trump credit for other things, but I'm not giving him credit for 2a, other then he's not as bad as Hillary. Several of us have been saying this before and after he got elected and so far we've been right. Ted Cruz would've at least gotten the import ban rolled back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Please stop pretending that this is some sort of "genius" tactic,and just accept that Trump and Sessions are not pro-gun.

So far Trump's administration has:

Added more guns to the Bush Era import ban executive action

 

Reinstated Obama's executive order he initially rolled back via the budget bill on certain social security recipients being barred from firearm ownership

 

Stated on a televised congressional session that national reciprocity is "off the table" and suggested taking guns without due process

 

In collaboration with Sessions bypassed the ATF and went straight to the DOJ to attempt to ban bump stocks without legislation

 

I'll give Trump credit for other things, but I'm not giving him credit for 2a, other then he's not as bad as Hillary. Several of us have been saying this before and after he got elected and so far we've been right. Ted Cruz would've at least gotten the import ban rolled back.

 

 

I'll be honest, I'd rather have seen a Clinton AWB, than a Trump AWB, based on how he's rolling this monstrosity of an Executive Order out. It's almost like he has absolutely no understanding of the law, common sense, or the constitution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Please stop pretending that this is some sort of "genius" tactic,and just accept that Trump and Sessions are not pro-gun.

 

So far Trump's administration has:

Added more guns to the Bush Era import ban executive action

Reinstated Obama's executive order he initially rolled back via the budget bill on certain social security recipients being barred from firearm ownership

Stated on a televised congressional session that national reciprocity is "off the table" and suggested taking guns without due process

In collaboration with Sessions bypassed the ATF and went straight to the DOJ to attempt to ban bump stocks without legislation

I'll give Trump credit for other things, but I'm not giving him credit for 2a, other then he's not as bad as Hillary. Several of us have been saying this before and after he got elected and so far we've been right. Ted Cruz would've at least gotten the import ban rolled back.

 

 

 

 

I'll be honest, I'd rather have seen a Clinton AWB, than a Trump AWB, based on how he's rolling this monstrosity of an Executive Order out. It's almost like he has absolutely no understanding of the law, common sense, or the constitution.

your disdain for trump is evident. Clinton wouldn’t stop until everything was banned. I’m not trying to defend trump and his anti 2a proposal but the alternative would have been far worse.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Please stop pretending that this is some sort of "genius" tactic,and just accept that Trump and Sessions are not pro-gun.

 

So far Trump's administration has:

Added more guns to the Bush Era import ban executive action

Reinstated Obama's executive order he initially rolled back via the budget bill on certain social security recipients being barred from firearm ownership

Stated on a televised congressional session that national reciprocity is "off the table" and suggested taking guns without due process

In collaboration with Sessions bypassed the ATF and went straight to the DOJ to attempt to ban bump stocks without legislation

I'll give Trump credit for other things, but I'm not giving him credit for 2a, other then he's not as bad as Hillary. Several of us have been saying this before and after he got elected and so far we've been right. Ted Cruz would've at least gotten the import ban rolled back.

 

 

 

 

I'll be honest, I'd rather have seen a Clinton AWB, than a Trump AWB, based on how he's rolling this monstrosity of an Executive Order out. It's almost like he has absolutely no understanding of the law, common sense, or the constitution.

your disdain for trump is evident. Clinton wouldn’t stop until everything was banned. I’m not trying to defend trump and his anti 2a proposal but the alternative would have been far worse.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

 

I gave Trump a chance to follow through with his promises on our gun rights. He didn't deliver. Now he's taking away our gun rights.

 

Clinton would have given us a mediocre AWB at best with grandfathering and lots of exemptions. Trump will force you to cut your gun in half or become a felon, when he does his AWB.

 

I keep hearing "would you rather have had Clinton!?!?!!?" from gun folks, and based on how Trump is turning out, the answer is starting to be yes. This isn't due to any love for Clinton (at all), but for the way Trump has acted about our rights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's say that having Clinton would have worked out exactly as stated above....but Clinton would have put TWO leftists on the Supreme Court. THAT would be the ultimate destruction of the 2nd as we know it.

 

I don't agree.

 

The ultimate destruction of the 2nd amendment would come from not seeing the enemy right in front of your face, and instead looking for them behind every bush.

 

I'm not interested in these "what ifs", I'm interested in "here's what's actually happening".

 

Trump has told you he'll ban assault weapons. Trump is banning bump stocks, Trump has talked about mag capacity, and Trump said that your guns should be taken away without due process. Trump promised guns for military folks on bases, and for reciprocity his first day in office. Of course, it's now 2 years later, and not a peep about it from his administration. If you're a gun owner and you voted for Trump, you should be really mad for him lying to you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Trump has told you he'll ban assault weapons. Trump is banning bump stocks, Trump has talked about mag capacity, and Trump said that your guns should be taken away without due process. Trump promised guns for military folks on bases, and for reciprocity his first day in office. Of course, it's now 2 years later, and not a peep about it from his administration. If you're a gun owner and you voted for Trump, you should be really mad for him lying to you.

This.

 

Don't get caught up in the Trump cult of personality. At the end of the day it's clearly evident that most politicians do not want you to have guns. They will sell out your rights at the first opportunity, left or right.

 

Only 2 politicians have truly stood up and demanded 2nd ammendment rights even when it wasn't popular. Steve Scalise and Ted Cruz. Even after the pressure of the Parkland shooting in front of cameras both were firm on the 2nd ammendment. As soon as the camera was in Trumps face he started "art of the dealing" our rights away. Don't bother defending this, these are facts.

 

your disdain for trump is evident. Clinton wouldnt stop until everything was banned. Im not trying to defend trump and his anti 2a proposal but the alternative would have been far worse.

 

There was a primary that we all voted in, so don't pull the "he's not as bad as Hillary" card for defending Trump. You had choices and everybody on the right voiced this concern during the primaries so it's not like it's a surprise. I won't argue the good things he's done, but I will argue he has been no friend of the 2nd ammendment given how much the NRA backed him in the primaries.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Let's say that having Clinton would have worked out exactly as stated above....but Clinton would have put TWO leftists on the Supreme Court. THAT would be the ultimate destruction of the 2nd as we know it.

 

I don't agree.

 

The ultimate destruction of the 2nd amendment would come from not seeing the enemy right in front of your face, and instead looking for them behind every bush.

 

I'm not interested in these "what ifs", I'm interested in "here's what's actually happening".

 

Trump has told you he'll ban assault weapons. Trump is banning bump stocks, Trump has talked about mag capacity, and Trump said that your guns should be taken away without due process. Trump promised guns for military folks on bases, and for reciprocity his first day in office. Of course, it's now 2 years later, and not a peep about it from his administration. If you're a gun owner and you voted for Trump, you should be really mad for him lying to you.

 

So Hillary stating in her campaigning that she was proud to be an enemy of the NRA, that she would like to have Australia type confiscation, and calling me deplorable and beneath her is now being called a "what if". At the time of the election Clinton was the enemy in front of my face.

 

Not trying to win you over, I'm not a Trump supporter in the sense that Trump is such a great guy. Search my history here. I doubt you'll find me ever saying that Trumps the solution to our 2nd amendment related woes. I've only ever seen him as Better than Hillary due to my wanting right of center Justices. In my opinion, the Supreme Court is the only thing keeping the Good Ship USA afloat. Trump was a means to an end. Now that he's given repeatedly fits to people I disagree with politically I find their reactions to his antics quite entertaining while also seeing him as being undignified. I'm planning to vote for him again in two years in spite of my distaste for him as a person. That's he's not the friend he claims to be isn't something I overlook, I'm fully aware and was warning early on that he's a New York kind of guy. It's just that Hillary is a North East Illinois-New York-D.C. kind of girl, and that wasn't acceptable at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...