Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by Aim1, Jun 5, 2019.
Have not seen any other claims on other forums..
Trump is going to ban suppressors like he banned bump stocks. Now that the door is open to executive order confiscation things are going to get a whole lot worse and I don't think it's alarmist to say so when it JUST HAPPENED with bump stocks. They're not just flapping their holes, the grabbers have been secretly winning this whole time and we dropped our guard for the guy who's currently in there...
Bump stocks were banned due to language that *could be (and was)* interpreted as bump-stocks are full-auto devices, new manufacture of same being banned since 1986. Banning suppressors would not be nearly as easy, the language isn't there in the NFA.
Trying to get info.....so far the shooter looks to be another INCEL.
Since suppressors already regulated I dont think Trump can do a magic pencil whip.
Think most of the folks are just flapping their gums to make it look like theyre gonna do something when they won't/can't. Its a PR stunt for politicians.
My point was, unless we are actually going to talk about the issues facing us this thread will be closed. We seem to always get derailed by talking about things that have nothing to do with the mission of THR. We can talk about legislation or impending orders and how to combat them all day long.
As for Trump's ability to replicate the bump-stock approach, you have to understand the legal rationale for what he did with bump stocks. He identified a category of item - machine-guns - that are already effectively banned through the combination of the NFA and the Hughes amendment (which makes it impossible to legally register new machine guns after 1986). He then made the not-wholly-implausible determination that the bump-stocks are machine-guns*, and that they, therefore, have always been illegal.
It's not apparent that there's any equivalent analytical move to make here. Suppressors are regulated-but-legal under the NFA. There is no Hughes Amendment equivalent. It's possible that Trump could order the ATF to stop processing new suppressor tax stamps (perhaps by not funding any of that work). But, analytically, it doesn't appear that he can just copy-and-paste the bump-stock approach.
Now, Mr. Trump is not known for his tight legal reasoning. But some of those around him can point this out.
*Yes, I understand the textual arguments about whether a bump stock's cycling counts as a single function of the trigger. That is at least a close-enough call that it is plausible to come down on the "yes" side of the question, even if it's not the stronger/better interpretation.
Governor Ralph Northam has called a special session of the VA legislature to address gun control laws, to include a proposed ban on silencers.
Even though the political margin in the VA legislature is incredibly thin, I'd only give the proposed legislation a 10% chance of passing. Organizations such as the Virginia Citizens Defense League (https://www.vcdl.org/) does a fantastic job of getting the message out to politicians and constituents alike.
The other side believes in never letting a crisis go to waste, and they are more than happy to dance in the blood of the victims in order to obtain their goal of total disarmament.
Keep your powder dry, the gun banners are always coming.
I'll get this in before the close.
The fact is state legislators will take this up anyway and they will become contraband (not regulated) in many states. If Trump does nothing they still disappear from the landscape like they will in VA.
If you want to continue to fight for your RKBA you need to do that in your state by reaching out to your elected representatives. Watch the bills before the legislature and communicate with your rep no matter what their stance is on more gun control. At least they know how you feel.
ATF has the authority to regulate suppressors just like they do automatic weapons. They can require a class 3 SOT if they want. That could happen if Trump makes a few phone calls.
Was on another forum, folks said others at the scene supposedly heard the shots.
Did he have a comp or a suppressor?
I won't trust the media with such technical things.
Has anyone analyzed to what extent a suppressor may have exacerbated the crime? I suspect that even if it was a suppressor and was employed by the shooter that the results would have been the same. If a condom was found at the crime scene would they be screaming to ban them?
I agree. Have not looked for pics....and am not trusting of the media. Dunno if he really had a suppressor.....makes for a nice distraction from the character/crime to blame an extra bad inanimate object (by leftist definition)
And distraction is the name of this game. I'm thinking the Governor and Lt Governor were happy to have something come up right now to keep their other missteps out of the public eye for awhile. The problem is going to be whether logic prevails. Sometimes, educating those with a set mind, is like pouring water on concrete, it just won't penetrate.
I gave up pouring water on concrete years ago. Had mistaken the lack of understanding to be from lack of information.
I agree 100%.
Northam and Co calling for a ban is entirely predictable (got to get a distraction from the discussion of certain photographs), and not that dangerous on the national stage. The Ban-er In Chief, however, talking openly about his dislike of, and desire to ban suppressors, is a big problem. I believe his opinion/stance on any given matter is basically whatever he thinks will make him the most popularity points with the groups/outlets he pays attention to. No internal compass, which way is the wind blowing today?
Given his nature, I think the best bet at heading this off is a loud and quick negative response to these early comments before he picks up too much speed, the mass media is already pushing him in the wrong direction with their coverage. He has to know this would be very unpopular with the 2A crowd as a whole. Which would, of course, involve the whole 2A crowd pushing back, even if you aren't interested in and don't own suppressors, you'd have to be blind, deaf and dumb at this point to not notice the path our leadership is going down: bump stock ban, red flag laws, suppressor ban, etc.
At least with O we had an intransigent Republican congress to dead lock his anti-2A aspirations. With Big T we are in a potentially much more dangerous situation, he and our Senators need to be secure on the knowledge that increased gun restrictions during their watch are not acceptable and abuses will not be forgotten just because their buddies on the other side of the isle would love to abuse us even worse.
Please stop closing discussions on this topic on THR. Why are a few posting transgressions worth shutting down discussion of an important topic early in it's development when getting people interested, vocal and informed might actually make a difference? Delete off topic posts if you want, but continually shutting down discussion does the whole community a disservice.
Except, "they" were exceedingly wrong in their interpretation. It was elementary that "one-pull, one shot" should have protected the bumpstocks from being banned. The bumpstocks met all criteria for NOT being a full auto accessory.
So you thinking that the language isn't there for banning suppressors and thus will protect suppressors with this current state of affairs we got going on is very naive. I'm not trying to attack you, but want to get people to think about the precedent that was set by Trump in banning a legally qualified firearm accessory by fiat.
Trump is not pro-2A he's a pragmatic businessman, he lives his life by compromise as a means to a desired end. What he's done for the 2A is nothing more than garnering support; all the while legislating by fiat against firearms in certain instances. Trump will always play both sides, you know "the Art of the Deal," and all that.
There is far too much power being displayed in the Executive branch of the government for far too long. The Founding Fathers would be appalled by the executive orders and fiat wars that are being fought at the discretion of the Executive branch. I will stop there with this as it is getting in the weeds for this forum, but wanted to state that as it is exactly what is happening in efforts to erode the 2A, we are under attack by fiat legislation that has no representation. That is the ultimate battle that needs to be waged by patriots, in our letters to our representatives.
I've read that there was construction going on around the shooting, and that employees thought it was a nail gun being used. Here is an article that compares the sounds of construction tools versus suppressed and unsuppressed .45 ACP.
Agreed. The worst thing that could happen at this point would be for the NRA to issue an equivocal statement, the way they did on bump stocks. That would be seen as a green light by Trump.
Trump like every major politician has an army of people focused on helping him handle situations to best political advantage while minimizing damage which for re-election purposes means loosing fewest possible voters. He needs second term to help out himself and people of similar socioeconomic status as himself. The only real difference between him and his predecessors is use of the Twitter account. The reason politicians focus on gun control is that it allows them to neglect issues which would really help working people of this country. The goals of typical politician are to keep getting re-elected and maintenance of status quo as long as it is humanely possible.
A report from police officials in large city near me stated that so far this year eighty guns have been stolen out of peoples vehicles. With this state of affairs we can only expect gun violence to be a problem for everyone. With large amounts of guns available in USA we just have to accept gun violence as part of our daily risk.
A quote straight from the antie's playbook.
Criminal activity, no such thing as gun violence.
And with a government that employ's tactics like "fast and furious," and a porous border, it's no wonder why we have criminals with guns.
One cannot create legislation to prevent crazy, disturbed, and evil. But sadly, one can legislate against the rights afforded a person to protect themselves.
Well...rants for and against trump aside; if any of y’all been thinking of getting a can or selling one off. Now is the time to spring...
On that bump stock thing.....
one pull of trigger= one shot.
The way I saw em, the finger is fixed and the gun moves into it.
There is no pull of the trigger, the gun IMHO pushes itself into the finger.
Bet others saw it the same.
If they used the term "pull" of trigger instead of "cycle" of trigger........
Am not anti bumpstock, could care less, consider them a novelty.
Like many other things.
Just stating how it might have been allowed to be banned under current legal wording.
Yeah, it's silly but much of law is that way.
Separate names with a comma.