Bump stock executive order?

The Best online firearms community in Louisiana.

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • Magdump

    Don’t troll me bro!
    Rating - 100%
    163   0   0
    Dec 31, 2013
    9,396
    113
    Hammond, Louisiana
    Last edited:

    Magdump

    Don’t troll me bro!
    Rating - 100%
    163   0   0
    Dec 31, 2013
    9,396
    113
    Hammond, Louisiana
    Sure, but my worries don’t end with 2nd amendment rights. There’s more than just a little writing on the wall here guys.
    They did this with gold coin and bullion before any of you were born. But they actually offered compensation to the citizenry when they were forced to surrender their gold. Executive order or not, it’s not constitutional. Obama put into effect laws that allow the feds to seize land, property etc whenever it deems it necessary. Emergency this and that. I wonder how many folks see this current order and only think Bumpstocks.
     

    machinedrummer

    Well-Known Member
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Apr 5, 2010
    3,685
    113
    Kingwood, Tx
    Triggers and fast acquisition aiming devices will be next. Red dots etc... and so on and so on. Then muskets will be shut down by the EPA for emission violations.
     

    Danzing42

    *Banned*
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Oct 9, 2018
    3
    1
    laffy
    "That would reverse a 2010 decision by the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearm."


    What other instances have reversed an ATF decision? Has it ever happened?
     

    Magdump

    Don’t troll me bro!
    Rating - 100%
    163   0   0
    Dec 31, 2013
    9,396
    113
    Hammond, Louisiana
    90 days to turn them in or otherwise destroy them. Nothing grandfathered in. No buy back. No compensation. No choice.
    Caught with one and you’re a felon.
    I’m not sure what bothers me more at the moment. This or the Red Flag laws, but it looks like most everyone else is sleeping just fine...
     

    ssgsimon

    Well-Known Member
    Rating - 100%
    5   0   0
    Apr 6, 2014
    71
    6
    lafayette
    For years the Republicans have been saying give us control of the senate then we can pass gun legislation that protects our rights, so we did. Then they said well we need you to vote us a president that is a Republican so we can make this happen, so we did.

    For the last two years what have they done with this power? The house passed HB 38 national resipocity, but the senate refuses to even take it up. Senator Kennedy at least proposed legislation that would make it illegal for banks to discriminate against gun sellers and manufacturers, but that isn’t going anywhere.

    The worst part is this bump stock ban. I don’t own one of these stupid things, but that fact that Republicans don’t say a word about letting one man have the power to arbitrarily make citizens turn in or destroy their legally purchased property, or become felons is an abuse of power that even Obama didn’t even try. The second amendment will be in a far worse place at the end of these two years under the Republicans than it ever was under the last eight with Obama in power. If this ban goes through, you can bet the anti-gunners will use it when they get in power, and they will get in power.

    Voting for Republicans for me and I assume most of you is like voting for the lesser of two evils, on a good day. But I think this is a wake up call that none of these politicians serve our interests.

    I know it’s a long shot, but call Sen. Kennedy and Sen. Kassidy and see if they can put pressure on the senate leadership to take up HB 38 in the lame duck, and to oppose this bump stock ban. At least they might get the point of why the gun community will not support their re-election campaign.
     

    Nathan Hale

    Well-Known Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Apr 10, 2014
    336
    18
    Louisiana
    Yes, we are getting eeFed. It is because we live in a country where people don't really value 'rights'. I suspect many people don't even understand what a 'right' really is. Even here on BS, the number of people that seem to really care about the loss of rights, in general, seems to be rather small. Things are only going to get worse. The general population will be sorry one day, but by then it will, of coarse, be too late.
     

    Emperor

    Seriously Misunderstood!
    Rating - 100%
    11   0   0
    Mar 7, 2011
    8,376
    113
    Nether region
    This is where Trump starts acting like a dumbass. I blame the original dumbass for this, because he is the one that thought he was the end all be all with his phone and pen BS. Then of course his endless array of ridiculous and Unconstitutional EO's. Struck down over time, but a giant waste of time and a testing of the political waters.

    I cannot see where this EO is not struck down by the courts. Trump is apparently realizing that Congress is a bunch of worthless and spineless ninnies, not willing to take on the tough challenges facing this country.
     

    MTregre

    Well-Known Member
    Rating - 100%
    3   0   0
    Jan 11, 2013
    811
    18
    St. Charles Parish
    IF (Yes its a IF) the bump stock would have been available prior to the ban of automatic weapons, would it have been included? Id say, "yes without a doubt."

    I'm a good old 2A kind of guy. So additional laws against that right I typically oppose.
    However, I think the bump stock is stupid.

    I think there is a difference between the firearm and a piece of optional equipment (I admit this statement could be applied to items such as mags, which I whole heartedly appose capacity restrictions).

    As far as a bump stock ban, I think we should first tackle the recent age restrictions and restricted mags. Those two cases will do more to solidify and advance the 2A than loosing a bump stock will diminish it.

    Mike's $.02
     

    thperez1972

    ESSAYONS
    Staff member
    Gold Member
    Rating - 100%
    10   0   0
    Dec 28, 2015
    5,711
    113
    Baton Rouge, LA
    IF (Yes its a IF) the bump stock would have been available prior to the ban of automatic weapons, would it have been included? Id say, "yes without a doubt."

    I'm a good old 2A kind of guy. So additional laws against that right I typically oppose.
    However, I think the bump stock is stupid.

    I think there is a difference between the firearm and a piece of optional equipment (I admit this statement could be applied to items such as mags, which I whole heartedly appose capacity restrictions).

    As far as a bump stock ban, I think we should first tackle the recent age restrictions and restricted mags. Those two cases will do more to solidify and advance the 2A than loosing a bump stock will diminish it.

    Mike's $.02

    I believe bump stocks are stupid as well. But feeling on the legitimate use of an item is not enough to make it legal or illegal. That allows for an arbitrary standard. The standard has been defined and the bump stock falls on the legal side of the law. The however in your post suggests you wouldn't oppose a law to make a bump stock illegal.
     

    JR1572

    Well-Known Member
    Premium Member
    Rating - 100%
    58   0   0
    Nov 30, 2008
    6,691
    48
    Madisonville, LA
    Those bump stocks will get banned. After that I see pistol braces/short non-NFA shotguns being next. The whole “shouldering a pistol brace” thing is a joke.

    I’d like to see the NFA process streamlined to a phone-in approval process like we do for everything else.
     

    Magdump

    Don’t troll me bro!
    Rating - 100%
    163   0   0
    Dec 31, 2013
    9,396
    113
    Hammond, Louisiana
    If the ban were only about the 2nd amendment

    It is not

    I think there’s like one or two replies here that reflect anyone acknowledging that fact.

    If they banned nose rings tomorrow I wouldn’t give 2 shits. But if I heard that anyone with a hole in their nasal septum was gonna be made a felon tomorrow as a result of the new law, I’d be furious. Furious to know that I’m living in s communist country. It’s a sad day when almost no one can see the reality of where we are headed.
     

    MOTOR51

    Well-Known Member
    Rating - 100%
    72   0   0
    Dec 23, 2008
    6,342
    113
    here
    Those bump stocks will get banned. After that I see pistol braces/short non-NFA shotguns being next. The whole “shouldering a pistol brace” thing is a joke.

    I’d like to see the NFA process streamlined to a phone-in approval process like we do for everything else.

    True


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
     

    MTregre

    Well-Known Member
    Rating - 100%
    3   0   0
    Jan 11, 2013
    811
    18
    St. Charles Parish
    I believe bump stocks are stupid as well. But feeling on the legitimate use of an item is not enough to make it legal or illegal. That allows for an arbitrary standard. The standard has been defined and the bump stock falls on the legal side of the law. The however in your post suggests you wouldn't oppose a law to make a bump stock illegal.

    You made assumptions, BUT didn't answer my question of curiosity.
    Your assumption is wrong, I would appose a ban.
     

    thperez1972

    ESSAYONS
    Staff member
    Gold Member
    Rating - 100%
    10   0   0
    Dec 28, 2015
    5,711
    113
    Baton Rouge, LA
    You made assumptions, BUT didn't answer my question of curiosity.
    Your assumption is wrong, I would oppose a ban.

    I didn't make an assumption. I made an inference based on the words you used. You usually oppose a ban. Your next sentence in the same paragraph starts with however. However is typically used to show what follows contrasts what was just previously mentioned. So based on the words you used, it would be reasonable to infer that your opinion that bump stocks are stupid is a reason to break from your typical behavior, namely, opposing a ban. No assumption made, reasonable inference.

    If you don't support it, great. I'm right there with you. If the unanswered question is the one about if they would have been banned along side automatic weapons? I don't know. I don't know the verbiage of the laws in place at the time. If they are not covered under the law, the law would have had to have been worded differently to cover them.
     

    Nathan Hale

    Well-Known Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Apr 10, 2014
    336
    18
    Louisiana
    If the ban were only about the 2nd amendment

    It is not

    I think there’s like one or two replies here that reflect anyone acknowledging that fact.

    If they banned nose rings tomorrow I wouldn’t give 2 shits. But if I heard that anyone with a hole in their nasal septum was gonna be made a felon tomorrow as a result of the new law, I’d be furious. Furious to know that I’m living in s communist country. It’s a sad day when almost no one can see the reality of where we are headed.

    +1!
     
    Top Bottom