Trump administration officially bans bump stocks

[TU Curmudgeon]

From CNN

Trump administration officially bans bump stocks
​

The Trump administration is officially banning bump-fire stocks, senior Justice Department officials told CNN Tuesday.

Under a new federal rule, those who possess the devices, commonly known as bump stocks, will get 90 days to turn them in from the date that the final rule is published in the federal register, which is likely Friday, the officials said.

Bump stocks gained national attention last year after a gunman in Las Vegas rigged his weapons with the devices to fire on concertgoers, killing 58 people. President Donald Trump vowed to outlaw the devices soon after the tragedy, and some lawmakers on Capitol Hill urged him to back a permanent legislative fix.

COMMENT:-

OHMYGOD!!!
​

There goes the 2nd Amendment!! I just knew that Obama and Clinton would do it someday!!!

Not only that, but the government is **C*O*N*F*I*S*C*A*T*I*N*G** **P*R*I*V*A*T*E** **P*R*O*P*E*R*T*Y** without compensation in direct violation of the 4th, 5th, 10th, and 15th Amendments too. This is even worse than Socialism it's **C*O*M*M*I*E*N*I*S*M** and its all the fault of those left-wing, liberal, socialist, pinko, commie, communist the Democrats.

Right?
​

 

[Grand Mal]

From CNN

Trump administration officially bans bump stocks
​

The Trump administration is officially banning bump-fire stocks, senior Justice Department officials told CNN Tuesday.

Under a new federal rule, those who possess the devices, commonly known as bump stocks, will get 90 days to turn them in from the date that the final rule is published in the federal register, which is likely Friday, the officials said.

Bump stocks gained national attention last year after a gunman in Las Vegas rigged his weapons with the devices to fire on concertgoers, killing 58 people. President Donald Trump vowed to outlaw the devices soon after the tragedy, and some lawmakers on Capitol Hill urged him to back a permanent legislative fix.

COMMENT:-

OHMYGOD!!!
​

There goes the 2nd Amendment!! I just knew that Obama and Clinton would do it someday!!!

Not only that, but the government is **C*O*N*F*I*S*C*A*T*I*N*G** **P*R*I*V*A*T*E** **P*R*O*P*E*R*T*Y** without compensation in direct violation of the 4th, 5th, 10th, and 15th Amendments too. This is even worse than Socialism it's **C*O*M*M*I*E*N*I*S*M** and its all the fault of those left-wing, liberal, socialist, pinko, commie, communist the Democrats.

Right?
​

Odd. I've been told that Trump doesn't/can't instruct the DoJ what to do.

 

[Ikari]

Interesting, confiscating bump stocks, I don't like that. I guess perhaps they could ban their sale, but there's not much they could have done for anything that was already bought. Besides, this is all reactionary tripe and won't really do much to impact the system.

But the government does like to steal, and I guess this is just another example of just that.

 

[ttwtt78640]

It seems that the "rule" change will cause bump-stocks to be treated as if they were (in and of themselves?) machine guns under existing law. This is odd because they are simply harmless pieces of plastic unless attached to a gun.

It seems that much the same effect can be had by placing a tennis ball between a semi-auto rifle's stock and the shooter's shoulder. As the rifle is fired it moves backwards and compresses the ball. When the ball rebounds, it pushes the rifle forwards against one's stiffened trigger finger, causing another round to discharge. Should tennis balls be considered machine guns and banned as well?

This guy uses a hair tie (rubber band?) as a bargain bump-stock:



Should hair ties (and rubber bands?) be reclassified as machine guns too?



This guy can waste ammo (bump-fire) w/o any accessories at all:



Maybe he should be considered a machine gun and be banned as well.

 

[SLC]

From CNN

Trump administration officially bans bump stocks
​

The Trump administration is officially banning bump-fire stocks, senior Justice Department officials told CNN Tuesday.

Under a new federal rule, those who possess the devices, commonly known as bump stocks, will get 90 days to turn them in from the date that the final rule is published in the federal register, which is likely Friday, the officials said.

Bump stocks gained national attention last year after a gunman in Las Vegas rigged his weapons with the devices to fire on concertgoers, killing 58 people. President Donald Trump vowed to outlaw the devices soon after the tragedy, and some lawmakers on Capitol Hill urged him to back a permanent legislative fix.

COMMENT:-

OHMYGOD!!!
​

There goes the 2nd Amendment!! I just knew that Obama and Clinton would do it someday!!!

Not only that, but the government is **C*O*N*F*I*S*C*A*T*I*N*G** **P*R*I*V*A*T*E** **P*R*O*P*E*R*T*Y** without compensation in direct violation of the 4th, 5th, 10th, and 15th Amendments too. This is even worse than Socialism it's **C*O*M*M*I*E*N*I*S*M** and its all the fault of those left-wing, liberal, socialist, pinko, commie, communist the Democrats.

Right?
​

Correct me if I'm wrong but a bump stock isn't a gun is it? Its analogous to the mechanism in a M16 that makes it automatic which isn't legal for you and me to put in a AR 15 to make it automatic. So why the hysteria? The bump stock effectively converts a semi automatic to a automatic weapon. Converting a semi auto weapon to a automatic weapon has long been illegal.I'm glad bump stocks are going and they are made a few miles from here. I'm sorry for the people in the small town where they are made I hope the company has other products that they can make.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

It seems that the "rule" change will cause bump-stocks to be treated as if they were (in and of themselves?) machine guns under existing law. This is odd because they are simply harmless pieces of plastic unless attached to a gun.

It seems that much the same effect can be had by placing a tennis ball between a semi-auto rifle's stock and the shooter's shoulder. As the rifle is fired it moves backwards and compresses the ball. When the ball rebounds, it pushes the rifle forwards against one's stiffened trigger finger, causing another round to discharge. Should tennis balls be considered machine guns and banned as well?

This guy uses a hair tie (rubber band?) as a bargain bump-stock:



Should hair ties (and rubber bands?) be reclassified as machine guns too?



This guy can waste ammo (bump-fire) w/o any accessories at all:



Maybe he should be considered a machine gun and be banned as well.

After due consideration, the Board of Directors of the "Support Immediate Legal Limitations Yesterday" Foundation has agreed to back your suggestions to the hilt.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Correct me if I'm wrong but a bump stock isn't a gun is it?

You are quite correct, and that's why this dictatorial decision is so dangerous.

I mean "ammunition" isn't a "gun" and it isn't "arms" and if the Trump Dictatorship gets away with banning "Bump Stocks" the next thing you know it is going to ban the sale and possession of "ammunition".

[NOTE - If that sounds like something that the "PRO_Gun Nuts" were raving about when Mr. Obama was the President then you have a good memory.]

 

[Maccabee]

Correct me if I'm wrong but a bump stock isn't a gun is it? Its analogous to the mechanism in a M16 that makes it automatic which isn't legal for you and me to put in a AR 15 to make it automatic. So why the hysteria? The bump stock effectively converts a semi automatic to a automatic weapon. Converting a semi auto weapon to a automatic weapon has long been illegal.I'm glad bump stocks are going and they are made a few miles from here. I'm sorry for the people in the small town where they are made I hope the company has other products that they can make.

Bump stocks don't convert semi automatic furearms into automatic.

 

[Rogue Valley]

 

[ttwtt78640]

Bump stocks don't convert semi automatic furearms into automatic.

Nope, but these hi-tech parts can:

 

[Mr Person]

It seems that the "rule" change will cause bump-stocks to be treated as if they were (in and of themselves?) machine guns under existing law. This is odd because they are simply harmless pieces of plastic unless attached to a gun.

"The law is not an ass"....

Whether or not the change will make any effect is a separate issue from the bit I quoted above. As for my own quote, the point is simple: it would be a very foolish law indeed that banned machine guns but failed to ban a "piece of plastic" that if "attached to a gun" turned it into a machine gun. Whether or not this actually prevents any of the things it is intended to prevent (which is what....one mass shooting where a bump stock was used?), it wouldn't serve its purpose if it didn't ban said piece of plastic.

Otherwise, it's kind of like making robbery illegal but making receipt of stolen property OK. The former subverts the latter



(One could also note that the videos posted show the first gun mainly getting 2 or 3 shots off before his 'bump stock hack' worked. The other was better, but short. I have to wonder how easy that is on the finger, and about how much easier it is when the recoil force is going into plastic rather than a finger.

Again, while I doubt the ban will have much effect on what it's supposed to, the idea that one can do the exact same thing with a finger and a bump stock is a bit silly without a serious test. aka, a test where the person has to use their finger-hack to keep going far longer than in those videos and is timed against this 'bump stock').

 

[Rucker61]

"The law is not an ass"....

Whether or not the change will make any effect is a separate issue from the bit I quoted above. As for my own quote, the point is simple: it would be a very foolish law indeed that banned machine guns but failed to ban a "piece of plastic" that if "attached to a gun" turned it into a machine gun. Whether or not this actually prevents any of the things it is intended to prevent (which is what....one mass shooting where a bump stock was used?), it wouldn't serve its purpose if it didn't ban said piece of plastic.

Otherwise, it's kind of like making robbery illegal but making receipt of stolen property OK. The latter subverts the former.

A bump stock does not convert a semi-auto rifle into a machine gun. A full auto sear would, however. The latter is controlled like a machine gun is under the law.

 

[Mr Person]

A bump stock does not convert a semi-auto rifle into a machine gun. A full auto sear would, however. The latter is controlled like a machine gun is under the law.

The mechanism of how it is done is irrelevant. What is done is relevant.

 

[ttwtt78640]

"The law is not an ass"....

Whether or not the change will make any effect is a separate issue from the bit I quoted above. As for my own quote, the point is simple: it would be a very foolish law indeed that banned machine guns but failed to ban a "piece of plastic" that if "attached to a gun" turned it into a machine gun. Whether or not this actually prevents any of the things it is intended to prevent (which is what....one mass shooting where a bump stock was used?), it wouldn't serve its purpose if it didn't ban said piece of plastic.

Otherwise, it's kind of like making robbery illegal but making receipt of stolen property OK. The latter subverts the former.

The more logical thing to do is make attaching anything to or altering anything in a semi-auto gun to make it behave as an automatic illegal. The idea of calling X a Y is lazy and dishonest.

My point was that many things could cause this "transformation" but banning each of them based on that possible use (abuse?) is silly. Fertilizer and deisel fuel could be made into a bomb yet neither are banned. Gasoline sold in "to go" containers could be used for arson therfore...

 

[apdst]

This won't survive a court challenge.

 

[apdst]

"The law is not an ass"....

Whether or not the change will make any effect is a separate issue from the bit I quoted above. As for my own quote, the point is simple: it would be a very foolish law indeed that banned machine guns but failed to ban a "piece of plastic" that if "attached to a gun" turned it into a machine gun. Whether or not this actually prevents any of the things it is intended to prevent (which is what....one mass shooting where a bump stock was used?), it wouldn't serve its purpose if it didn't ban said piece of plastic.

Otherwise, it's kind of like making robbery illegal but making receipt of stolen property OK. The former subverts the latter



(One could also note that the videos posted show the first gun mainly getting 2 or 3 shots off before his 'bump stock hack' worked. The other was better, but short. I have to wonder how easy that is on the finger, and about how much easier it is when the recoil force is going into plastic rather than a finger.

Again, while I doubt the ban will have much effect on what it's supposed to, the idea that one can do the exact same thing with a finger and a bump stock is a bit silly without a serious test. aka, a test where the person has to use their finger-hack to keep going far longer than in those videos and is timed against this 'bump stock').

What's foolish is claiming that a bump stock turns a semi-automatic rifle into a machine gun.

 

[ttwtt78640]

The mechanism of how it is done is irrelevant. What is done is relevant.

Exactly, and unless it is done its mere potential is not important.

 

[Rucker61]

The mechanism of how it is done is irrelevant. What is done is relevant.

No, that's not how the law works. If what is done is relevant, then Trump just banned belt loops, string and rubber bands, too.

 

[Mr Person]

No, that's not how the law works. If what is done is relevant, then Trump just banned belt loops, string and rubber bands, too.

Reread the OP, reread the article, then reread the conversation. Somewhere along the line you misunderstood what I'm saying.





PS: Trump is moving to ban bump stocks. I didn't say the law already banned them.

 

[apdst]

You are quite correct, and that's why this dictatorial decision is so dangerous.

I mean "ammunition" isn't a "gun" and it isn't "arms" and if the Trump Dictatorship gets away with banning "Bump Stocks" the next thing you know it is going to ban the sale and possession of "ammunition".

[NOTE - If that sounds like something that the "PRO_Gun Nuts" were raving about when Mr. Obama was the President then you have a good memory.]

Someone with knowledge of our system knows that the president can't outlaw anything. This is about Articles 1 and 2, not the 2nd Amendment.

 

[apdst]

The mechanism of how it is done is irrelevant. What is done is relevant.

The mechamism is absolutely relevant. The law specifically defines what an automatic weapon/machine gun is. A bump stock doesn't meet that definition.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Bump stocks don't convert semi automatic furearms into automatic.

Of course they don't.

All they do is convert a weapon into something that acts exactly the same way as a fully automatic weapon by moving the weapon back and forth against a stationary finger.

The weapon is not "fully automatic" per se, it just keeps on firing over and over once you pull the trigger - until you move your finger so that it no longer causes the weapon to fire once it returns to battery.

In contrast, a "fully automatic" weapon, until you move your finger so that it no longer causes the weapon to fire once it returns to batters - it just keeps on firing over and over once you pull the trigger.

Any idiot can see that those two statements are the complete opposite of each other.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

"The law is not an ass"....

Whether or not the change will make any effect is a separate issue from the bit I quoted above. As for my own quote, the point is simple: it would be a very foolish law indeed that banned machine guns but failed to ban a "piece of plastic" that if "attached to a gun" turned it into a machine gun. Whether or not this actually prevents any of the things it is intended to prevent (which is what....one mass shooting where a bump stock was used?), it wouldn't serve its purpose if it didn't ban said piece of plastic.

Otherwise, it's kind of like making robbery illegal but making receipt of stolen property OK. The former subverts the latter



(One could also note that the videos posted show the first gun mainly getting 2 or 3 shots off before his 'bump stock hack' worked. The other was better, but short. I have to wonder how easy that is on the finger, and about how much easier it is when the recoil force is going into plastic rather than a finger.

Again, while I doubt the ban will have much effect on what it's supposed to, the idea that one can do the exact same thing with a finger and a bump stock is a bit silly without a serious test. aka, a test where the person has to use their finger-hack to keep going far longer than in those videos and is timed against this 'bump stock').

Once you understand that a machine gun is simply a collection of harmless pieces of metal unless you load it with ammunition and pull the trigger, then "This is odd because they are simply harmless pieces of plastic unless attached to a gun." makes perfect sense.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

The mechanism of how it is done is irrelevant. What is done is relevant.

Not so.

It is illegal to torture a prisoner by subjecting them to extreme environmental stress, or beating them, or "waterboarding" them, but it is legal to conduct enhanced interrogation of a detainee by subjecting them to extreme environmental stress, or beating them, or "waterboarding" them.

If you cannot see the difference then you have no future in America's covert intelligence services.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

This won't survive a court challenge.

Maybe it will and maybe it won't. All of the evidence isn't in yet so we should not jump to any conclusions. I know what the "experts" say and I know what my gut tells me and I'll go with my gut over what those so-called "experts" say any day of the week.