Posted on 12/18/2018 8:16:12 AM PST by GIdget2004
The Trump administration is officially banning bump-fire stocks, senior Justice Department officials told CNN Tuesday.
Under a new federal rule, those who possess the devices, commonly known as bump stocks, will get 90 days to turn them in from the date that the final rule is published in the federal register, which is likely Friday, the officials said.
Bump stocks gained national attention last year after a gunman in Las Vegas rigged his weapons with the devices to fire on concertgoers, killing 58 people. President Donald Trump vowed to outlaw the devices soon after the tragedy, and some lawmakers on Capitol Hill urged him to back a permanent legislative fix.
But opposition from lawmakers and the National Rifle Association ultimately made a regulatory change the only realistic path forward to accomplishing the President's goal.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
Also, Dems will way overeach on this issue.
People have to truly understand the “Legalese” in our daily life. Because it’s life-changing and will truly ruin you.
Registration of a car means that if the government doesn’t like what you do (Like not give your money to a private insurance company) that they can simply come and take your car.
If your car is unregistered, “Technically” they can’t take it. Of course, they do because no one understands the legalese. In CT I learned this - if you get pulled over for not having insurance, they’ll tow you. If you get pulled over for no registration they’ll give you a fine and send you on your way. That’s because they know what’s what in terms of that.
I’m trying to somehow have a life where I’m not registering my car but the lawyers have sealed up every obvious “loophole” so that I’ll lose my car and my way to work everytime. I rode a motorcycle in CT for years with no plate on it.
I don’t give a rat’s ass about the bump stocks but I don’t like the way they are being made illegal and confiscated. They are not used by competent riflemen and shooters but the camel’s nose is let under the tent with the way they are being outlawed.
Well if this is to imply that you served in combat somewhere then I do thank you for your service. I'll agree that the Cobra was a bad ass combat chopper in the VN war I myself saw much more bad ass firepower than the Cobra. Personally I liked the Warthog with all of its awesome firepower payload when the shiit gets gets hot and heavy. I was a forward observer tasked with bringing hell upon earth for my armored unit for well over a year there when called for which was often.
Know it all????? No, sorry friend but you seem to have that category all to yourself hands down. It’s time for me to be moving on as you act like you’re the one who knows it all so I should no longer bother you.
Your friend had to pay $8000 for a stamped piece of junk (personal opinion) that cost $50 to make. In a free market it would cost a few hundred dollars at most. If legislation results in something that should be inexpensive being priced out of reach of the vast majority of gun owners, that’s a de facto ban.
If legislation resulted in all telescopic sights costing $10,000 or more, would you be arguing that they haven’t been de facto banned just because 1 in 100 gun owners could still afford them?
Yep, the weapons systems today compared to VN are awesome.
Can you imagine General Patton’s glee if he could seen some M-1 Abrams?
Thanks for your service.
You still came across as a wise ass know it all punk.
NOTHINGBURGER!
Who cares! Who would want a bump stock anyway? What a waste of expensive ammo! One round, one kill. Second round, second kill. 30 bump stock rounds, zero kills.
Much ado about nothing. If you have a bump stock, keep it.
If you don’t, you saved yourself some money otherwise wasted.
You can pull the trigger yourself, faster than you can aim.
Rubber band time If I could afford ammo
Look, I only said that automatic weapons are not banned. I did not say anything about “de facto” bans or the moral legitimacy of the laws that make them prohibitively expensive. I simply stated a fact. Why is that so hard for you guys to comprehend? I don’t understand. Seriously. Neither of you can dispute the simple fact of what I said. There is no ban on the sell or possession of automatic weapons. You keep getting into straw man arguments.Yes, federal law creates a false shortage which increases the cost. BUT THEY ARE NOT BANNED!
That having been said, I repeat my question; If legislation resulted in all telescopic sights costing $10,000 or more, would you be arguing that they haven’t been de facto banned just because 1 in 100 gun owners could still afford them?
And just as an aside, since Trump isn't allowing any bump stocks to be registered as NFA items, he is banning them.
Only automatic weapons MANUFACTURED BEFORE 1986 are not banned. Ref. the Hughes Amendment.
If you're going to be pedantic about this, you also need to be 100% correct. Your original statement was incorrect. I have provided you with the correct information.
You're welcome.
Why do you care what people want?
Much ado about nothing. If you have a bump stock, keep it.
And if you're caught with it 3 months from now, you go to jail for years. Is that "nothing"?
Only automatic weapons MANUFACTURED BEFORE 1986 are not banned
Man, I can’t believe the stuff I’m seeing on here today. No logic to be found. So, automatic weapons are not banned but automatic weapons manufactured after 1986 are banned and therefore all automatic weapons are banned and my statement that automatic weapons are not banned is false. Does that sum up your logic?
I agree that there is no ban on full autos at the federal level
Then you just agreed with the only statement I have made on this subject on this post. The other comments you made are not relevant to that statement. What is a “de facto” ban? If I can purchase something, is it banned or not? That is a straw man argument. Obviously people are willing to pay 20 or 30 thousand dollars for an M16. If they are willing and able to purchase them, how is that a ban? And I’m pretty sure I have not mentioned in one post about bump stocks. I am only defending the statement I made, that automatic weapons are not banned. You agree with me, yet feel a need to bring up unrelated subjects. That confuses me very much.
I’ve had my eye on a really nice truck lately. Unfortunately, they must be banned because I don’t have $65,000 to pay for one.
Bump stocks are the subject of the OP. It's hardly off-topic for this thread.
For your analogy to be faithful, there would have to be legislation forcing the price of your "really nice truck" to a million dollars.
Perhaps this will help:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_facto
“Bump stocks are the subject of the OP. It’s hardly off-topic for this thread.”
I haven’t mentioned them. But it’s kind of ironic that I had a debate the other day with a FReeper about bump stocks. I’m not sure where you stand, and I really don’t want to start another debate, but I was arguing that there is no law supporting the ban on bump stocks. The person I was arguing with, when I stated the law, would copy and paste a portion of a news article about the Las Vegas shootings. They wouldn’t argue the law, just try to change the subject or throw up a straw man argument. Seems like a trend around here. I said earlier, and I meant it, if someone proves me wrong, I will admit it and apologize. Most people don’t seem to want to do that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.