bump stock ban blocked! What?!?!

[ISCS Yoda]

Having spent a number of my formative lawyer years as an industry regulatory counsel, later on 13 years with a Federal agency, never mind decades with a military agency on weekends, all I can say is BRAVO to the foregoing!

 

[bushmaster1313]

Two problems with the BATFE bump stock rule.

1) The delegation of rule making authority that has the effect of letting criminal laws be put on the books by unelected regulatory agencies. It’s called the regulatory state and it’s been with us for a long time. Not much to say.

2) The big problem I see with the BATFE recent rule making on bumpstocks is that it is the exact opposite of the ruling under Pres. Obama. Under Obama the same BATFE looked at the same NFA statute and found that bumpstocks were not machine guns and then under Pres. Trump the the BATFE said they were. To me this shows that the underlying NFA statute defining machine guns must be ambiguous, at least as applied to bumpstocks.

 

[Racer X]

Two problems with the BATFE bump stock rule.

1) The delegation of rule making authority that has the effect of letting criminal laws be put on the books by unelected regulatory agencies. It’s called the regulatory state and it’s been with us for a long time. Not much to say.

2) The big problem I see with the BATFE recent rule making on bumpstocks is that it is the exact opposite of the ruling under Pres. Obama. Under Obama the same BATFE looked at the same NFA statute and found that bumpstocks were not machine guns and then under Pres. Trump the the BATFE said they were. To me this shows that the underlying NFA statute defining machine guns must be ambiguous, at least as applied to bumpstocks.

as to #1, didn't W Virginia v EPA put all the regulatory agencies on notice that this practice would now be under close scrutiny if any regulation ever went to court over being perceived a de facto law?

 

[bushmaster1313]

My understanding is that the West Virginia v EPA case had to do with what did Congress specifically delegate to the EPA in this circumstance.

I do not think that is the issue with bumpstocks. The BATFE has jurisdiction over commerce in machine guns and the question was whether a bumpstock was a machine gun.

 

[03hemi]

U.S. appeals court blocks ban on rapid-fire '''bump stocks''' - POLITICO

" A Trump administration ban on bump stocks — devices that enable a shooter to rapidly fire multiple rounds from semi-automatic weapons after an initial trigger pull — was struck down Friday by a federal appeals court in New Orleans."

"The ruling by the 16-member 5th U.S. Circuit Court of appeals is the latest on the issue, which is likely to be decided at the Supreme Court."

And if it gets to SCOTUS, they will almost assuredly rule that the ATF does not have the authority to create defacto laws like this.

now, I have no need for a bump stock, but that isn't the point. The president doesn't have the authority to tell an agency make something illegal, nor does that agency.

Well, I have no use for one because they’re stupid and gimmicky to begin with, not to mention that’s not an accurate description of how they work anyway, but more of how the actual workings were lied about to get the ban shoved through on a knee jerk reaction. Thanks Don! Lol
Good news just the same. Totally agree

 

[Sistema1927]

It was a completely wrong move to ban bump stocks by magically calling them machine guns. I have never wanted one, but that doesn't matter. Next thing you know, the ATF will be calling shoe laces machine guns.

Shoestring Machine Gun

 

[RoyM52]

It is quite possible that fewer people were killed BECAUSE the shooter used a bump stock instead of actually aiming.

 

[Racer X]

It was a completely wrong move to ban bump stocks by magically calling them machine guns. I have never wanted one, but that doesn't matter. Next thing you know, the ATF will be calling shoe laces machine guns.

Shoestring Machine Gun

Yes, by all means, any piece of string, or strong elastic band is a machinegun by their arguement.

I was watching a video just a few hours ago where they were explaining various AR trigger types MilSpec, single vs 2 stage, competion flat etc. They were easily getting off 6 rounds per second anyway, even with a 7 pound mil-spec *** trigger. The bump stock wouldn't make that much difference other than wildly innacurately upping the round count. Once people start to spread out, a bump stock would be even more useless.

 

[vipermd]

It is quite possible that fewer people were killed BECAUSE the shooter used a bump stock instead of actually aiming.

No "bumpstocks" were used in a crime. The Vegas shooting was supposedly a bump stock, but listen to the video, and compare it to a real machine firing, they are different. No one ever proved that who ever did the shooting was using a bumpstock. We will never know what really happened. As for " bumpshooting", many you tube videos show that a belt loop, a thumb and a semi-auto can allow bumpshooting.The AR-15 Belt Loop Trick [Full Auto/No Bump Stock] - YouTube. Hopefully they will get it right. Be Safe,

 

[RCL-09]

It is quite possible that fewer people were killed BECAUSE the shooter used a bump stock instead of actually aiming.

You're spot on there. But trying to convince and explain it to neophytes and the ignorant is a Herculean task.

 

[BB57]

Yes, by all means, any piece of string, or strong elastic band is a machinegun by their arguement.

I was watching a video just a few hours ago where they were explaining various AR trigger types MilSpec, single vs 2 stage, competion flat etc. They were easily getting off 6 rounds per second anyway, even with a 7 pound mil-spec *** trigger. The bump stock wouldn't make that much difference other than wildly innacurately upping the round count. Once people start to spread out, a bump stock would be even more useless.

Someone showed up in my FB feed appalled at how a guy named Miculek could fire 6 rounds per second with an AR-15.

So I posted the video of Jerry Miculek shooting 8 rounds in one second with a *revolver*.

[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WzHG-ibZaKM"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WzHG-ibZaKM[/ame]

 

[BB57]

It is quite possible that fewer people were killed BECAUSE the shooter used a bump stock instead of actually aiming.

You can make a similar argument that braced pistols with their by definition short barrels are less lethal than their carbine or rifle counterparts with their longer barrels and the higher velocity and greater energy that they produce.

Getting shot sucks, but if I had a choice between getting shot with 5.56x45 M193 or M855 out of a 16” carbine or an 8” pistol, I’ll choose the pistol anytime as both rounds are already below their minimum threshold for tumbling at the muzzle.

 

[Rodan]

You can make a similar argument that braced pistols with their by definition short barrels are less lethal than their carbine or rifle counterparts with their longer barrels and the higher velocity and greater energy that they produce.

Getting shot sucks, but if I had a choice between getting shot with 5.56x45 M193 or M855 out of a 16” carbine or an 8” pistol, I’ll choose the pistol anytime as both rounds are already below their minimum threshold for tumbling at the muzzle.

Very true, but ultimately it's a distinction without a difference.

I do understand that you're not making the argument, but only commenting on it. IMHO, we sometimes hurt our cause by making arguments like this with the 'gun-ignorant'. To the general public, debating the relative lethality of different guns is nonsensical.

We're better off making the argument that controlling/prohibiting a particular inanimate object will have zero effect on the behavior of a lunatic.