-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
Trump Banned Bump Stocks
- Thread starter Reptile
- Start date
not quite....
This doesn't mean anything, if Sessions comes back and says "no, we can't do that because it's not legal to do so".
On the other hand he could just go to BATFE and say "make it so" and it happens via executive fiat, until a legal challenge...
-Mike
This doesn't mean anything, if Sessions comes back and says "no, we can't do that because it's not legal to do so".
On the other hand he could just go to BATFE and say "make it so" and it happens via executive fiat, until a legal challenge...
-Mike
I doubt that would take long. Gross overstep of authority, especially in light of ATF testimony that regulating bump stocks are currently conforming accessories.
VTski4x4
NES Member
Tim_McD
NES Member
May / may not happen, but it ticks the “doing something” box and takes the “no presidential action” argument off the table
You can still claim it isn’t enough or it is posturing, but it is still more than Congress has done
You can still claim it isn’t enough or it is posturing, but it is still more than Congress has done
I'm mostly worried about him being "Open" to UBCs...
Trump says he's open to things and is willing to take a look at things. Doesn't really bother me because it it essentially meaningless. How about if some kind of new regulation about bump stocks were added to a national ccw reciprocity bill.
"White House press secretary Sarah Sanders also said that Trump had not closed the door on new gun controls, including an assault weapons ban that is unpopular with the president's base."
Trump proposes bump stock ban in wake of Florida shooting | Daily Mail Online
Trump proposes bump stock ban in wake of Florida shooting | Daily Mail Online
xero2099
NES Member
they hardly read stuff anyways just bury it in there somewhere
Trump can direct, Sessions can tell ATF what to do, but the legal challenge in court will not hold up because it's changing the wording of law to not have any meaning. Making a regulation that says adding a certain stock to a rifle that still can only fire by a single pull of the trigger, but just does it very quickly, is a machine gun, which is defined as more than one round fired per pull of trigger, doesn't hold up to a legally.
I'd be okay with bump stock law or regulations so long as the wordage "rate increasing devices" is removed from any such law or regulation, but only if we get something like national reciprocity. If the Dems want bump stocks banned that bad, then they have to give up something else.
I'd be okay with bump stock law or regulations so long as the wordage "rate increasing devices" is removed from any such law or regulation, but only if we get something like national reciprocity. If the Dems want bump stocks banned that bad, then they have to give up something else.
Similar threads
