Trump Announces Support For Bump Stock Ban

[jackandjill 683]

19 minutes ago, PK90 said:

.

What if you give them 10 inches ? 

[bhunted 887]

What if you give them 10 inches ? 

Inch per mile. [emoji6]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[voyager9 3,434]

7 hours ago, 45Doll said:

"And just a few moments ago, I signed a memorandum directing the attorney general to propose regulations to ban all devices that turn legal weapons into machine guns."

Now I wonder what the interpretation of those words might be with the current fluid state of our language.

And, if he means the ATF should be the one making new 'regulations', they do not have the statutory authority. Only Congress could do that. That's why they didn't do it under Obama.

That’s why the ATF may come back and say “same answer as before” and Trump goes to congress and says “change the definition of you want it banned”, the Congress opens up the whole NFA for changes. Maybe things like bumps get added but silencers and SBRs come off. 

[kman 56]

Trump is the most skilled negotiator that gun owners have ever had elected to the Presidency in modern times.  So if he can get a good deal for real expansion of rights (permit reciprocity and NFA reform, for instance) in exchange for banning ridiculous loophole trick novelties such as "bump stocks" and raising the age for semi-automatic rifles to 21, it would not be all bad.  And if he can't get a good deal, it will be no deal.

Remember, Ronald Reagan ended up signing a bill in 1986 gaining for gun owners, among other things, full legalization of interstate transport of firearms, legalization of buying long arms outside of your state of residence, removal of federal logging of ammunition sales, and reduction in the power of the ATF, in exchange for a ban on new machine gun registrations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_Owners_Protection_Act

So there are things to be gained by doing deals.  There are also benefits to engaging in negotiation even if you think a deal is unlikely.

Remember, George W. Bush said explicitly he would sign a renewal of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban when it was expiring in 2004 - the only reason he didn't do it is because congress didn't pass a renewal.  What legal reform was he willing to negotiate for gun owners in exchange for his signature on an extension of that ban?  Absolutely nothing. 

George H.W. Bush banned the importation of most semi-automatic rifles by executive action.  Ever wonder why you have to go through the ridiculousness of figuring out parts counts for US made compliant parts to get an imported rifle 922r compliant?  That's George W. Bush's regulation.  What did he negotiate for us in exchange for that ridiculous law that has people counting and replacing perfectly good parts to make their guns "compliant"?  Absolutely nothing!

Gerald Ford wanted to ban "saturday night specials" but fortunately no bills doing such made it to his desk to sign, and he was not President for too long in any event.

Richard Nixon was in favor of making handguns illegal and requiring licenses for hunting rifles, but again fortunately congress never sent him a bill to sign on these items.

Those are the Republican presidents we have had since the Gun Control Act of 1968.

Don't let perfection be the enemy of the good.

[capt14k 2,052]

Trump is the most skilled negotiator that gun owners have ever had elected to the Presidency in modern times.  So if he can get a good deal for real expansion of rights (permit reciprocity and NFA reform, for instance) in exchange for banning ridiculous loophole trick novelties such as "bump stocks" and raising the age for semi-automatic rifles to 21, it would not be all bad.  And if he can't get a good deal, it will be no deal.
Remember, Ronald Reagan ended up signing a bill in 1986 gaining for gun owners, among other things, full legalization of interstate transport of firearms, legalization of buying long arms outside of your state of residence, removal of federal logging of ammunition sales, and reduction in the power of the ATF, in exchange for a ban on new machine gun registrations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_Owners_Protection_Act
So there are things to be gained by doing deals.  There are also benefits to engaging in negotiation even if you think a deal is unlikely.
Remember, George W. Bush said explicitly he would sign a renewal of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban when it was expiring in 2004 - the only reason he didn't do it is because congress didn't pass a renewal.  What legal reform was he willing to negotiate for gun owners in exchange for his signature on an extension of that ban?  Absolutely nothing. 
George H.W. Bush banned the importation of most semi-automatic rifles by executive action.  Ever wonder why you have to go through the ridiculousness of figuring out parts counts for US made compliant parts to get an imported rifle 922r compliant?  That's George W. Bush's regulation.  What did he negotiate for us in exchange for that ridiculous law that has people counting and replacing perfectly good parts to make their guns "compliant"?  Absolutely nothing!
Gerald Ford wanted to ban "saturday night specials" but fortunately no bills doing such made it to his desk to sign, and he was not President for too long in any event.
Richard Nixon was in favor of making handguns illegal and requiring licenses for hunting rifles, but again fortunately congress never sent him a bill to sign on these items.
Those are the Republican presidents we have had since the Gun Control Act of 1968.
Don't let perfection be the enemy of the good.

I think you are missing the bigger picture. Bush/Clinton/Bush/Obama are one in the same and are all part of the same Cabal. Ford appointed Bush to Head the CIA. Nixon-Ford were friends.


Reagan was the outsider. However after the assassination attempt he allowed Bush and his men to handle many aspects of government. Curious that Bush was a friend of Hinkley's father, but denied knowing him. Even though he had loaned him a couple million during their wildcatting days. Either way Bush and Baker pushed Reagan's longtime advisors aside. By 1986 Bush likely called the shots on signing Hughes Amendment. Plus the NRA was not against banning full auto. The President of the NRA was on record as saying civilians shouldn't own full auto.


Now why did they all want to decrease access to firearms? To increase their power, and to weaken the power of the people. Same thing that is going on today. So while firearms owners were thrown a bone in 1986, they lost what TPTB saw as an important weapon for the people.


What remains to be seen is Trump part of the same Cabal? Or is he an outsider like Reagan? Time will tell, but so far it isn't looking good.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

[MartyZ 692]

looks to me like Trump is an outsider, like Reagan. He is positioning to make deals. get rid of gun-free zones and arm teachers? I think it's worth"talking" about "possibly", "maybe", getting rid of bump fire stocks.

“a gun-free zone to a maniac, they’re all cowards, is 'let’s go in and attack because bullets aren’t coming at us.'”

“If a potential ‘sicko shooter’ knows that a school has a large number of very weapons talented teachers (and others) who will be instantly shooting, the sicko will NEVER attack that school. Cowards won’t go there…problem solved. Must be offensive, defense alone won’t work.”

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/02/22/trump-calls-for-arming-teachers-raising-gun-purchase-age-to-stop-savage-sicko-shooters.html

 

[jackandjill 683]

Thanks to Biden Jr, School shootings increased after 1990 Gun Free Zone laws. Its time for them to be repealed for real change and positive impact. 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_shootings_in_the_United_States

[1LtCAP 4,262]

i think a lot of you guys are "seeing" things you want to see in him. i'm fairly fearful that he is gonna turn on us. i pray to god i'm wrong, and hope you all are right.

[Scorpio64 5,147]

1 hour ago, 1LtCAP said:

i think a lot of you guys are "seeing" things you want to see in him. i'm fairly fearful that he is gonna turn on us. i pray to god i'm wrong, and hope you all are right.

 

With Hildabeast or Bernie, you'd pretty much know what you'd get.  Would that have made you feel better?  I'm not harping on ya man, but we gotta give DJT some space.  I've not heard anything yet that would raise a red flag, but I have to admit, there have been a few yellow flags that I was worried about. 

He seems to be pushing mental health, the system doing it's job and the right to return fire.  I think if school teachers get CCW in classrooms, that's a win for schools and will be a stepping stone to all sane and responsible people getting ccw.

If Trump was any other career politician, I'd say we might have something to be worried about because they just go with the political winds.  Trump does not have to follow sop and that gives him a huge bargaining chip.  The fact he is not a career politician does add an element of unpredictability but I'd rather have that than the certainty of Bernie or the beast.

[n4p226r 105]

How is a bump stock ban any different than an AWB?  I mean, does it matter which evil feature you ban?  If you are ok with the Bump stock ban than any accessory can be banned. 

[TripleD 16]

An honest question, aside from the whole political "don't give an inch" aspect, why should civilians be able to legally purchase something that, essentially, turns a semiautomatic weapon into an automatic weapon? It seems like the cons outweigh whatever pros exist for bump stocks. I'm not looking for a fight/argument.  This is just a reasonable, honest question by someone who owns multiple guns.  I'm not the enemy. I'm just trying to understand why something that allows a gun to fire at that rate, by just holding down the trigger, should be legal when automatic weapons are illegal. Thanks in advance for respectful responses.

[leadunderpressure 52]

An honest question, aside from the whole political "don't give an inch" aspect, why should civilians be able to legally purchase something that, essentially, turns a semiautomatic weapon into an automatic weapon? It seems like the cons outweigh whatever pros exist for bump stocks. I'm not looking for a fight/argument.  This is just a reasonable, honest question by someone who owns multiple guns.  I'm not the enemy. I'm just trying to understand why something that allows a gun to fire at that rate, by just holding down the trigger, should be legal when automatic weapons are illegal. Thanks in advance for respectful responses.

Automatic weapons are not illegal. They are, however difficult to obtain and the number available are capped.

If you consider for a moment what other stocks might be classified as bump stocks since you can bump fire any rifle, stock not withstanding, you'll see why banning by feature isn't a good idea.

[maintenanceguy 510]

28 minutes ago, TripleD said:

An honest question, aside from the whole political "don't give an inch" aspect, why should civilians be able to legally purchase something that, essentially, turns a semiautomatic weapon into an automatic weapon? It seems like the cons outweigh whatever pros exist for bump stocks. I'm not looking for a fight/argument.  This is just a reasonable, honest question by someone who owns multiple guns.  I'm not the enemy. I'm just trying to understand why something that allows a gun to fire at that rate, by just holding down the trigger, should be legal when automatic weapons are illegal. Thanks in advance for respectful responses.

The "don't give an inch" is inaccurate.  I'd say "don't give another inch to the mile we've already given".  Before the gun control act of 1934, gun control act of 1968, hughes amendment, and all of the hundreds of little gun control laws passed in the last 50 years, Americans right to keep and bear arms was not infringed. 

Any American who can be trusted with a shotgun, automobile, kitchen knife, or baseball bat can be trusted with a firearm of any type.  Civilians should be able to purchase automatic firearms because Americans have proven themselves to be trustworthy.  Once in American history did someone use a device like this to commit a crime.

It's also impossible to put engineering and technology back in the bottle once it's released.  Make bump stocks illegal and that one bad guy who wants to use one will make his own.  The other 359,999,999 Americans wouldn't with or without such an device.

Banning has no effect on crime.

[bhunted 887]

I said it a few times. Full autos are not allowed in NJ, Where they are legal, requires a stamp. Just like Suppressors, etc. Why not just put it on the NFA list? I know everyone hates that NFA crap, but at least they will still be available. The states that have Full Auto abilities just get another option. Most likely the only people purchasing them, will be people who cannot afford full auto weapons but don't mind paying for a stamp.

All in all, it will keep full auto capability at bay in states like ours that are not allowed to have them anyway.
So why fight for something that is currently useless either way?

We have bigger fish to fry.. don't like it, use a rubber band....

[Bob2222 316]

18 minutes ago, leadunderpressure said:

Automatic weapons are not illegal. They are, however difficult to obtain and the number available are capped.

If you consider for a moment what other stocks might be classified as bump stocks since you can bump fire any rifle, stock not withstanding, you'll see why banning by feature isn't a good idea.

New Jersey IS one of the states that allows private ownership (with permission of appropriate authorities) but like many other things in this nanny state, getting permission is practically impossible so there are no more than a handful of legal machine guns in private hands.

The same "bump stock" result can be obtained with a rubber band. See YouTube for examples. (But I think most range safety officers would throw you off if you tried it.)

From what I saw, some of the rifles Stephen Paddock used were equipped with bipods. Not sure I understand the physics of how a bump stock could work with a bipod. Has BATF issued a report on Paddock's guns? I couldn't find one.

I don't have more of a problem with banning commercial bump stocks than I have with banning cooking ammo in a microwave oven (plenty of examples of that on YouTube, too).

[capt14k 2,052]

I said it a few times. Full autos are not allowed in NJ, Where they are legal, requires a stamp. Just like Suppressors, etc. Why not just put it on the NFA list? I know everyone hates that NFA crap, but at least they will still be available. The states that have Full Auto abilities just get another option. Most likely the only people purchasing them, will be people who cannot afford full auto weapons but don't mind paying for a stamp.
All in all, it will keep full auto capability at bay in states like ours that are not allowed to have them anyway.
So why fight for something that is currently useless either way?

We have bigger fish to fry.. don't like it, use a rubber band....[emoji6]

As said above full auto is allowed in NJ. Of course only the politcially connected and ultra rich get the privilege. They provide hoops for the rest of us to jump through and then deny us.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[bhunted 887]

42 minutes ago, capt14k said:

 

As said above full auto is allowed in NJ. Of course only the politcially connected and ultra rich get the privilege. They provide hoops for the rest of us to jump through and then deny us.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

Even if they are, you still have to get a stamp. My remarks stay imho accurate and feasible.... otherwise... big deal.
It will either keep the manufacturer in business or they will just stop making them due to lack of interest. I can care less.
When I get the hell out of NJ, first thing I'll probably do once settled is get an MP5 or something with a can.. I would not waste my time on a bump fooks... I mean bump stocks....

[capt14k 2,052]

Even if they are, you still have to get a stamp. My remarks stay imho accurate and feasible.... otherwise... big deal.
It will either keep the manufacturer in business or they will just stop making them due to lack of interest. I can care less.
When I get the hell out of NJ, first thing I'll probably do once settled is get an MP5 or something with a can.. I would not waste my time on a bump fooks... I mean bump stocks....

I don't own bump stocks either nor will I. I can bump fire without one. The point is a line must be drawn. Binary Triggers will be next. Then competition Triggers.


You need a tax stamp in every state. That part isn't a big deal other than $200.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

[bhunted 887]

Again, we have bigger fish to fry.... there was even word of banning optics cause it gives the shooter an advantage. I don't believe we need to worry about bumps... They were not around that long and play no roll as far as I am concerned in our fight. We need to focus our fights on the worse of the worse issues. I don't want to lose any other rights....  lets them have bumps if that makes the libs smile.... 

 

[1LtCAP 4,262]

2 hours ago, TripleD said:

An honest question, aside from the whole political "don't give an inch" aspect, why should civilians be able to legally purchase something that, essentially, turns a semiautomatic weapon into an automatic weapon? It seems like the cons outweigh whatever pros exist for bump stocks. I'm not looking for a fight/argument.  This is just a reasonable, honest question by someone who owns multiple guns.  I'm not the enemy. I'm just trying to understand why something that allows a gun to fire at that rate, by just holding down the trigger, should be legal when automatic weapons are illegal. Thanks in advance for respectful responses.

why should we NOT be allowed to? that is a much better question. why were full auto's banned in the first place? were civvies running 'round knocking over the local dunkin donuts with em?

[1LtCAP 4,262]

full auto is allowed in nj the same way that concealed carry is allowed in nj.

[jackandjill 683]

3 hours ago, TripleD said:

An honest question, aside from the whole political "don't give an inch" aspect, why should civilians be able to legally purchase something that, essentially, turns a semiautomatic weapon into an automatic weapon? It seems like the cons outweigh whatever pros exist for bump stocks. I'm not looking for a fight/argument.  This is just a reasonable, honest question by someone who owns multiple guns.  I'm not the enemy. I'm just trying to understand why something that allows a gun to fire at that rate, by just holding down the trigger, should be legal when automatic weapons are illegal. Thanks in advance for respectful responses.

To really understand WHY, we have to get deep into Second Amendment itself and other important principles of Freedom and Equality. 

Every person in a truly free society is independent, equal and free. Power (speech, legal and physical) is essential part of defending that freedom. No group, organization, entity or even Governing body can be more powerful than those free individuals of the society. 

There are exceptions about people incarcerated after Due Process protections. 

Constitution (especially those amendments) codify different facets / aspects of those powers that are inherent to any free person. Free Speech (verbal), Due Process (legal), Second Amendment (physical) etc. 

SCOTUS knows this very well (yet they skirt the issue). Hence their dancing around "commonly used". Once something is commonly used by Govt (or other group) its a fair game for a free person. In fact, one could argue that a free person has to exercise something before it becomes candidate to be exercised by a group, entity or Governing body. 

Lets talk automatic weapons. As long as they are "commonly used arms" by any organization, entity or governing body, they MUST be available to all other "free and equal" entities of society a.k.a regular, law abiding Joe and Jane. 

Now, some people (read, liberals) try to counter with extreme arguments such as "what about Nukes". Guess what ? If they are "commonly used arms", then they are fair game. But lets hope they dont become "commonly used" arms, to begin with.

[Mrs. Peel 7,157]

3 hours ago, TripleD said:

An honest question, aside from the whole political "don't give an inch" aspect, why should civilians be able to legally purchase something that, essentially, turns a semiautomatic weapon into an automatic weapon? It seems like the cons outweigh whatever pros exist for bump stocks. I'm not looking for a fight/argument.  This is just a reasonable, honest question by someone who owns multiple guns.  I'm not the enemy. I'm just trying to understand why something that allows a gun to fire at that rate, by just holding down the trigger, should be legal when automatic weapons are illegal. Thanks in advance for respectful responses.

In addition to other answers given,  I think you must also consider that a rational, proportional and measured response is always best, especially when talking about creating new laws.

As an example, the Boston bombers used pressure cookers to devise their bombs, taking both lives and limbs on that horrific day. But MILLIONS of Americans use pressure cookers every day to make their dinners. If a groups of bombing victims had suggested, "OMG, let's outlaw pressure cookers" - and WalMart quickly announced they'd no longer sell them --- you'd feel for them but also think their response was hysterical and over-the-top, wouldn't you? I know that I certainly would.

The bump stock, though not hugely popular, is something that's been used by recreational shooters (to my understanding) safely and without problems all across the country. So then there's ONE solitary case of an absolute madman who uses it for a bad purpose, firing indiscriminately out of window upon a crowd (a crime where, arguably, he could have done just as much damage by simply moving his index finger quickly).... aaaand, they should all be banned? Really? Should legislation ever be based on a solitary case? or even a handful of cases in a country of 320M? With 80-100M gun owners in this country, we should allow the actions of ONE nutcase to lead to legislation that impacts other people's freedoms? I'm sorry, but that just seems ridiculous and completely disproportionate.

We cannot legislate against every dangerous idea that a small percentage of loons can come up with in their minds - nor should we try. Not only is it a fool's errand, but it's a slippery slope that would slowly erode personal freedoms for the vast majority of normal, law-abiding people. In my mind, we are already over-legislated... why do we want MORE? I say, enough already! We are taking away our own freedoms. The only ones benefitting are lawyers.

[Scorpio64 5,147]

4 hours ago, TripleD said:

I'm just trying to understand why something that allows a gun to fire at that rate, by just holding down the trigger, should be legal when automatic weapons are illegal. Thanks in advance for respectful response

Bump stocks simulate automatic fire by rocking the rifle back and forth in the shooters hands.  The trigger gets pressed once for every round that pops off.  It just happens very fast.

Full auto weapons are in fact legal to own.  It's a very expensive process that involves lawyers and tax stamps.  You can buy a full auto M16A1 if you happen to have about $50,000.00 laying around and you have never so much as been busted for shoplifting a stick of gum.

[TripleD 16]

1 hour ago, Scorpio64 said:

Bump stocks simulate automatic fire by rocking the rifle back and forth in the shooters hands.  The trigger gets pressed once for every round that pops off.  It just happens very fast.

Full auto weapons are in fact legal to own.  It's a very expensive process that involves lawyers and tax stamps.  You can buy a full auto M16A1 if you happen to have about $50,000.00 laying around and you have never so much as been busted for shoplifting a stick of gum.

I know how bump stocks work and I’m still not sure why anyone should have one when automatic weapons are practically illegal. Objectively, I just wonder where the line should be drawn. Machine guns? Rocket launchers? Grenades? We all know these guns don’t shoot themselves but, personally (and I know many here will disagree), I think there comes a point where we have to say maybe that’s not the best item to have so readily available. Also, although automatic weapons are technically legal, they’ve made them near impossible to procure for a reason IMO. The reality is, taking away bumpstocks is probably not the biggest issue we’re facing at the moment. Now, please excuse me while I remove the 15 round mags from my range bag.  And thank you to everyone for answering without turning this into a big argument. 

[Scorpio64 5,147]

34 minutes ago, TripleD said:

Also, although automatic weapons are technically legal, they’ve made them near impossible to procure for a reason IMO.

The reason the $200.00 tax stamp was introduced in the 30's is that was more than a months pay for a lot of folks.  It was an economic barrier, just like driving up the cost to $50K is today.  I'm surprised the price of the stamp never went up in all those years.  We can't have poor Americans owning such weapons.  Only the elite class should have them because they are so trustworthy.

The bottom line is this, crazy people should not have access to ANY firearms and our socialist bleeding heart ACLU southern poverty center legal bullshit has made it easy for criminals and the criminally insane to fly under the radar because removing them from society would make them feel bad, and nobody is allowed to feel bad.....except maybe middle class white guys

 

[maintenanceguy 510]

Automatic firearms were used by Al Capone's gangsters to kill rival gang members in the Valentines Day Murders in the late 20's or early 30's.  I don't know how much automatic firearms were actually used by gangs but that one murder was big news and lead to the passage of the firearms control act of 1934 which made it very hard to get automatic firearms.

[capt14k 2,052]

Automatic firearms were used by Al Capone's gangsters to kill rival gang members in the Valentines Day Murders in the late 20's or early 30's.  I don't know how much automatic firearms were actually used by gangs but that one murder was big news and lead to the passage of the firearms control act of 1934 which made it very hard to get automatic firearms.

Capone and Bonnie and Clyde. 2 groups liberals used to feign hysterics and infringe on our rights. Those same Democrats in power added the $200 tax stamp out of racism to keep as they said coloreds from owning firearms.  

 

Everyone is forgetting that 1986 Hughes Amendment was a backdoor tactic that was never opened for debate, was not on the table, and was never even officially voted on. It was snuck in in the middle of the night by Charlie Rangel. The vote was purely oral. You tell me if they yeas definitely had it.

 

 

 

[1LtCAP 4,262]

28 minutes ago, capt14k said:

Capone and Bonnie and Clyde. 2 groups liberals used to feign hysterics and infringe on our rights. Those same Democrats in power added the $200 tax stamp out of racism to keep as they said coloreds from owning firearms.

 

 

Everyone is forgetting that 1986 Hughes Amendment was a backdoor tactic that was never opened for debate, was not on the table, and was never even officially voted on. It was snuck in in the middle of the night by Charlie Rangel. The vote was purely oral. You tell me if they yeas definitely had it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

 

 

 

i believe bonnie  and clyde stole theirs from a govt facility though?

[capt14k 2,052]

i believe bonnie  and clyde stole theirs from a govt facility though?

They did. Though they were legal to purchase

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk