Bump Stock etc... "Banned"!

[Watchdog]

If anyone wants to read the full and final ruling and everything related to the bump stock ban (all 157 pages of it), they may do so by clicking here. It's a lot of information to wade through, take my word for it.

It settles the question and should put an end to the endless arguing over the dictionary and legal meanings of the word "taken" or "taking", and it explains the government's reasons as to why bump stock owners are not due any compensation. Bump stock owners aren't going to get any money, no matter how many lawsuits are filed and no matter how many Constitutional amendments are used as a basis for arguing compensation.

The highest court in the land refused to block this ban. That should tell folks something, right there. It's a done deal. Bump stocks were doomed as soon as Stephen Paddock pulled the trigger in Las Vegas. The president wanted a ban on them. The attorney general and BATFE do what they're told to do.

Maybe it's time to move on to some fights we have a better chance of winning.

 

[GaryS]

That is the final RULE by the ATF, not a RULING by a court. All that SCOTUS did was deny a petition for a temporary stay prohibiting the ATF from issuing the rule.

There is still likely to be litigation on this issue, which may well end up back a SCOTUS.

In the mean time, people who own bump stocks (I'm not one) will likely just hide them as they are not registered and there is unlikely to be a list of buyers that can easily be found.

If anyone wants to read the full and final ruling and everything related to the bump stock ban (all 157 pages of it), they may do so by clicking here. It's a lot of information to wade through, take my word for it.

It settles the question and should put an end to the endless arguing over the dictionary and legal meanings of the word "taken" or "taking", and it explains the government's reasons as to why bump stock owners are not due any compensation. Bump stock owners aren't going to get any money, no matter how many lawsuits are filed and no matter how many Constitutional amendments are used as a basis for arguing compensation.

The highest court in the land refused to block this ban. That should tell folks something, right there. It's a done deal. Bump stocks were doomed as soon as Stephen Paddock pulled the trigger in Las Vegas. The president wanted a ban on them. The attorney general and BATFE do what they're told to do.

Maybe it's time to move on to some fights we have a better chance of winning.

 

[stansdds]

In the mean time, people who own bump stocks (I'm not one) will likely just hide them as they are not registered and there is unlikely to be a list of buyers that can easily be found.

Just as many people did with their wine and liquor when prohibition was enacted.

 

[Watchdog]

That is the final RULE by the ATF, not a RULING by a court. All that SCOTUS did was deny a petition for a temporary stay prohibiting the ATF from issuing the rule.

There is still likely to be litigation on this issue, which may well end up back a SCOTUS.

Okay, I accidentally used the wrong word. I said "ruling" instead of "rule". Can we stop playing with semantics and definitions now? Anyone who takes time to read the final rule will see it's called a rule on the first page.

Saying "likely to be" and "may well" is like saying "what if", "maybe", or "possibly". It's speculation that doesn't affect a thing right now. By denying gun rights groups petitions and requests, the Supreme Court has effectively upheld the current ban on bump stocks, and they've agreed the process used to achieve the ban is proper.

Although there will be no federal buy back type program, individual states may initiate one at their discretion. I believe Washington state has such a program.

Bottom line for me is I don't see any point in more crying over spilt milk here. Bump stocks have no practical use. I don't see bump stocks as some sort of Second Amendment sacred cow that's worth thousands or millions of dollars fighting over in court. Those are my opinions, by the way, not statements of facts. Folks want to keep going over and over the same ground on this, that's their right.

 

[daglockman]

How do you determine the "fair market value" of a commodity that can not be bought, sold or possessed? They are worthless, thus no compensation necessary.

Best,
Rick

You are missing the point completely.
It was a item approved for sales by the federal government that arbitrarily turned illegal and thus worthless, with ABSOLUTLY NO EVIDENCE that any of the projectiles were fired from any of the bumpstock equipped weapons, or any of the weapons from the hotel room that Paddock was supposedly firing from.
As pointed out before, what is to stop the government from determining that Honda cars (or any other auto maker) are no longer efficient enough to be driven in the USA, and they must be turned in with absolutely no compensation.

 

[biku324]

This is how legitimate gunowners lose mainstream support - by embracing fringe equipment and silly conspiracy theories.

I'd mildly suggest that unless one has a copy of the police report of the matter they are engaging in speculation about whether or not bumpstocks were used by the sicko murderer in Vegas. I'd also mention the only folks I've personally met who owned and used bumpstocks were gangbangers and their thug associates near Roswell, NM.

 

[BigBill]

They didnt review all the bumpfire shooters on you tube who don't use a bumpfire stock?

Is it still ok to bump fire without a bumpfire stock?

I don't bump fire anyway not to waste ammo.

 

[stansdds]

They didnt review all the bumpfire shooters on you tube who don't use a bumpfire stock?

Is it still ok to bump fire without a bumpfire stock?

I don't bump fire anyway not to waste ammo.

The range where I shoot says not on their range, but there is no law prohibiting bump firing a firearm so long as you are not using a prohibited device. I see this as the next basis for banning all semi-automatic firearms. What did I say about a slippery slope?

 

[steelslaver]

I've lived in and out of USA all my life. And until 2017 I looked the overseas folk who queried me about guns in American, in the eye, and said, "you can travel to USA without danger". And now I can't. Bump stocks did that

This shows your logic is seriously flawed. There has been violent crime before bump stocks and the number of bump stocks used in violent crime is very minimal. True the Vegas deal was horrific, but to blame crime in America on bump stocks is ridiculous.

The number of crimes committed with legally possessed suppressors is non existent.

Please stay in Australia.

 

[OLDSTER]

Reference my earlier post. I'm still waiting for any forum member to give me one plausible excuse why they think they need a bump stock. And please not the lame "infringement on my 2nd amendment right" excuse. C'mon; just one good reason is all I ask.

 

[Muss Muggins]

They're really, really cool if you can master them, which is no easy trick . . .

Reference my earlier post. I'm still waiting for any forum member to give me one plausible excuse why they think they need a bump stock. And please not the lame "infringement on my 2nd amendment right" excuse. C'mon; just one good reason is all I ask.

 

[ladder13]

Reference my earlier post. I'm still waiting for any forum member to give me one plausible excuse why they think they need a bump stock. And please not the lame "infringement on my 2nd amendment right" excuse. C'mon; just one good reason is all I ask.

I suggest you read this thread from the beginning, and if that doesn't suit you....well.

 

[GaryS]

Eating the elephant, one bite at a time.

Reference my earlier post. I'm still waiting for any forum member to give me one plausible excuse why they think they need a bump stock. And please not the lame "infringement on my 2nd amendment right" excuse. C'mon; just one good reason is all I ask.

 

[WCCPHD]

Reference my earlier post. I'm still waiting for any forum member to give me one plausible excuse why they think they need a bump stock. And please not the lame "infringement on my 2nd amendment right" excuse. C'mon; just one good reason is all I ask.

I don't have one, don't want one, actually can't understand why anyone else does. That said, everyone is different.

As far as needing one, I can't for the life of me remember reading anything in the US Constitution about the "Bill of NEEDS."

People don't need private boats, private planes, sports cars, enormous SUV's and myriad other things. Its not about NEEDS, its about having a fundamental right taken away from honest, tax paying, free citizens one little bit at a time.

I feel certain that there is something that you like/want/have that I think and can articulately argue is not needed. Obviously you don't think that anyone NEEDS a bumpstock. That's your right and I respect that; however, when others want to ban something that I or others have just because they don't like it then that's the overarching problem that this thread is about.

 

[stansdds]

I don't have one, don't want one, actually can't understand why anyone else does. That said, everyone is different.

As far as needing one, I can't for the life of me remember reading anything in the US Constitution about the "Bill of NEEDS."

People don't need private boats, private planes, sports cars, enormous SUV's and myriad other things. Its not about NEEDS, its about having a fundamental right taken away from honest, tax paying, free citizens one little bit at a time.

I feel certain that there is something that you like/want/have that I think and can articulately argue is not needed. Obviously you don't think that anyone NEEDS a bumpstock. That's your right and I respect that; however, when others want to ban something that I or others have just because they don't like it then that's the overarching problem that this thread is about.

Well said and no, our constitution does not spell out the needs, it spells out the rights and the protection of those rights. Does anyone need a Hummer? Probably not, I don't care for them, but if you like them, then who am I to deny you possession of one?


If you want to go to the range or an area where it is safe to do so and you want a device that allows you to blow through that 100 round value pack of ammo in 10 seconds or less, who am I to deny you to do so? The Declaration of Independence states three inalienable rights; the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If consuming mass quantities of ammo in the blink of an eye brings you happiness, as long as you are not harming others or damaging their property, who am I to deny you your happiness?



Just because one person abuses their rights does not mean that all should have their rights stripped from them.

 

[Mr.Harry]

I don't have one, don't want one, actually can't understand why anyone else does. That said, everyone is different.

As far as needing one, I can't for the life of me remember reading anything in the US Constitution about the "Bill of NEEDS."

People don't need private boats, private planes, sports cars, enormous SUV's and myriad other things. Its not about NEEDS, its about having a fundamental right taken away from honest, tax paying, free citizens one little bit at a time.

I feel certain that there is something that you like/want/have that I think and can articulately argue is not needed. Obviously you don't think that anyone NEEDS a bumpstock. That's your right and I respect that; however, when others want to ban something that I or others have just because they don't like it then that's the overarching problem that this thread is about.

I like this post and respect it immensely. But there are also some 'holes' in the logic if drawn to the extreme. I mean, why can't I have some depleted uranium around if it pleases me to possess it. I could go on.

 

[steelslaver]

Actually you can own up to 7 kilos of solid depleted uranium.

 

[riverrat38]

Although there will be no federal buy back type program, individual states may initiate one at their discretion. I believe Washington state has such a program.

Yes, Washington State did have a buy back program, funded by our Legislature, and administered by the WSP. There have been Freedom of Information Act requests by anti gun groups for the State to release the information in order to embarrass the people who turned in the stocks. An injunction has been filed to stop the release of the information. As far as I know, the wheels of Justice are still turning. Here is a link to an article in the Seattle Times.

Lawsuit seeks to prevent Washington from releasing names of participants in state's bump stock-buyback program | The Seattle Times

Best,
Rick

 

[Hoov]

I am still amazed at the number of FUDDs on this site that believe a device, whether it be a belt loop or a car muffler, makes something else that is inanimate as well, more "deadly."

 

[Muss Muggins]

Well, to cite an example from The Walking Dead:

Baseball bat: Bad

Barbed wire wrapped baseball bat: Worse

I don't want to get hit with either one, but if I got to pick . . .

I am still amazed at the number of FUDDs on this site that believe a device, whether it be a belt loop or a car muffler, makes something else that is inanimate as well, more "deadly."

 

[BC38]

I am still amazed at the number of FUDDs on this site that believe a device, whether it be a belt loop or a car muffler, makes something else that is inanimate as well, more "deadly."

And I'm still amazed at the number of people on this site who can't express their opinion without calling other gun owners derogatory names and further dividing us - which only benefits our real opposition.

 

[Chubbo]

Our strange society

Now would be a good time for people taking part in the shooting sports, and also the people that would deprive them of it, to review their interests.

The main interest of a great number of legal shooters today, is in firearms used in warfare. Even when they are to be used for hunting wild game animals. This makes me , as a 'liberal', a bit squeamish, imagine how it makes our Socialistic, Conservative, and Absolute Ruling type people feel.

This interest in Weapons of war, has our 'shooting sports', in a turmoil. we individuals, and also organisations, such as the NRA, should give this situation lots of thought.

Now would be a good time for the 'News Media', to take responsibility for their actions. Their irresponsible, detailed information, has helped many unknown, insecure, people to obtain worldwide fame, with the use of a firearm to kill innocent people.

Chubbo

 

[Wise_A]

Reference my earlier post. I'm still waiting for any forum member to give me one plausible excuse why they think they need a bump stock. And please not the lame "infringement on my 2nd amendment right" excuse. C'mon; just one good reason is all I ask.

I don't need any of my guns. Not my 1911s, not my Glocks--and certainly not my funtimes happyblaster 34--and not my revolvers. I especially don't need my 8-shot .357 S&W R8, which is clearly more dangerous and deadly than your average 6-shooter. And forget about the 629. The hell do I need to shoot through a moose for?

I further don't need my MDT TAC21 chassis'd Remmy 700 Varmint, which is a blatant excuse to bypass the laws of my great state, which specifically prohibit scary-looking guns. I don't need my Vortex 6.5-20 scope, either, 4x would be plenty for shooting deer.

For that matter, what do I need a ranging first focal plane reticle for? That is clearly a piece of military equipment, which must of course mean I am determining range using MRAD subtensions held against the shoulders of my innocent victims. All scopes should clearly be SFP, and turret adjustments should be required to not match reticle subtensions.

But, too bad. None of these things, or the various excesses they represent, make a single person any less safe. My owning them doesn't infringe on anyone else's God-given rights. And so I am free to own them, for the simple fact that they put great big smiles on my face.

Especially the R8 and the 629.

As such, it's not up to me to justify why I need any of the things I own. If you are feeling conflicted about bump stocks, ask yourself this:

Thousands of people own them.

One lunatic uses one wrongly.

By that metric, we shouldn't have pickup trucks, alcohol of any sort, computers, cell phones, Twitter, Facebook...well, let's just say "the Internet", privacy, the Bill of Rights in general, the Constitution, fast food, marriage, sex (Exhibit A: Honey Boo-Boo), kitchen knives, gasoline, spray paint...

Catch my drift? Everything gets misused. We only ban the things that cannot be used responsibly without harm.

When you ask "Good heavens! Why does anyone need a bump-stock?", what you are really saying is "I don't like them, therefore, nobody should have them." And, pro-tip--that's what anti-gun'ers say about all guns.

That said, I agree. Bump stocks are dumb as hell. Your LGS should just have select-fire SOPMOD M4s in stock.

 

[touchoneoff]

Now would be a good time for people taking part in the shooting sports, and also the people that would deprive them of it, to review their interests.

The main interest of a great number of legal shooters today, is in firearms used in warfare. Even when they are to be used for hunting wild game animals. This makes me , as a 'liberal', a bit squeamish, imagine how it makes our Socialistic, Conservative, and Absolute Ruling type people feel.

This interest in Weapons of war, has our 'shooting sports', in a turmoil. we individuals, and also organisations, such as the NRA, should give this situation lots of thought.

Now would be a good time for the 'News Media', to take responsibility for their actions. Their irresponsible, detailed information, has helped many unknown, insecure, people to obtain worldwide fame, with the use of a firearm to kill innocent people.

Chubbo

The media taking responsibility for their actions? Never gonna happen....they are the mouthpiece for the "agenda makers".

 

[bushmaster1313]

That "special deference" may soon be overturned.

See: Kisor v. Wilkie - SCOTUSblog

We will know the answer by June 15. In particular, to what extent must a court defer to an agency's interpretation of its own ambiguous regulation.

If it was up to me, I would rule that a court must consider, but is not bound, by what an agency says about its own regulation.

 

[Chubbo]

Understanding?

I guess I don't understand why threads like this, about subjects like this, are started.

Why do we let ourselves get caught up in them?

We all know that we are prohibited, on this great forum, from discussing political topics, when In fact, the subject of politics is exactly what we all want to discuss. We all know the answers to the problems being presented for discussion, as well as the solution to those problems.

We all know, that no amount of knowledgeable talk will solve those problems, so, why discuss it, knowing full well that it won't matter anyway?

I choose not to participate, and to move on, to something that doesn't involve politics.

Chubbo

 

[stansdds]

I guess I don't understand why threads like this, about subjects like this, are started.

Why do we let ourselves get caught up in them?

We all know that we are prohibited, on this great forum, from discussing political topics, when In fact, the subject of politics is exactly what we all want to discuss. We all know the answers to the problems being presented for discussion, as well as the solution to those problems.

We all know, that no amount of knowledgeable talk will solve those problems, so, why discuss it, knowing full well that it won't matter anyway?

I choose not to participate, and to move on, to something that doesn't involve politics.

Chubbo

So are you saying that gun owners should ignore such things? Do we stick our heads into the sand and assume that everything is going to be alright? I cannot buy into such logic as firearms laws seem to have less to do with logic and more to do with politics.


Correct me if I am wrong.

 

[mike from st pete]

Reporter asks, "What do you think about silencers Mr President?"
Trump replies, "I don't like them."
See how the mind of the typical NYC moderate works.

 

[dockmurgw]

Reporter asks, "What do you think about silencers Mr President?"
Trump replies, "I don't like them."
See how the mind of the typical NYC moderate works.

I read that quote, the wiz reporter actually asked the President if he felt silencers should be regulated. Evidently that reporter thinks they can be purchased at the local five and dime store. And yea, the Presidents response is an indicator of what is coming next. A ban, like the subject of this thread.

 

[03hemi]

Reference my earlier post. I'm still waiting for any forum member to give me one plausible excuse why they think they need a bump stock. And please not the lame "infringement on my 2nd amendment right" excuse. C'mon; just one good reason is all I ask.

I don't have, nor want one, but one could argue "just because they're fun at the range" period. I don't want a 700hp vehicle, but that shouldn't stop anybody else from owning one. Why does anybody need a binary trigger? Because they're just fun at the range. Period.