You have 29 days starting today to prevent ban on Bump Stocks , Binary triggers

[spencer rifle]

Done.

 

[Viper1973]

Done...

We should have the same right to use the same weapons as law enforcement or the military to defend ourselves and our property.

I'm not a fan of bump stocks, mainly due to the unnecessary wear and tear they cause. However, it's a sad turn of events when we even have to create these workarounds because some snowflake somewhere is scared by the big, black, scary, 'un-neutered' gun.

 

[searpinski]

Commented.

 

[ArevaloSocom]

12 days left:

https://www.federalregister.gov/doc...to-bump-fire-stocks-and-other-similar-devices

 

[ArevaloSocom]

Bump stock ban signed into law in New Jersey - WFMZ

[FONT=&quot]The outgoing Republican governor made no statement Monday on the Democratic-sponsored legislation making ownership of the devices illegal. Under previous law, they weren't banned but were barred from legal use on weapons.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]"Bump stocks essentially turn a legal firearm into an illegal firearm," said Eric Houghtaling, a Democratic assemblyman from Monmouth County. "Amending the law to ban them simply closes a loophole that endangers the people of New Jersey."[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]NJ.com reported that owners have 90 days to surrender bump stocks or "trigger cranks." Retailers have 30 days. Sale or possession now carries a three- to five-year sentence, a fine of up to $15,000, or both.[/FONT]

 

[Hop]

NJ, a cess pool of 2A hating politicians.

 

[actaeon277]

NJ, a cess pool of 2A hating politicians.

You're right, not exactly a surprise.
New Jersey outlawed hollowpoints.

 

[ArevaloSocom]

Mass official:

http://blog.goal.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Bump-Stock-Letter-LICENSEES.pdf

 

[ArevaloSocom]

ATTENTION:
At 3pm EST and 2pm CST we will be going live on YouTube with the former Chief of the Technology Brach at the ATF, Rick Vasquez. He wants to tell us just how dangerous this rule change supported by the NRA coming down Jan 25th really is.


We're not fear mongering like the NRA fanboys claim, this is coming from a man from inside the ATF at an executive level who knows all about gun laws, rules, how they're made and how dangerous this particular proposed change is. Please check it out and spread the word.


Go to my YouTube page (www.militaryarmschannel.com) at 3pm EST / 2pm CST to watch and ask questions.

 

[Hop]

Tim was hot under the collar for sure. Good job guys!

 

[Floivanus]

Get the comments going guys, be respectful and do it right.

IV8888 posted that they're scrambling to do a video as well on it, little late to the party, Tim (MAC) has been preaching about it since day one.

 

[ArevaloSocom]

Get the comments going guys, be respectful and do it right.

IV8888 posted that they're scrambling to do a video as well on it, little late to the party, Tim (MAC) has been preaching about it since day one.

Rick Vasquez, former ATF agent who worked on the original definition, is speaking with Tim from Military Arms Channel, and his people, on the ATF and their advanced notice for the proposed rule making on bump fire stocks.

Rick says to write comments that are meaningful and important so they aren't discarded (he says it is important to comment).

Rick says they are looking to define bump stocks as machine guns as "any device that resets a semi-automatic triggerbased on its recoil" or something along those lines.

The fear is that definition is so vague and broad that could cause problems for us in the future.

In other words, everything people like me and others warned could happen back when Congress was looking at this may be happening.

Edit: for clarification, by "cause problems" I mean we could face a federal version of what happened in Massachusetts where they "reinterpret" the law on assault weapons to ban things not originally covered under the law. In other words, a unfriendly ATF, in the future, under this ruling, could essentially render most-to-all semi-autos as machine guns.

 

[GrinderCB]

IV8888 posted their video with Mr. Vasquez yesterday, which I watched. Two major takeaways I got from this issue:

(1) In an election year (the huge 2018 mid-terms) no congressman or senator wants to have it thrown back in his face that he acted to change the law involving something as controversial as gun control. This method of requiring ATF to redefine what a machine gun is and to give their regulations a greater weight than legislation itself is their way of getting something done without having to take the blame. I'm no lawyer but IMO giving legislative authority to unelected bureaucrats that creates a no-recourse situation for those affected is very very VERY dangerous and possibly unconstitutional.

(2) If ATF redefines what a machine gun is, to include rate-increasing devices such as bump-fire stocks, it starts up the whole slippery slope about any accessory or technology in the gun industry that makes guns more efficient. One could make an argument that magazines with multiple rounds increase the rate of fire and are therefore illegal because they create a machine gun.

Bottom line, we have to hammer Congress, the Senate and the ATF over this. It's simply another lawyer trick they're trying out in order to weaken gun ownership.

 

[GrinderCB]

Okay, done. The National Firearms Act of 1934 was passed by both houses and signed into law by the President, using the correct legislative method. Making a bureaucratic agency like the ATF modify it is IMO unconstitutional. If a law is passed the normal way then it should only be changed the normal way. Giving these agencies the ability to legislate without any voter consequence is dangerous and takes us in the direction of a Soviet style government.

I remember a line in "Gorky Park" by Martin Cruz Smith: "The KGB decides what interests the KGB." We don't want ATF to decide what interests ATF. Congress should pass the laws with public participation and support and the ATF should enforce them.

Based on sheer numbers, at this time there's no way that the Federal government could pass major gun control if they allowed all parties to have a fair say in the proposed legislation. But since they can't pass it that way, they rely on these political lawyer procedural tricks to bypass the civil population.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Commented. We’ll see it the BATFE listens to us or not. Only showing 7805 public comments as of this post.

 

[NyleRN]

The way I see it is that ATF cannot make law nor can they change it. If the definition in the current law for a machine gun is already established, which it is, then congress has to vote to change it. ATF can try and change it but if challenged at the Supreme Court level then I'd imagine they will look at congress and say you all need to vote on this to change it

 

[GlockRiver]

Where is Trump in all this??? I voted for him to prevent s**t like this.

 

[A 7.62 Exodus]

It’s become quite obvious that the NRA doesn’t give a flying **** about our rights. They’re pushing this, and have been since day one. If this gets amended, we’re screwed. Literally, not figuratively.

 

[BigMoose]

I put in my comments against the ban, but sadly we let the AK guys burn over 7n6 because no one cared, then we screamed bloody murder over M855.

I don’t think enough people care about bump stocks as most people see the for the useless gimmicks they are.

So there you are, I think they are stupid and useless but I absolutely do not want them banned.

The binary triggers are going to be hard to enforce.

 

[GrinderCB]

The way I see it is that ATF cannot make law nor can they change it. If the definition in the current law for a machine gun is already established, which it is, then congress has to vote to change it. ATF can try and change it but if challenged at the Supreme Court level then I'd imagine they will look at congress and say you all need to vote on this to change it

You are correct. Congress has used their political lawyer tricks to tell ATF to redefine a machine gun to include rate-increasing devices. Its not the redefinition per se that's the big issue here. It's the ATF, a bureaucratic agency not answerable to the voters, being given the power to modify existing legislation. That's the dangerous part. I'd have no problem if they passed such a regulation the normal way because at least we'd have a voice in it during the debate. This all goes toward "consent of the governed" and "no taxation without representation." In our Republic the government isn't supposed to be able to legislate with impunity. That's reason #1 why we need to defeat this issue.