Trump administration officially bans bump stocks

CNN ^ | 12/18/2018 | Laura Jarrett

[GOPsterinMA]

No doubt...

[Georgia Girl 2]

The way I look at Trump’s philosophy on guns is that he’s a defender of the 2nd amendment and he has a CCL and is likely proficient with his handgun. But he’s not really a gun guy per se. More than likely he runs this stuff past Don Jr. Don probably told him the same thing I said. “Its the least thing you can do to stop the gun control talk”. So he did it.

[The Pack Knight]

The problem, in addition to the President ignoring separation of powers, is that it isn’t a “trade off” if you don’t get anything in return. There’s no quid pro quo here. There’s just quid.

This term, we were supposed to get suppressors off the NFA and national reciprocity on concealed carry permits. Instead, we got an illegal executive bump stock ban and Fix NICS.

[ssfromla]

Hell they're the ones who set this in motion last year. Did you forget that?

Wow. Nah, I probably read it but forgot all about it. Thank you for your reply.

Merry Christmas

[NorthMountain]

If the Hughes amendment does not ban automatic weapons, which it does not,

That statement is false.

Try again.

Specifically, go to your local Class III dealer and try to buy an automatic weapon manufactured after 1986.

You will find that you are unable to do so ... because

THEY

HAVE

BEEN

BANNED.

[NorthMountain]

I just cannot understand

Cannot, or will not?

[UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide]

It wasn’t snark. It was sarcasm, irony and pathos for the state of the law.

[Leaning Right]

> It wasn’t snark. It was sarcasm... <

LOL. I just reread your original post. Yes, I can see it now (really). And I should have seen it originally, because I’m a fan of that approach.

Subtle sarcasm can be quite effective. But sometimes it goes over the head of someone who’s not expecting it (like me in this case).

Regards,
LR

[JamesP81]

The manner in which he did it will unleash a literal hell on earth in this country if it passes muster in the courts, which I suspect it will.

Trump may have done irreparable damage to the republic, not because he banned a bump stock, but because of HOW he went about it.

[JamesP81]

The BATFE specifically stated binary triggers are not banned on page 83 of the ruling. Which is fascinating on several levels to say the least.

[Georgia Girl 2]

Agreed.

[publiusF27]

He's doing something so illegal even the Obama Administration refrained from doing it. That's not nothing.

That's how I see it.

Bumping Against The Constitution

In this case, the existing law specifically defines “machine gun”; several administrations have reviewed bump stocks and repeatedly determined that they don’t fall in that category. It’s been clear for decades that Gatling guns and bump stocks were not machine guns. This regulation is not an attempt to clarify a vague law, but to seize political expediency to expand the power of the executive.

If the government really wants to regulate bump stocks, it needs to do so by passing a new law, not by assigning new meaning to an old one. The Founders weren’t short-sighted; there is a reason laws that affect the entire nation have to come through Congress, not reimagined by bureaucrats.

What’s worse is the fact that the administration’s attempt to skirt the Constitution is for something as inconsequential as bump stocks. We are talking about seriously damaging the integrity of our legal system over a novelty item.

[Travis T. OJustice]

Others are wrong.