mauserme Posted October 11, 2017 at 05:07 PM Share Posted October 11, 2017 at 05:07 PM New from Representative Drury:HB4112 Crim Cd Bump Stock BanSynopsis As IntroducedAmends the Criminal Code of 2012. Provides that it is a violation of the unlawful use of weapons statute to knowingly import, sell, manufacture, transfer, or possess, in this State, a trigger crank, a bump-fire device, or any part, combination of parts, component, device, attachment, or accessory that is designed or functions to accelerate the rate of fire of a semi-automatic rifle but does not convert the semi-automatic rifle into a machine gun. Provides that a person who violates this provision commits a Class 2 felony and shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not less than 3 years and not more than 7 years, unless the trigger crank, bump-fire device, part, combination of parts, component, device, attachment, or accessory is attached to a semi-automatic rifle and possessed in the passenger compartment of a motor vehicle, or on the person, while the rifle is loaded, in which case it shall be a Class X felony. Provides exemptions. Effective immediately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nulloverride Posted October 11, 2017 at 05:26 PM Share Posted October 11, 2017 at 05:26 PM seems a little excessive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mauserme Posted October 11, 2017 at 05:28 PM Author Share Posted October 11, 2017 at 05:28 PM seems a little excessive. It reflects his hatred of gun owners. I guess he doesn't hope to get many downstate votes for Attorney General. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Archondan Posted October 11, 2017 at 05:30 PM Share Posted October 11, 2017 at 05:30 PM I agree, I was just talking to my co-worker about how ridiculous this is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeffrey Posted October 11, 2017 at 05:38 PM Share Posted October 11, 2017 at 05:38 PM Glad I lost mine in that boat accident. A felon just for possession. Will the same results apply to anyone with a shoestring and a key ring? Possession of rubber bands are also now a felonious move. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Casey773 Posted October 11, 2017 at 06:21 PM Share Posted October 11, 2017 at 06:21 PM The very FIRST thing that came to my mind when HB4112 was posted is that there must have been a head count on HB4107, the "assault weapons" ban and found they won't get to 60. So instead, the (bump stock only) bill was filed. How much you wanna bet Rep. Drury would vote yes on banning "assault weapons" or even BB guns for that matter. This bump stock ONLY move could be a good sign HB4107 is DOA but that's just a speculation, I have nothing to back that up with.......yet. Either way, we MUST, MUST, MUST oppose this bump stock ban because give them an inch............................. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FF1984 Posted October 11, 2017 at 06:29 PM Share Posted October 11, 2017 at 06:29 PM "Functions to increase the rate of fire" should be a huge red flag as it can be so nebulous as to what qualifies in their mind. Trigger job to clean up a gritty pull? Class 2 felony. Geissele trigger? 3 years minimum. Forbid you are at the range at the time (loaded and on your person) because you now have a Class X felony. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mkhalil61 Posted October 11, 2017 at 06:35 PM Share Posted October 11, 2017 at 06:35 PM How ridiculous is this bill... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Casey773 Posted October 11, 2017 at 06:37 PM Share Posted October 11, 2017 at 06:37 PM Everyone, please keep this list to contact all reps and senators in our fine Illinois General Assembly. ILLINOIS GENERAL ASSEMBLY CONTACTGovernorhttps://www.illinois...eAnOpinion.aspx217-782-0244312-814-2121Senateinfo@senatoraquino.comjason@jasonbarickman.orgsenatorbivins@grics.netbillbrady@senatorbillbrady.comsenatorconnelly21@gmail.comsenatormccarter@gmail.comdan@danmcconchie.compamela@pamelaalthoff.netsenatoroberweis@gmail.comSenatorRezin@gmail.comdrighter@consolidated.netsenatortomrooney@gmail.comChuck@senweaver.comhttp://senatorneilanderson.com/Contacthttp://www.senatorbennett.com/contact-ushttp://senatorbertinotarrant.com/contact-ushttp://senatorbiss.com/contact-ushttp://senatormelindabush.com/contact/email-senator-bushhttp://senatorcristinacastro.com/contact-ushttp://www.senatorclayborne.com/contact-ushttp://www.senatorjacquelinecollins.com/contact-ushttp://www.senatorcullerton.com/contact-ushttp://www.senatortomcullerton.com/contact-ushttp://senatorbillcunningham.com/contact-ushttp://senatorfowler.com/Contacthttp://www.senatorhaine.com/contact-ushttp://www.donharmon.org/contact-senator-harmonhttp://senatornapoleonharris.com/district-info/contact-ushttp://senatorhastings.com/contact-mehttp://www.senatorholmes.com/contact-ushttp://www.senatorhunter.com/contact-ushttp://www.senatorhutchinson.com/contact-mehttp://senatoremiljones.com/contact-ushttp://www.senatordavekoehler.com/contact-ushttp://senatorlandek.com/contact-ushttp://www.senatorlightford.com/contact-ushttp://www.senatorlink.com/contact-ushttp://senatorandymanar.com/constituent-services/e-mail-the-senatorhttp://www.senatoririsymartinez.com/contact-ushttp://senatormccann.com/Contact/Contact-Formhttp://www.senatormcconnaughay.com/Contact/Contact-Formhttp://www.senatorpatmcguire.com/contact-ushttp://www.senatorjuliemorrison.com/constituent-services/e-mail-the-senatorhttp://www.senatormulroe.org/contact-mehttp://www.senatortonymunoz.com/contact-us.http://www.senatorlauramurphy.com/contact-ushttp://chrisnybo.org/Contacthttp://senatoralthoff.com/Contact/Contact-Formhttp://senatoroberweis.com/Contact/Contact-Formhttp://senatorradogno.org/Contact/Contact-Formhttp://www.senatorraoul.com/index.php/constituent-services/contact-ushttp://senchapinrose.com/Contact-District-Map/Contact-Formhttp://www.senatormartinsandoval.com/contact-ushttp://senatorschimpf.com/Contacthttp://www.senatorsilverstein.com/contact-ushttp://www.senatorstadelman.com/contact-ushttp://www.senatorsteans.com/contact-ushttp://www.senatordavesyverson.com/Contact/Contact-Formhttp://senatorjiltracy.com/Contacthttp://senatorvanpelt.com/contact-usHouseAssistance@StateRepCarolAmmons.comsteve@staterep65.comstaterep40@gmail.comRepDistrict3@gmail.comrep@pbellock.combourne@ilhousegop.orgdan@rep-danbrady.comstaterepterribryant@gmail.comburkedj2@ilga.govkburke@kellyburkerep36.orgbutler@ilhousegop.orgCabello@ilhousegop.orgrepcassidy@gmail.comlindachapalavia@il83dist.comrepdebconroy@gmail.comRep@ConyearsErvin.comstaterepcostello@gmail.comrepcurrie@sbcglobal.netjohnd@ilga.govdavidsmeyer@ilhousegop.orgrepdeluca@sbcglobal.netdemmer@ilhousegop.orgrepdrury@gmail.comDurkin@ILHouseGOP.orgRepevans33@gmail.comsara@staterepsara.comrepfine@gmail.commaryeflowers@ilga.govrepford@lashawnford.commike.fortner@sbcglobal.netrepfrese@adams.netstaterepgabel@robyngabel.comrepjgordon@gmail.comstaterepgreenwood@gmail.comwill@repguzzardi.combradhalbrook102@gmail.comRepHalpin@gmail.comrephammond@macomb.comrepsonyaharper@gmail.comrepharris@yahoo.comrepehernandez@yahoo.comrepjayhoffman@gmail.comrepfranhurley@gmail.comIves@jeanneives.orgjesiel@ilhousegop.orgSjimenez@ilhousegop.orgrepjones.jones@gmail.comstephanie.kifowit@att.netlangli@ilga.govstaterepcamilleylilly@gmail.comrep.theresamah@gmail.comrepmanley@gmail.comrepmartwick@gmail.com60thdistrict@gmail.comMcCombie@ilhousegop.orgMcDermed@ilhousegop.orgmcsweeney@ilhousegop.orgrepcmeier@gmail.comrepmitchell@earthlink.netMitchellDistrict26@att.netstaterepmoeller@gmail.comRepmorrison54@gmail.comstaterepmoylan@gmail.comstaterepmussman@gmail.comenekritz@repnekritz.orgolsen@ilhousegop.orgbphelps118@gmail.combob@pritchardstaterep.comrep.riley38@sbcglobal.netrobertbobrita@aol.comsauer@ilhousegop.orgstaterepsue@gmail.comrepsente@gmail.comseverin@ilhousegop.orgesims@repelgiesims34.comskillicorn@ilhousegop.orgjustin@repslaughter.comsommer@mtco.com4repsoto@gmail.comspain@ilhousegop.orgrepstewart@gmail.comrepstratton5@gmail.comrepkatiestuart@gmail.comswanson@ilhousegop.orgillinois32district@gmail.comarthurt@ilga.govrepunes@gmail.comLitesa@StateRepWallace.comstatereplarrywalshjr@gmail.com41districtdirector@gmail.comrepwelch@emanuelchriswelch.comwelter@ilhousegop.orgwheeler@ilhousegop.orgoffice@repkeithwheeler.organn@repannwilliams.comrepwillis77@gmail.comwinger@ilhousegop.orgrepsamyingling@gmail.cominfo@repmikezalewski.orghttp://www.ilga.gov/house/Rep.asp?GA=100&MemberID=2422http://www.ilhousegop.org/contactsosnowskihttp://www.ilhousegop.org/contactreishttp://steve463.com/contact-me/http://www.ilhousegop.org/contactphillipshttp://www.ilhousegop.org/contactparkhursthttp://www.ilhousegop.org/contactmcauliffehttp://www.ilga.gov/house/Rep.asp?GA=100&MemberID=2364http://www.ilga.gov/house/Rep.asp?GA=100&MemberID=2300http://www.ilga.gov/house/Rep.asp?GA=100&MemberID=2491http://www.ilhousegop.org/contacthayshttp://www.gregharris.org/wp/contact/http://www.ilhousegop.org/contactbatinickhttp://www.representativebeiser.com/page/contact/http://www.ilhousegop.org/contactbennetthttp://www.ilga.gov/house/Rep.asp?GA=100&MemberID=2454http://www.ilhousegop.org/contactcavalettohttp://www.ilga.gov/house/Rep.asp?GA=100&MemberID=2358http://www.ilga.gov/house/Rep.asp?GA=100&MemberID=2320 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldMarineVet Posted October 11, 2017 at 06:37 PM Share Posted October 11, 2017 at 06:37 PM The very FIRST thing that came to my mind when HB4112 was posted is that there must have been a head count on HB4107, the "assault weapons" ban and found they won't get to 60. So instead, the (bump stock only) bill was filed. How much you wanna bet Rep. Drury would vote yes on banning "assault weapons" or even BB guns for that matter. This bump stock ONLY move could be a good sign HB4107 is DOA but that's just a speculation, I have nothing to back that up with.......yet. Either way, we MUST, MUST, MUST oppose this bump stock ban because give them an inch.............................Agreed. I support the NRA who wants ATF to review regulation of bump stocks. NO LEGISLATION needed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Casey773 Posted October 11, 2017 at 06:40 PM Share Posted October 11, 2017 at 06:40 PM For the Veto Session: I would assume the bump stock ban, HB4112 and/or "assault weapon" ban, HB4107 will first go to the House Judiciary - Criminal Committee. Here are the contacts: esims@repelgiesims34.comrepcassidy@gmail.comStewart@ilhousegop.orgstaterepterribryant@gmail.comCabello@ilhousegop.orgwill@repguzzardi.com60thdistrict@gmail.comMitchellDistrict26@att.netenekritz@repnekritz.orgjustin@repslaughter.comrepstratton5@gmail.comwheeler@ilhousegop.org http://www.ilhousegop.org/contactparkhurst Representative Elgie R. Sims, Jr. (D)(217) 782-6476(773) 783-8800 Representative Kelly M. Cassidy (D)(217) 782-8088(773) 784-2002 Representative Brian W. Stewart ®(217) 782-8186(815) 232-0774 Representative Terri Bryant ®(217) 782-0387(618) 242-8115 Representative John M. Cabello ®(217) 782-0455(815) 282-0083 Representative Will Guzzardi (D)(217) 558-1032(773) 227-9720 Representative Rita Mayfield (D)(217) 558-1012(847) 599-2800 Representative Christian L. Mitchell (D)(217) 782-2023(773) 924-1755 Representative Elaine Nekritz (D)(217) 558-1004(847) 229-5499 Representative Lindsay Parkhurst ®(217) 782-5981(815) 523-7779 Representative Justin Slaughter (D)(217) 782-0010(773) 445-9700 Representative Juliana Stratton (D)(217) 782-4535(312) 291-9443 Representative Barbara Wheeler ®(217) 782-1664(847) 973-0064 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mauserme Posted October 11, 2017 at 06:41 PM Author Share Posted October 11, 2017 at 06:41 PM ... Either way, we MUST, MUST, MUST oppose this bump stock ban because give them an inch............................. We do, and we will more vocally if/when the time comes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patriots & Tyrants Posted October 11, 2017 at 06:56 PM Share Posted October 11, 2017 at 06:56 PM If this passes not a retailer in the world will sell non-Milspec triggers to IL Residents. I have a light/short single stage trigger on my varmint rifle, when using gloves if I am not careful it can "bump fire" if I am trying to ride the reset. >accelerate the rate of fire of a semi-automatic rifle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drumgod Posted October 11, 2017 at 06:56 PM Share Posted October 11, 2017 at 06:56 PM ... or any part, combination of parts, component, device, attachment, or accessory that is designed or functions to accelerate the rate of fire of a semi-automatic rifle ... And there it is. This doesn't ban "bump stocks". This bans rifle modification. Own an rifle set up for 3 gun? You're a felon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TFC Posted October 11, 2017 at 07:23 PM Share Posted October 11, 2017 at 07:23 PM The way it's worded, even the buffer spring in an AR is illegal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DD123 Posted October 11, 2017 at 07:32 PM Share Posted October 11, 2017 at 07:32 PM Even though I have absolutely no interest whatsoever in a bump stock, an infringement is an infringement. My question is why the ATF even approved bump fire stocks in the first place? Did they not try it and see how it operated? I can picture myself as an ATF agent, review the paperwork of the bump stock, then test it out and immediately reply to the company: http://memecrunch.com/meme/BDN7Y/yeah-that-s-gonna-be-a-no-from-me-dawg/image.jpg Granted bump fire stocks aren't very useful, but personally I'd never have approved them to begin with, and now the cats out of the bag. They literally sold out everywhere in a matter of 48 hours which effectively means that you went from maybe 10K of these being owned to now millions being owned overnight. ETA: plus a ban isn't going to stop someone else from printing a couple dozen of these out with a 3D printer.....in fact, the 3D printable files are already out there on the web. Or someone can buy a jigsaw, and literally carve one out of wood. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tkroenlein Posted October 11, 2017 at 07:39 PM Share Posted October 11, 2017 at 07:39 PM Even though I have absolutely no interest whatsoever in a bump stock, an infringement is an infringement. My question is why the ATF even approved bump fire stocks in the first place? Did they not try it and see how it operated? I can picture myself as an ATF agent, review the paperwork of the bump stock, then test it out and immediately reply to the company: Granted bump fire stocks aren't very useful, but personally I'd never have approved them to begin with, and now the cats out of the bag. They literally sold out everywhere in a matter of 48 hours which effectively means that you went from maybe 10K of these being owned to now millions being owned overnight. ETA: plus a ban isn't going to stop someone else from printing a couple dozen of these out with a 3D printer.....in fact, the 3D printable files are already out there on the web. Or someone can buy a jigsaw, and literally carve one out of wood. I support the ATF's strict interpretation of how triggers work. Driving a Pinto over a cliff will make it go faster, but it won't make it super charged. The mechanics of a trigger are similarly finite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mauserme Posted October 11, 2017 at 07:42 PM Author Share Posted October 11, 2017 at 07:42 PM Even though I have absolutely no interest whatsoever in a bump stock, an infringement is an infringement. My question is why the ATF even approved bump fire stocks in the first place? Did they not try it and see how it operated? I can picture myself as an ATF agent, review the paperwork of the bump stock, then test it out and immediately reply to the company: Granted bump fire stocks aren't very useful, but personally I'd never have approved them to begin with, and now the cats out of the bag. They literally sold out everywhere in a matter of 48 hours which effectively means that you went from maybe 10K of these being owned to now millions being owned overnight. ETA: plus a ban isn't going to stop someone else from printing a couple dozen of these out with a 3D printer.....in fact, the 3D printable files are already out there on the web. Or someone can buy a jigsaw, and literally carve one out of wood. The reason the ATF didn't regulate against them is because they don't meet the legal definition of a machine gun or machine gun part. Existing Federal law is based on mechanical function, not rate of fire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DD123 Posted October 11, 2017 at 07:49 PM Share Posted October 11, 2017 at 07:49 PM Even though I have absolutely no interest whatsoever in a bump stock, an infringement is an infringement. My question is why the ATF even approved bump fire stocks in the first place? Did they not try it and see how it operated? I can picture myself as an ATF agent, review the paperwork of the bump stock, then test it out and immediately reply to the company: Granted bump fire stocks aren't very useful, but personally I'd never have approved them to begin with, and now the cats out of the bag. They literally sold out everywhere in a matter of 48 hours which effectively means that you went from maybe 10K of these being owned to now millions being owned overnight. ETA: plus a ban isn't going to stop someone else from printing a couple dozen of these out with a 3D printer.....in fact, the 3D printable files are already out there on the web. Or someone can buy a jigsaw, and literally carve one out of wood.The reason the ATF didn't regulate against them is because they don't meet the legal definition of a machine gun or machine gun part. Existing Federal law is based on function, not rate of fire. It actually highlights how stupid the NFA is to begin with. Remember the whole pistol brace thing? First they were cool, then stupid people on our side had to continually keep pestering ATF about pistol braces until they said that "shouldering a pistol brace turns it into an SBR". All of us saw that and couldn't believe it, because unless we're Gandalf, none of us possess magical powers to transform a pistol into a rifle. This then led us down to the discussion about how stupid the SBR regulations are. Then ATF reverses course again after they realized that people didn't possess magical abilities. If this were to somehow come before SCOTUS, I honestly don't think they'd rule in our favor over this. It's going to be argued from the perspective of them not following "the spirit" of the law, which is to severely regulate full auto weapons. Just calling a spade a spade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Casey773 Posted October 11, 2017 at 07:51 PM Share Posted October 11, 2017 at 07:51 PM Same situation in Illinois with HB4112 as in Congress with H.R. 3999 the "any part or combination of parts that is designed and functions to increase the rate of fire of a semiautomatic rifle"What about a trigger replacement that reduces the pounds of pull? Undefined like this could turn all of us with semiautos into felons. THIS IS NO JOKE PEOPLE!! Please watch a video on this from Military Arms Channel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mauserme Posted October 11, 2017 at 07:53 PM Author Share Posted October 11, 2017 at 07:53 PM It actually highlights how stupid the NFA is to begin with. Remember the whole pistol brace thing? First they were cool, then stupid people on our side had to continually keep pestering ATF about pistol braces until they said that "shouldering a pistol brace turns it into an SBR". All of us saw that and couldn't believe it, because unless we're Gandalf, none of us possess magical powers to transform a pistol into a rifle. This then led us down to the discussion about how stupid the SBR regulations are. Then ATF reverses course again after they realized that people didn't possess magical abilities. If this were to somehow come before SCOTUS, I honestly don't think they'd rule in our favor over this. It's going to be argued from the perspective of them not following "the spirit" of the law, which is to severely regulate full auto weapons. Just calling a spade a spade. The problem I have with the "spirit of the law" argument is that Congress could have made Gatling guns illegal when they passed the NFA, but they didn't include them. The definition they wrote avoided that, so the spirit (ie legislative intent) is easily argued to not mean rate of fire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mauserme Posted October 11, 2017 at 07:57 PM Author Share Posted October 11, 2017 at 07:57 PM Same situation in Illinois with HB4112 as in Congress with H.R. 3999 the "any part or combination of parts that is designed and functions to increase the rate of fire of a semiautomatic rifle" What about a trigger replacement that reduces the pounds of pull? Undefined like this could turn all of us with semiautos into felons. THIS IS NO JOKE PEOPLE!! .. Casey, you don't need to convince anyone here how how seriously these bills have to be taken. You're preachin' to the choir, brother. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DD123 Posted October 11, 2017 at 07:57 PM Share Posted October 11, 2017 at 07:57 PM It actually highlights how stupid the NFA is to begin with. Remember the whole pistol brace thing? First they were cool, then stupid people on our side had to continually keep pestering ATF about pistol braces until they said that "shouldering a pistol brace turns it into an SBR". All of us saw that and couldn't believe it, because unless we're Gandalf, none of us possess magical powers to transform a pistol into a rifle. This then led us down to the discussion about how stupid the SBR regulations are. Then ATF reverses course again after they realized that people didn't possess magical abilities. If this were to somehow come before SCOTUS, I honestly don't think they'd rule in our favor over this. It's going to be argued from the perspective of them not following "the spirit" of the law, which is to severely regulate full auto weapons. Just calling a spade a spade.The problem I have with the "spirit of the law" argument is that Congress could have made Gatling guns illegal when they passed the NFA, but they didn't include them. The definition they wrote avoided that, so the spirit (ie legislative intent) is easily argued to not mean rate of fire. My guess would be because a Gatling gun isn't easily transportable, or concealable in any way. A lot of people seem to believe that the NFA was passed because of the mob. The NFA was passed during a time when miners were striking against mine owners, and mine owners were employing "gun thugs" to squash dissent from the miners. The passed the NFA to impose an unaffordable at the time $200 tax stamp to protect the mine owners who could afford them. So basically it wasn't passed for public safety, it was passed to protect corporations from the people. The mob thing was just good timing with a non tax paying boogeyman to blame it on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mauserme Posted October 11, 2017 at 08:00 PM Author Share Posted October 11, 2017 at 08:00 PM My guess would be because a Gatling gun isn't easily transportable, or concealable in any way. ... By that logic they could have left a whole slew of machine guns legal. But they didn't consider size in their definition, only trigger function. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DD123 Posted October 11, 2017 at 08:04 PM Share Posted October 11, 2017 at 08:04 PM My guess would be because a Gatling gun isn't easily transportable, or concealable in any way. ...By that logic they could have left a whole slew of machine guns legal. But they didn't consider size in their definition, only trigger function. It's definitely weird to say the least. But I'm against this bill, because like I said, an infringement is an infringement even if it's something I don't need or want. While I may not have approved something like this if I was the person approving it at the ATF, it doesn't change my stance on the fact that there are too many laws on the books that are not enforced as it is, with a revolving door criminal justice system we have here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mauserme Posted October 11, 2017 at 08:08 PM Author Share Posted October 11, 2017 at 08:08 PM The problem I have with ATF regulating stocks out of existence is letting an agency, not an elected body, change implementation of a law that has had specific meaning for 80+ years, solely because political winds currently favor it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldMarineVet Posted October 11, 2017 at 08:40 PM Share Posted October 11, 2017 at 08:40 PM Even though I have absolutely no interest whatsoever in a bump stock, an infringement is an infringement. My question is why the ATF even approved bump fire stocks in the first place? Did they not try it and see how it operated? I can picture myself as an ATF agent, review the paperwork of the bump stock, then test it out and immediately reply to the company: http://memecrunch.com/meme/BDN7Y/yeah-that-s-gonna-be-a-no-from-me-dawg/image.jpg Granted bump fire stocks aren't very useful, but personally I'd never have approved them to begin with, and now the cats out of the bag. They literally sold out everywhere in a matter of 48 hours which effectively means that you went from maybe 10K of these being owned to now millions being owned overnight. ETA: plus a ban isn't going to stop someone else from printing a couple dozen of these out with a 3D printer.....in fact, the 3D printable files are already out there on the web. Or someone can buy a jigsaw, and literally carve one out of wood.On "Face the Nation," Wayne LaPierre said the reason Obama's ATF didn't regulate bump stocks was to "fuzz the line between automatic's and semi-automatic's" which puts "semi-automatics at risk." https://www.nratv.com/home/video/wayne-lapierre-we-are-fighting-for-reciprocity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DD123 Posted October 11, 2017 at 08:41 PM Share Posted October 11, 2017 at 08:41 PM The problem I have with ATF regulating stocks out of existence is letting an agency, not an elected body, change implementation of a law that has had specific meaning for 80+ years, solely because political winds currently favor it. Agreed. We didn’t elect bureaucrats, but if this is going to be banned, it needs to be done by congress. Unfortunately the way things are set up, ATF is in charge of initial and ongoing review of firearms and related accessories. If I had to make a prediction, ATF will backpedal and restrict these, and the companies that make them will sue, and have a pretty strong case. This will force congress to either do something about it or do nothing. Those same companies won’t bother suing states, especially Illinois because what’s the point? The market here is probably a single percent of their total sales nationally. There are pro 2A folks like me in this state who don’t really have a need to own one, nor really care all that much about them who will also fight tooth and nail to make sure they’re not taken away. It’s like my stance on OC. I don’t care either way but I’ll help fight to make that legal also. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldMarineVet Posted October 11, 2017 at 08:45 PM Share Posted October 11, 2017 at 08:45 PM The problem I have with ATF regulating stocks out of existence is letting an agency, not an elected body, change implementation of a law that has had specific meaning for 80+ years, solely because political winds currently favor it.Couldn't an elected body override n agency's regulation through legislation if need be? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mauserme Posted October 11, 2017 at 08:49 PM Author Share Posted October 11, 2017 at 08:49 PM The problem I have with ATF regulating stocks out of existence is letting an agency, not an elected body, change implementation of a law that has had specific meaning for 80+ years, solely because political winds currently favor it.Couldn't an elected body override n agency's regulation through legislation if need be? Apparently not where bump stocks are concerned. Remember, we have a law already. This push to redefine the process, giving ATF special dispensation, is going to bite us eventually. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.