Trump testing the winds on gun control

[Crittersdad]

Just remember this is the anti gun Washington Compost.
If they say it is dark out I will look for myself

 

[mstrmstr]

Did anyone listen to Trumps' words-- "Intent to make illegal any device that makes a gun a machinegun" ??? It is already illegal to do that and has been. He asked the Justice department which is the wrong agency also since they cannot make new laws. It is like Chicago mayors saying illegal guns should be banned in Chicago.( p.s. criminals still have them) Chicago does allow legal guns but criminals don't follow that.

 

[jamil]

I'd like to know why more people aren't upset that Trump is trying to make law through executive action. I thought that was ****ty when Obama did it. If the POTUS wants to ban bump-fire stocks, get congress to write the legislation, shepherd it through both houses, and sign it.

Otherwise I think the old School House Rock cartoon needs to be modernized to reflect the discarding of the Constitution.

 

[bwframe]

Pay closer attention. Very specific words have been said, nothing has been done.

 

[BugI02]

I'd like to know why more people aren't upset that Trump is trying to make law through executive action. I thought that was ****ty when Obama did it. If the POTUS wants to ban bump-fire stocks, get congress to write the legislation, shepherd it through both houses, and sign it.

Otherwise I think the old School House Rock cartoon needs to be modernized to reflect the discarding of the Constitution.

Analogous to a prosecutor never wanting to ask a question he doesn't already know the answer to; never allow congress to formulate a bill you might not be able to control/control passage of. At emotional times like these that's how really, really bad laws get written and passed because the pigs are concerned about maintaining their positions at the trough. I think Trump (rightly) seeks to do as little as possible at this time in this area while still throwing those primarily driven by feelings a bone

That said, the BATFE already has authority in this area (bumpstocks). As has been discussed before, why not just have them revisit the decision that such were allowed?

 

[bwframe]

...the BATFE already has authority in this area (bumpstockj). As has been discussed before, why not just have them revisit the decision that such were allowed?

That is similar to the "NRA throwing us under the bus," argument.

There is no having the BATFE revisit revisit bump stocks. They don't need permission (its their job,) they are doing it anyway.

 

[AmmoManAaron]

I'd like to know why more people aren't upset that Trump is trying to make law through executive action. I thought that was ****ty when Obama did it. If the POTUS wants to ban bump-fire stocks, get congress to write the legislation, shepherd it through both houses, and sign it.

Have you considered that he might not want to do much and that this is a way to achieve that? The optics look like he is doing something, which takes off the heat, but then at a later time the bureaucracy conveniently finds they don't have the authority. "Aw shucks, we tried."

 

[jamil]

Analogous to a prosecutor never wanting to ask a question he doesn't already know the answer to; never allow congress to formulate a bill you might not be able to control/control passage of. At emotional times like these that's how really, really bad laws get written and passed because the pigs are concerned about maintaining their positions at the trough. I think Trump (rightly) seeks to do as little as possible at this time in this area while still throwing those primarily driven by feelings a bone

That said, the BATFE already has authority in this area (bumpstocks). As has been discussed before, why not just have them revisit the decision that such were allowed?

The BATF did revisit it last summer when the issue came up. Remember how super-genius Trump was for leaving it up to them knowing they couldn’t do anything? That was asserted right here on INGO. Well. You can’t have it both ways. I’d rather his ardent supporters tell him to stop the nonsense, because he might actually listen if he thought he’d lose you. But it doesn’t sound like like you think he’s doing anything wrong. So what makes this acceptable and what Obama did with executive actions not acceptable. Or have we decided that Presidents are entitled to declare the laws they can’t get passed through congress enacted with their pen and phone?

 

[jamil]

Have you considered that he might not want to do much and that this is a way to achieve that? The optics look like he is doing something, which takes off the heat, but then at a later time the bureaucracy conveniently finds they don't have the authority. "Aw shucks, we tried."

 

[T.Lex]

That is similar to the "NRA throwing us under the bus," argument.

There is no having the BATFE revisit revisit bump stocks. They don't need permission (its their job,) they are doing it anyway.

Which begs the question: why is Trump ordering them to do something they were already in the process of doing anyway?

PR? Pandering? Chamberlaining?

 

[T.Lex]

The BATF did revisit it last summer when the issue came up.

Actually, I posted links earlier today in this or another thread, but they were officially asking for input for rule making as recently as December 2017. The process is/was already going.

 

[BugI02]

The BATF did revisit it last summer when the issue came up. Remember how super-genius Trump was for leaving it up to them knowing they couldn’t do anything? That was asserted right here on INGO. Well. You can’t have it both ways. I’d rather his ardent supporters tell him to stop the nonsense, because he might actually listen if he thought he’d lose you. But it doesn’t sound like like you think he’s doing anything wrong. So what makes this acceptable and what Obama did with executive actions not acceptable. Or have we decided that Presidents are entitled to declare the laws they can’t get passed through congress enacted with their pen and phone?

Primus, how is this an executive order?
Secundus, the way I interpret paragraphs three, four, and five is that unless they change the definition of fully automatic weapon they will not be able to change the status of bumpstocks (and the various rapid fire trigger modifications). By publishing recommendations for rulemaking for public comment they are doing the regulatory agency thing in the correct way, and coincidently allowing time for emotions to cool. The true tell will be what the recommendations entail, and moreso whether Trump actually adopts them.

Recall that even under Osama, The BATFE had to go after M855 within the framework of existing law (GCA)



View attachment 64177

 

[BigBoxaJunk]

You can’t have it both ways.

Have you learned NOTHING about politics?

Yes you can. You can have it both ways. You can have it three different ways. You can have it as many ways as you can (have someone) hastily craft a flimsy justification.

Edit:

 

[Trigger Time]

Trumps memorandum is very carefully worded to mean exactly NOTHING. It's brilliant. Whatever lawyer or assistant drafted it is earning their pay

 

[bwframe]

Trumps memorandum is very carefully worded to mean exactly NOTHING. It's brilliant. Whatever lawyer or assistant drafted it is earning their pay

He'll get no credit for that though.

 

[AmmoManAaron]

Which begs the question: why is Trump ordering them to do something they were already in the process of doing anyway?

PR? Pandering? Chamberlaining?

I think it's PR. Get the middle calmed down with a memo that means nothing. The left will still shriek all the while, but so what. The right just needs to hold our breath and let the comment process work. Pressure on Congressmen is a good thing too.

Actually, I posted links earlier today in this or another thread, but they were officially asking for input for rule making as recently as December 2017. The process is/was already going.

Yep, the BATFE received over 36,000 comments.

Source: https://www.thetrace.org/rounds/atf-bump-stock-regulation-comments-analysis/

Breakdown:

 

[T.Lex]

Trumps memorandum is very carefully worded to mean exactly NOTHING. It's brilliant. Whatever lawyer or assistant drafted it is earning their pay

I hope you're right.

 

[Bill of Rights]

The Left deserves some credit. They did a masterful job of maneuvering Trump on this one... A tragedy happens (predictable and possibly "coincidental") and the Left is ready with students on debate teams who quickly organize and are ready with hashtags to ask for a meeting with him to discuss this issue. It's Hobson's Choice: If he chooses not to meet with them, he's heartless, and if he chooses to not do something or to not do enough after meeting with them, he is more so. Conversely, if he meets with them and DOES do anything at all that they'll see as meaningful, he alienates some of his base. The right choice is to meet with them, show them the Constitution, and ask them where in there he or anyone has the power to grant government a power it does not have, and to identify that the current 20,000-plus gun laws on the books around the nation are already infringements that violate that Constitution, not precedents to allow for more. Also, the defining point that makes someone a "criminal" is the fact that they ignore/violate laws. See choice one: He is heartless, or so the media will portray him.

As I said, masterful. And yes, whichever Constitution- and freedom-hating SOB(s) came up with the strategy needs to be horsewhipped.

For starters.

I'll quit before I really get going on that point.

That person/those people are the true enemies, and the ones we should be focusing our attentions to defeat.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[NyleRN]

I always enjoy reading your posts Bill. Glad you're part of ingo

 

[Fargo]

I hope you're right.

It depends on whether Trump is using the word "machinegun" in the 28 USC 5845 definition sense or as a term of English. In the 5845 sense the directive is legally nonsensical. If used as a term of English he is calling for gun control, phone and a pen style.