Report: President Trump Signing Bump Stock Ban, Citizens Have 90 Days to Turn Them

[Aim1]

I’m not an owner of bump-stocks but I don’t agree with this. It’s a very slippery slope.



https://www.breitbart.com/politics/...ck-ban-citizens-have-90-days-to-turn-them-in/

Report: President Trump Signing Bump Stock Ban, Citizens Have 90 Days to Turn Them

29 Nov 2018

President Donald Trump is expected to announce that he will be signing a ban on bump stocks that gives Americans 90 days to hand them over or otherwise dispose of them.

 

[jamesjames]

I don't see a credible source cited for this report.

 

[Tommygunn]

Apparently Trump had the BATFE come up with some reinterpretation of law as a directive he intends to sign.

I don't own a bumpstock. I think they're stupid and wasteful of ammo, and unnecessary as a string and pants pocket works too.

But I'm against this arbitrary ban.... and NO GRANDFATHER CLAUSE!!!!????!!!?!?!?!?
Thanks Trump.

That's betrayed #1 in my book.
You don't want to accumulate these .... might effect my vote in 2020.

 

[cheygriz]

Apparently Trump had the BATFE come up with some reinterpretation of law as a directive he intends to sign.

I don't own a bumpstock. I think they're stupid and wasteful of ammo, and unnecessary as a string and pants pocket works too.

But I'm against this arbitrary ban.... and NO GRANDFATHER CLAUSE!!!!????!!!?!?!?!?
Thanks Trump.

That's betrayed #1 in my book.
You don't want to accumulate these .... might effect my vote in 2020.

So you'll vote for Elizabeth Warren??

Face it, we haven't lost anything here.

 

[Tommygunn]

So you'll vote for Elizabeth Warren??

Face it, we haven't lost anything here.

1st, We don't know Ms. Warren will be running in 2020.
2nd, not voting for Trump doesn't mean voting for Warren/whom-ever.
Maybe it means if someone primaries Trump as Nov. '20 approaches, I vote for him/her.
In 2016 I hoped that anyone of the other @16 contenders had won over Trump. I voted for Trump because I did not want Hillary as president.

It's not what we lost, cheygriz, it's the principle of the thing --- and the precedent.

 

[Realist]

Sounds like a Democratic action... ban/restrict something that has minimal impact on a problem.
Who is Trump placating by this?

 

[cheygriz]

1st, We don't know Ms. Warren will be running in 2020.
2nd, not voting for Trump doesn't mean voting for Warren/whom-ever.
Maybe it means if someone primaries Trump as Nov. '20 approaches, I vote for him/her.
In 2016 I hoped that anyone of the other @16 contenders had won over Trump. I voted for Trump because I did not want Hillary as president.

It's not what we lost, cheygriz, it's the principle of the thing --- and the precedent.

I understand what you're saying. But I also understand that you will never get everything you want in politics. "My way or the highway" doesn't fly in elections.

When we can get away with not losing anything that's a pretty good deal.

 

[Tommygunn]

Cheygriz, I'm 63 and have voted since 1976, believe me I've gotten plenty of not everything in politics as it is.

I don't know what will happen in 2 years. If Trump keeps up as he has been, I'll probably be holding my nose and voting for him again.

 

[cheygriz]

Cheygriz, I'm 63 and have voted since 1976, believe me I've gotten plenty of not everything in politics as it is.

I don't know what will happen in 2 years. If Trump keeps up as he has been, I'll probably be holding my nose and voting for him again.

Understood. He wasn't my first choice either, but I would have voted for the devil himself against Hillary, Bernie or RINO McCain.

 

[ATLDave]

Bump stock technology simply got too good. It became too effective an emulator of full-auto devices. The Las Vegas shooting demonstrated that bump-stock devices have effectively the same ability as full-auto devices to create "beaten zones" at a distance where humans cannot survive. On the other hand, other than pure recreational blasting, nobody has really made a remotely-compelling argument that they are useful for civilian purposes. And their comparative rarity, as opposed to semi-automatic rifles in general, does give some credence to the idea that they don't provide even that much enjoyment utility (otherwise people would buy more), and probably puts them beyond the reach of even the broader readings of Heller (they probably cannot be said to be "in common use").

In light of the above, some action was absolutely inevitable. I would rather see this than some legislative action banning "anything that increases the rate of fire," as was vigorously demanded after Las Vegas.

 

[GEM]

I don't want to close this - so back out of pure politics and discuss the implications for the RKBA and implementation of such a ban.

Ranting about candidate X, Y or Z isn't appropriate. Also, if you insult someone who might favor such on a personal level, that won't fly here either.

 

[cheygriz]

Well said, Dave. Nothing lost, nothing gained, but the other side thinks they have a victory so they can celebrate for a awhile until they realize they've accomplished nothing.

 

[boom boom]

There are several things wrong with those articles--as this is a proposed rule by the ATF--the President does not 'sign' anything as the regulation change is pursuant to an existing law that grants the ATF authority (the NFA for example).

Now, President Trump did order, either informally or formally, to review the old ATF ruling that bumpstocks were an accessory instead of a device making an ersatz machine gun using the Atkins case as precedent. So ultimately he is responsible, but Congress would not have supported changing the NFA to allow bumpstocks even under Republican control as the votes were not there. With the Dems in power soon in the House, there is little chance that such a law might be passed and more likely any such proposed law under their control might go further than banning bumpstocks.

I just checked the federal register and the ATF has not yet put forward its final rule which generally under the Administrative Practices Act, requires at least a 30 day grace period before going into effect. At the point of being formally issued, then legal challenges can begin (which I suspect will be fruitless in the long run) but given the costs of the items, a 5th Amendment taking case might be able to be made (taking property without compensation) which can be a dicey thing given the ATF's past history of retroactive rulings on things like open bolt firearms.

A rather forlorn hope would be that the sheer size of the number of people with them might allow a temporary reopening of the NFA registry to allow firearms with these to be registered upon payment of a tax and the requisite checks. This could be done under reconciliation without filibusters during the waning days of this Congress as I mentioned in earlier THR posts on this matter.

 

[ATLDave]

boom boom, are you suggesting that this administration is familiar with the APA and only purports to take regulatory action in accordance therewith?

 

[MTMilitiaman]

And it is not like people are going to comply. I don't own a bumpstock, but if I did, this wouldn't convince me to turn it in. As far as I am concerned, "shall not be infringed" means exactly that. I am not registering my guns, magazines, ammo, or accessories, nor am I selling them back or turning them in. Not going to happen. Ever. I refuse. I resist.

Molan Labe.

 

[ponchh]

So you'll vote for Elizabeth Warren??

Face it, we haven't lost anything here.

Remember what happens when "I said nothing"
I agree that bump stocks are less than worthless, but binary triggers will be next, and I have one. Then all semiautomatics will be classified as assault weapons as Washington state is in the process of doing as we speak. The second amendment will disappear one small at a time

 

[WestKentucky]

Simulated full auto is of no useful purpose to me, just the same as “binary” triggers and other such devices which help to burn money from my wallet faster. I’m more about controlled fire. Semiauto is more productive in every scenario unless you are talking about suppressive fire and suppressive fire is simply not something that civilians have to worry about. I would actually support a law that clarified and closed loopholes of the FA ban, but at the same time I would expect amnesty and/or grandfathering. If the items are legally owned, and are being banned as a machine gun, the registry MUST be opened to allow registration of the newly classified NFA items as machineguns.

 

[boom boom]

boom boom, are you suggesting that this administration is familiar with the APA and only purports to take regulatory action in accordance therewith?

No, but the courts are. Unfortunately, most administrations and agencies themselves, either under Dem or Rep presidents, have tried to skirt around the APA to do things that they want. The Chevron doctrine made it much worse as it essentially neutered lower courts unless SCOTUS decided that it did not apply in a specific case. The doctrine needs to be junked and I do know that Gorsuch is a devoted enemy of that particular bugaboo.

The original conception of the APA is one of the more important statutes that prevents bureaucratic overreach and rule. If we are going to ignore the delegation doctrine, then the APA is one of the few safeguards along with FOIA, that can ameliorate the decline of the delegation doctrine.

 

[Zerodefect]

Should have been NFA to begin with.

Big nothing burger. I'd get banned from training if I showed up with one of those stocks.

 

[Walkalong]

Not surprised, and not particular upset, and I am as big of a slippery slope kind of fellow as anyone.

 

[ATLDave]

No, but the courts are. Unfortunately, most administrations and agencies themselves, either under Dem or Rep presidents, have tried to skirt around the APA to do things that they want. The Chevron doctrine made it much worse as it essentially neutered lower courts unless SCOTUS decided that it did not apply in a specific case. The doctrine needs to be junked and I do know that Gorsuch is a devoted enemy of that particular bugaboo.

The original conception of the APA is one of the more important statutes that prevents bureaucratic overreach and rule. If we are going to ignore the delegation doctrine, then the APA is one of the few safeguards along with FOIA, that can ameliorate the decline of the delegation doctrine.

As a mostly-regulatory lawyer, I'm with you!

I'm just pointing out that playing the game of hoop-jumping is not something President Trump has regarded as constraining his actions thus far.

 

[<*(((><]

Poor precedence is set by this for the RKBA fight. All it will take in the future is for gun grabbing politicians with a majority in the political arena to point back to what Trump is doing here and say “Trump banned AND forced surrender or destruction of a firearm accessory,” we can AND should do the same with X, Y, and Z.

Trump is no friend of the 2A more indifferent to it, he’s simply posturing to his base with his feigned support (this is my opinion). It’s no different then his comment about the Florida shooting where he stated with his political rivals in the room that we should give the police the option of “take the guns first, go through due process second.” (LINK) We shouldn't forget that Trump has in the past and will continue to make deals with anyone for the sake of HIS agendas, that is who our president is, like it or not.

I do not own and have no desire for a bumpstock but I’m FIRMLY against this measure by Trump.

 

[IdaD]

I'll follow my mother's advice and not say anything about Trump, if you catch my drift.

As far as bump stocks go, I have no use for them and they shouldn't have been legal in the first place because they violated the spirit of the law. Also because they did have legal status or a period of time, it set up this ban which sets a bad precedent where rights that do matter can be similarly eroded in the future. Bad deal all around.

 

[deadin]

I don't see a credible source cited for this report.

Breitbart isn't a credible source??

 

[bearcreek]

Semiauto is more productive in every scenario unless you are talking about suppressive fire and suppressive fire is simply not something that civilians have to worry about.

WHy don't civilians have to worry about suppressive fire? The whole point of the 2A is to protect civilian's ability to use military weapons and train in military tactics. Semi auto rifles aren't needed for "regular" self defense from other civilians.