Trump administration officially bans bump stocks

[TU Curmudgeon]

Thank you for posting this article. It actually has a link to the final rule. It's sad that every article on this topic doesn't. The regulation itself, and the underlying law, is important.

While I don't disagree with including bump stocks in the category of 'machine guns' (which, under the statute, includes machine gun parts), I think it should have been done through legislative action, rather than 'redefining' a term through regulation. Declaring that something now falls under an old law that didn't yesterday is unfair and could be an issue.

The other issue is going to be the definition itself. The actual law refers to a machine gun as "any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger." A bump stock clearly doesn't fall within this definition, because the trigger is pulled for every shot. The revised definition, by regulation, attempts to change (not clarify) this definition to, " initiate a continuous firing cycle with a single pull of the trigger", but that's not the same thing. Not to mention that any challenge to the law is going to be able to present over a decade of determinations by the ATF that these were not 'machine guns' under that statute.

This needs to be sent back to congress with the request that they modify the statute for this single definition. That won't happen though, because both sides will want to lump more into it.


https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthe...ction=click&module=Intentional&pgtype=Article

Mr. Trump will be more than pleased to sign that legislation (provided that it also contains $35Bn in funding for "The Wall").

 

[apdst]

Yep, and when the validly passed legislation contains a provision to the effect of

The __[fill in the blank]__ shall have the power to establish regulations for matters covered by this Act.
​

then that means that there is no need to go back to the legislature to establish regulations.

But, of course, that is a complex thought and so you don't want to deal with it.

Go ahead, ask me if I'm surprised.

The act says nothing about bump stocks, or any other device that makes it easier to fire a semi-automatic faster.

 

[apdst]

Well DUUHHH!

Obviously you don't realize that there are a whole lot of "laws" that make provisions for "regulations" (which are made OUTSIDE OF the legislative process).

Go on, ask me if I'm surprised.

Obviously you didn't bother to actually read the relevant REGULATION that specifically deals with the subject of this thread.

Go on, ask me if I'm surprised.

Regulations aren't "laws", in and of themselves. The president can't change a law to make a regulation.

 

[dcsports]

Mr. Trump will be more than pleased to sign that legislation (provided that it also contains $35Bn in funding for "The Wall").

I believe he's asking for $6 billion toward additional barriers / security at the border, but he's not going to make it a requirement for this bill.

The issue with this legislation is more congress. Democrats would try to attach this to 'comprehensive gun reform' and add the kitchen sink full of gun regulation. Republicans would similarly attach more national level gun measures, like reprecosity of concealed carry licenses. Both sides would try to put in other pet projects. It's exactly the same issue as 'immigration reform'. They could get more done through incremental change... smaller, simpler bills, starting with issues they agree on.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

The act says nothing about bump stocks, or any other device that makes it easier to fire a semi-automatic faster.

The act gives the power to make regulations "in the furtherance of" the objectives of the act.

Since you don't seem to comprehend what either "regulations" or "delegation" mean, I'll just have to give your opinion on how the law operates the same weight as I give your opinion on what the law is (which I base on your demonstrated lack of knowledge in that area).

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Regulations aren't "laws", in and of themselves. The president can't change a law to make a regulation.

Now that is absolutely hilarious.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

I believe he's asking for $6 billion toward additional barriers / security at the border, but he's not going to make it a requirement for this bill.

The issue with this legislation is more congress. Democrats would try to attach this to 'comprehensive gun reform' and add the kitchen sink full of gun regulation. Republicans would similarly attach more national level gun measures, like reprecosity of concealed carry licenses. Both sides would try to put in other pet projects. It's exactly the same issue as 'immigration reform'. They could get more done through incremental change... smaller, simpler bills, starting with issues they agree on.

If you eliminate "riders" you will destroy the entire ability of the Legislative Branch to function since the leaders of the Senators and Representatives won't have any way of purchasing the votes that they need in order to pass the legislation that they want to see passed in order to provide benefits to themselves and their supporters.

 

[Rucker61]

Everyone here knows how I loath Trump but I give credit where it is due. Banning bump stocks is an admirable act.

Why is it admirable?

 

[apdst]

The act gives the power to make regulations "in the furtherance of" the objectives of the act.

Since you don't seem to comprehend what either "regulations" or "delegation" mean, I'll just have to give your opinion on how the law operates the same weight as I give your opinion on what the law is (which I base on your demonstrated lack of knowledge in that area).

The Executive Branch can't change laws.

Did you know that? Of course you didn't.

Color me surprised.

 

[MTAtech]

Why is it admirable?

Why? Because NOBODY has a need to turn a rifle into a machine gun. End of story.

 

[MTAtech]

The Executive Branch can't change laws.

Did you know that? Of course you didn't.

Color me surprised.

Congress typically grants rule making authority to regulate to the appropriate regulatory agency. That's the way it's been for generations. Nobody should be surprised.

 

[d0gbreath]

I'm just glad that I didn't order one from Dirt Cheap for $699.00. It doesn't sound like reimbursement is in the cards.

 

[apdst]

Congress typically grants rule making authority to regulate to the appropriate regulatory agency. That's the way it's been for generations. Nobody should be surprised.

Rule making authority doesn't equate to changing the law.

 

[MTAtech]

Rule making authority doesn't equate to changing the law.

“With limited exceptions, the Gun Control Act, as amended, makes it unlawful for any person to transfer or possess a machine-gun unless it was lawfully possessed prior to the effective date of the statute,” the new regulation states. “The bump-stock-type devices covered by this final rule were not in existence prior to the effective date of the statute, and therefore will be prohibited when this rule becomes effective.”

[Read the final rule.]

 

[apdst]

“With limited exceptions, the Gun Control Act, as amended, makes it unlawful for any person to transfer or possess a machine-gun unless it was lawfully possessed prior to the effective date of the statute,” the new regulation states. “The bump-stock-type devices covered by this final rule were not in existence prior to the effective date of the statute, and therefore will be prohibited when this rule becomes effective.”

[Read the final rule.]

Bump stocks aren't machine guns, nor do they convert a semi-automatic to a machine gun.

 

[MTAtech]

Bump stocks aren't machine guns, nor do they convert a semi-automatic to a machine gun.

Bump stocks aren't machine guns according to you. The federal government in 90 days after publication will consider bump stocks the equivalent of machine guns, over your objection.

 

[Deuce]

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

They have the practical effect of doing so.

 

[apdst]

Bump stocks aren't machine guns according to you. The federal government in 90 days after publication will consider bump stocks the equivalent of machine guns, over your objection.

They aren't machine guns according to the government, either:

The National Firearms Act, 26 U.S.C. 5845(b), defines a machine gun to include any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...FjACegQIDhAO&usg=AOvVaw2a4skUzO2b9yUIKKpjSbjR

 

[apdst]

They have the practical effect of doing so.

No they don't. The weapon still fires one shot per trgger pull.

 

[Deuce]

No they don't. The weapon still fires one shot per trgger pull.

I said the practical effect, not the literal one.

 

[apdst]

I said the practical effect, not the literal one.

A bump stock can't match the rate of fire of an automatic weapon. So, not even practically.

 

[Deuce]

A bump stock can't match the rate of fire of an automatic weapon. So, not even practically.

Define "the" rate of fire of an automatic weapon.

 

[Rucker61]

They have the practical effect of doing so.

As do rubber bands, which is what ATF told owners of semiauto rifles to use instead. The ban was not a safety issue, evidently.

 

[Deuce]

As do rubber bands, which is what ATF told owners of semiauto rifles to use instead. The ban was not a safety issue, evidently.

Rubber bands are used for a variety of things.

A bump stock has the sole purpose of being a practical bypass of the law.

 

[Rucker61]

Rubber bands are used for a variety of things.

A bump stock has the sole purpose of being a practical bypass of the law.

Rubber bands allow the exact same results as a bump stock. If bump stocks are too dangerous to own, why did the ATF tell us how to replicate the effects with rubber bands?