LEFT WING LOONS
See other LEFT WING LOONS Articles
Title: Trump pushes ban on 'bump stocks' — devices that turn weapons into 'machine guns' (Executive Memorandum to AG Sessions)
Source:
CNBC
URL Source: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/20/tru ... weapons-into-machine-guns.html
Published: Feb 20, 2018
Author: Dan Mangan
Post Date: 2018-02-20 18:37:44 by Hondo68
Ping List: *Bang List* Subscribe to *Bang List*
Keywords: leaves no loopholes, should be illegal, a rule banning
Views: 8020
Comments: 62
- Bump stocks are devices that render semi-automatic rifles capable of firing hundreds of rounds every minute.
- Stephen Paddock, the gunman who killed 58 people and wounded hundreds more last October in Las Vegas, had at least 12 rifles outfitted with bump stocks.
Trump recommends bump stocks should be illegal from CNBC.
President Donald Trump announced Tuesday that he has recommended that "bump stocks" — devices that let semi-automatic weapons fire hundreds of rounds per minute — be banned.
Trump signed a memorandum recommending that Attorney General Jeff Sessions propose regulations that would declare that bump stocks are illegal because they effectively turn legal semi-automatic weapons into outlawed machine guns.
Stephen Paddock, the gunman who killed 58 people and wounded hundreds of others in Las Vegas in October had at least 12 rifles fitted with bump stocks, authorities have said.
Trump's announcement came six days after a gunman killed 17 people, 14 of them students, at a high school in Parkland, Florida, while armed with an AR-15 assault rifle.
"We cannot merely take actions that make us feel like we are making a difference. We must actually make a difference," Trump said at a White House event honoring first responders.
"After the deadly shooting in Las Vegas, I directed [Sessions] to clarify whether certain bump stock devices like the one used in Las Vegas are illegal under current law," Trump said.
"That process began in December, and just a few moments ago I signed a memorandum directing the attorney general to propose regulations to ban all devices that turn legal weapons into machine guns," Trump said.
"I expect that these critical regulations will be finalized, Jeff, very soon."
The proposed regulators would first have to be published in the Federal Register and be subject to public comment before they could be adopted.
Semi-automatic weapons require a shooter to pull the trigger each time to fire a single round.
But when those weapons are outfitted with a bump stock, the gun's recoil energy is used to "bump" the trigger into the shooter's finger, making it fire much faster.
That makes the weapon more akin to machine guns, which are largely banned in the United States.
Read Trump's memo:
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
February 20, 2018
February 20, 2018
MEMORANDUM FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
SUBJECT: Application of the Definition of Machinegun to "Bump Fire" Stocks and Other Similar Devices
After the deadly mass murder in Las Vegas, Nevada, on October 1, 2017, I asked my Administration to fully review how the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives regulates bump fire stocks and similar devices.
Although the Obama Administration repeatedly concluded that particular bump stock type devices were lawful to purchase and possess, I sought further clarification of the law restricting fully automatic machineguns.
Accordingly, following established legal protocols, the Department of Justice started the process of promulgating a Federal regulation interpreting the definition of "machinegun" under Federal law to clarify whether certain bump stock type devices should be illegal. The Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking was published in the "Federal Register" on December 26, 2017. Public comment concluded on January 25, 2018, with the Department of Justice receiving over 100,000 comments.
Today, I am directing the Department of Justice to dedicate all available resources to complete the review of the comments received, and, as expeditiously as possible, to propose for notice and comment a rule banning all devices that turn legal weapons into machineguns.
Although I desire swift and decisive action, I remain committed to the rule of law and to the procedures the law prescribes. Doing this the right way will ensure that the resulting regulation is workable and effective and leaves no loopholes for criminals to exploit. I would ask that you keep me regularly apprised of your progress.
You are authorized and directed to publish this memorandum in the "Federal Register".
DONALD J. TRUMP
###
Poster Comment:
Getting a head start on Congressional 2a infringements. Trump has beaten Chuck Schumer and Diane Feinswine to the punch!
MAGA till ya puke.Subscribe to *Bang List*
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
I'm fine with this. It's not banning firearms,it's banning a buttstock.
I honestly have no idea why anybody would want one to start with. They destroy accuracy. Why use 10 shots to do something you should be able to do with one shot?
Then again,I HATE inaccurate firearms of all types,and ain't real crazy about legitimate full-auto guns. I see no real practical use for them unless you are facing a mass attack like the Chinese and Koreans did during the Korean War,or sometimes when firing from ambush.
A round you send down range that falls to the dirt or ends up in a tree might as well be left at home. It's foolishness.
In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
#2. To: sneakypete (#1)
Anyone who understands how these things work can actually fake the same firing effect without a bump stock.
Here's a guy showing two popular scary guns with standard stocks, autofiring just by careful positioning. Clearly, one works much better. There are dozens of these DIY bumpfire vids on YouBoob.
Most gunowners don't care about these accessories. Trump is going to lose very little support if he goes for a ban. He might even pick up some votes.
#3. To: Tooconservative (#2)
so having watched your video, please tell me again what is the difference between these weapons and a fully automatic, because the difference isn't really apparent.
I think someone has been playing with the regulations
#4. To: paraclete (#3) (Edited)
what is the difference between these weapons and a fully automaticI think someone has been playing with the regulations
You're slightly less likely to hit what you're aiming at, and there's more "collateral damage" which neocons say doesn't count.
There are no arms regulations in the USA other than shall not be infringed, everything else is color of law aka illegal legislation/bureaucratic edicts.
#5. To: sneakypete. 20 Feb 2018, *Bang List* (#1) (Edited)
I'm fine with this
Well then, have some more....
Cornyn, Republicans, gun control
#6. To: hondo68 (#5)
I really don't give a damn about background checks,as long as they are checking on citizenship status,criminal records for violent crimes,actual criminals who have warrants out in other states.
In FACT,I am FOR them because it is my belief that after a couple of years there will be documented proof that criminals don't buy guns at gun shows,gun shops,or anywhere else other than from a fellow criminal that either stole it himself,or who buys and sells stolen property.
I would like to see the day come when things are back to being like there were in 1963 and earlier. Anybody free can buy everything but automatic weapons and explosives over the phone and have it mailed to them. EVEN people who have been to prison and served their time. If you are such a crazy violent criminal that you can't be trusted to have a gun,you probably can't be trusted to run around free,either.
The thing is we have to restore our rights the same way our rights were taken away from us,one step at a time.
The "all or nothing!" mindset ends up with nothing.
In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
#7. To: Tooconservative (#2) (Edited)
Trump is going to lose very little support
The clock is ticking.
Buzzwords and bullshyte won't get the grifter in chief's poodle cabal reelected.
https://www.facebook.com/trey gowdy2020/
#8. To: VxH (#7)
Buzzwords and bullshyte won't get the grifter in chief's poodle cabal reelected.
Why not? It nearly always works.
#9. To: Tooconservative (#8)
Why not?
Reality.
www.google.com/search? q=Quadrillion+derivatives
www.google.com/search?q=china+petrodollar
2+2=4, even aboard the circus train.
#10. To: hondo68 (#0)
The way I read it, Trump is asking the justice department to clarify the issue.
#11. To: Tooconservative (#2)
Or you can use your belt loop.
But liberals are not banning bumpfire stocks per se -- they're banning the concept of turning a semi-auto rifle into a full auto. Once we buy into that, they'll use videos like yours to demonstrate that more needs to be done. Perhaps a bolt-action AR-15 is not that far away.
#12. To: misterwhite, sneakypete (#11)
But liberals are not banning bumpfire stocks per se -- they're banning the concept of turning a semi-auto rifle into a full auto. Once we buy into that, they'll use videos like yours to demonstrate that more needs to be done. Perhaps a bolt-action AR-15 is not that far away.
I think the bumpstock is so marginal in appeal overall that a lot of pro-gun people would put up with a ban on it. LF, for instance, is highly pro-gun but none of us own or want to own one.
I think this may be a political tradeoff. The GOP and NRA will sacrifice bumpstocks to satisfy some gungrabbing craving by the public after the Vegas shooting, the Florida school shooting and the Florida gay nightclub Muslim massacre. Florida does have two massacres in the last few years. We'll have "done something" even if it doesn't make the public safer. And even some gunfolk will consider sacrificing bumpstocks (a marginal product for good shooters) to be worth it.
It may also be that the GOP is drawing into this debate just to kill it again. The proposed solutions like banning bumpstocks don't address any of the major recent massacres. And it could provide a debate forum for all the failures of the FBI, the school, the local cops, the state's child services. All were notified repeatedly about this kid, including specific warnings that he was going to shoot up a school. And all that See-Something-Say-Something still resulted in no action from any agency and 17 dead kids as a result. You start to wonder if anyone who knew this kid did not consider him a danger to massacre a school.
That's not such a bad political debate to have.
#13. To: Tooconservative (#12)
And it could provide a debate forum for all the failures of the FBI, the school, the local cops, the state's child services.
Having that debate requires a population that's able to articulate the related precepts constituted to secure their right, and responsibility, to debate.
Meanwhile...
Der Brothel Baron reigns over the bleating masses.
#14. To: VxH (#13) (Edited)
Having that debate requires a population that's able to articulate the related precepts constituted to secure their right, and responsibility, to debate.
In any extended debate, pro-gun advocates will be able to mention multiple failures of each of these agencies: FBI, local police, school, child services.
This was not a failure to have appropriate laws to stop a psycho from getting firearms and going on a rampage. It was a failure of responsible agencies to do their jobs and take action before a massacre occurred.
I'm now reading that the shooter had shot up a neighbor's chickens, for no good reason. That alone should have barred that little weirdo from having a gun of any kind. Nothing was done.
The debate may change more. The school shooter had been observed hitting himself on the head, clapping his hands over his ears. This could be a case of schizophrenia hitting a kid between 18yo and 25yo. That is when the biggest number of schizophrenics manifest their symptoms and start to lose touch with the world or become extremely disfunctional.
Another angle that most people haven't heard yet is that, after his adoptive mother died of pneumonia last fall, the shooter and his 17yo brother were supposedly under the care of a family friend. She supposedly kicked him out because he had a gun. The day after the shooting, the "friend" had the 17yo brother forcibly committed. And there has been mention that, if the shooter hadn't gone on a rampage, that he was supposed to inherit over $800 thousand when he turned 22, the same for the 17yo brother AFAIK. The shooter had said repeatedly that he thought the "family friend" was trying to seize his inheritance (or most of it) for herself.
I think this story still has some legs that most people haven't seen yet. We always try to slot these things into some category but they all have unique features. This is why it is so hard to regulate firearms overall.
#15. To: Tooconservative, y'all (#14) (Edited)
I'm now reading that the shooter had shot up a neighbor's chickens, for no good reason. That alone should have barred that little weirdo from having a gun of any kind. Nothing was done.The debate may change more. The school shooter had been observed hitting himself on the head, clapping his hands over his ears. This could be a case of schizophrenia hitting a kid between 18yo and 25yo. That is when the biggest number of schizophrenics manifest their symptoms and start to lose touch with the world or become extremely disfunctional.
I've known kids that have had episodes like those above, --- and turned out just fine in later life, --- without any treatment whatsoever..
As you say, this debate is needed, because every case has unique features.
The one thing that's been long settled, is the principle that everyone has a right to self defense, and to be armed, anywhere, --- unless convicted (and cured) of criminal behaviors... . -- If we adhere to that principle, most of the other problems about guns go away.
#16. To: tpaine (#15)
I've known kids that have had episodes like those above, --- and turned out just fine in later life, --- without any treatment whatsoever..
Sure. And some don't turn out just fine. They turn up in the news with the words "massacre" in the headlines.
#17. To: Tooconservative (#16)
I've known kids that have had episodes like those above, --- and turned out just fine in later life, --- without any treatment whatsoever..
Sure. And some don't turn out just fine. They turn up in the news with the words "massacre" in the headlines. --- Tooconservative
Good point.. That's why we should not ignore these juvenile behaviors.
#18. To: misterwhite, VxH, sneakypete, Tooconservative, paraclete, tpaine (#10) (Edited)
Are you next to lose your 2a rights whether through being put on a "NICS background check" list of people prohibited from buying/possessing guns, or by the gun that you want being banned?
Death by a thousand cuts.
Another scam by Trump to deny your gun rights.... Terror Watch List with no due process, you just mysteriously appear on it, then no guns for you.
#19. To: hondo68 (#18)
Another scam by Trump to deny your gun rights.... Terror Watch List with no due process, you just mysteriously appear on it, then no guns for you.
This kid was on plenty of watch lists, they just didn't do anything to stop him.
No one is suggesting that anyone should be deprived of due process.
#20. To: Tooconservative (#19)
No one is suggesting that anyone should be deprived of due process.
Candidate Donald J. Trump suggested a gun ban of everyone on the arbitrary Terror Watch List. It's well documented.
So yes, Trump HAS suggested depriving gun owners of due process.
#21. To: hondo68, Y'all (#20)
Tooconservative (#19) ---- No one is suggesting that anyone should be deprived of due process.
Candidate Donald J. Trump suggested a gun ban of everyone on the arbitrary Terror Watch List. It's well documented. So yes, Trump HAS suggested depriving gun owners of due process.---- hondo68
Hard to dispute that point. Trump may have put his foot in it..
Anybody know how you appeal being on that list?
#22. To: Tooconservative (#12)
"I think the bumpstock is so marginal in appeal overall that a lot of pro-gun people would put up with a ban on it."
Logically, that makes sense. But I oppose it because, as I said, the gun grabbers are not banning bumpstocks -- they're banning rapid-fire weapons.
How do you justify banning bumpstocks but not banning the ability to rapid-fire as shown in your video? What's the difference (besides a piece of plastic)?
Your justification for banning bumpstocks will be used against you.
#23. To: misterwhite (#22)
How do you justify banning bumpstocks but not banning the ability to rapid-fire as shown in your video? What's the difference (besides a piece of plastic)?
The actual effect of preventing or diminishing mass shootings is marginal if you're talking about a person who is expert in weapons.
The largest gains you can make are in reducing the death toll in a massacre, not in preventing it.
How do you justify banning bumpstocks but not banning the ability to rapid-fire as shown in your video? What's the difference (besides a piece of plastic)?
Bumpstocks are intended to skirt the accepted laws on fully automatic guns. That's how.
I understand your position and you're welcome to defend it. I think you'll find that a lonely perch except among the most radical gun rights folk. And I do consider myself pretty pro-gun. But selling something that is so clearly intended to skirt longstanding law is another thing. The only appeal of the bumpstock is as a lawful automatic weapon that allows buyers to evade the requirement for the federal full-auto gun license and tracking requirements.
No one bought any bumpstocks with anything but the intent to skirt the ban on full-auto weapons (except for those who acquire the full-auto tax stamp, ~$300).
#24. To: Tooconservative (#23)
But selling something that is so clearly intended to skirt longstanding law is another thing.
By accident, you made my point.
Gun-grabbers will claim that the AR-15 -- a semi-auto with a 30-round magazine -- is "clearly intended to skirt longstanding law" because of the simplicity in "converting" it to full auto as shown in your video.
#25. To: misterwhite (#24)
Gun-grabbers will claim that the AR-15 -- a semi-auto with a 30-round magazine -- is "clearly intended to skirt longstanding law" because of the simplicity in "converting" it to full auto as shown in your video.
You're picking the wrong hill to die on.
But we both have our own views on the stategery of preserving broader gun rights.
The law already correctly distinguishes between full-auto and semi-auto. We should rely on that distinction in law that has prevailed since the Thirties. The bumpstock clearly tries to blur that line to the point of erasing it, at least in the minds of the general public who doesn't know much about guns.
#26. To: Tooconservative (#25) (Edited)
The law already correctly distinguishes between full-auto and se semi-auto.
Yes it does. Correctly and clearly. The BATFE ruled in 2010 that bump stocks were not a firearm subject to regulation. They allowed their sale as an unregulated firearm part.
YOU are the one now blurring that line. If the government can ban a firearm part that allows rapid-fire, why can't they ban the firearm which can be rapid-fired without that part?
If you're a victim on the receiving end, can you tell the difference?
#27. To: hondo68 (#0)
Ahhh, Trump had to show some token movement about gun control.
This doesn't matter.
I see how they are parading kids out to show how scared they are. In a month, they'll go back to their play station games. Or trying to find products for acne.
#28. To: misterwhite (#26)
The BATFE ruled in 2010 that bump stocks were not a firearm subject to regulation. They allowed their sale as an unregulated firearm part.
And clearly they were wrong. Surprising how incompetent the 0bama regime actually was. It was an instance where they could have taken anti-gun action and didn't, either due to incompetence or an irrational fear of repercussions against Dems similar to those in the Xlinton years.
Trump has issued an executive memorandum to Jeff Sessions. This is an order to clearly state the president's intent toward policy. It is not an executive order - a different beast - that directly orders the A.G. to perform a particular action on the authority of the president as the highest executive authority.
I'm distinguishing between these types of executive documents to an agency to demonstrate the lines along which Trump is acting lawfully as president. Some people would say the difference is negligible. But it isn't.
#29. To: Tooconservative (#28) (Edited)
And clearly they were wrong.
Clearly? That was the law for 8 years. Now all of a sudden it's wrong?
Gosh. What made it "wrong"? An 8-year scientific study? A scholarly examination? A new constitutional interpretation?
Nah. Some asshole shot up Las Vegas and the public demanded that Washington "do something". Banning bumpstocks just four months later is the something.
Can you say "knee-jerk reaction"? Sure you could.
#30. To: Tooconservative (#28)
The BATFE ruled in 2010 that bump stocks were not a firearm subject to regulation. They allowed their sale as an unregulated firearm part.And clearly they were wrong.
Okay, you can feel free to say what the law actually stated.
It is clear that bump stocks, in and of themselves, are not a weapon.
#31. To: no gnu taxes (#30)
It is clear that bump stocks, in and of themselves, are not a weapon.
Neither is a full-auto shear kit. But they're still illegal.
Is this the best argument you can muster?
#32. To: misterwhite (#29)
Gosh. What made it "wrong"? An 8-year scientific study? A scholarly examination? A new constitutional interpretation?
It violates the longstanding American standard of banning full-auto weapons for the last 80 years.
Look at the intent of the bumpstock. It is not lawful non-full-auto gear.
You are part of a very small minority who wants every member of the public to have access to full-auto firepower, whether a bumpstock or a full-auto shear kit.
IOW, your position is extreme.
#33. To: Tooconservative, y'all (#23)
I understand your position and you're welcome to defend it. I think you'll find that a lonely perch except among the most radical gun rights folk. And I do consider myself pretty pro-gun. But selling something that is so clearly intended to skirt longstanding law is another thing. The only appeal of the bumpstock is as a lawful automatic weapon that allows buyers to evade the requirement for the federal full-auto gun license and tracking requirements.No one bought any bumpstocks with anything but the intent to skirt the ban on full-auto weapons (except for those who acquire the full-auto tax stamp, ~$300).
It is NOT a radical position to assert that prohibiting full auto weapons is an infringement.
By accepting the claim that any level of government can prohibitively tax or outright bann any type of weapon, supporters defy the principle that we all have an inalienable right to defend ourselves with the arms we can bear.. -- Clearly stated in the 2nd amendment.
There is no denying that full auto guns are light enough to carry, just as are cans of gasoline, matches, and other types of explosives. -- Small, light weapons of mass destruction are a fact of life and prohibitions DO NOT WORK in reality..
Prohibitions enable socialism, and are a direct assault on our Constitutional Republic.
#34. To: tpaine (#33)
It is NOT a radical position to assert that prohibiting full auto weapons is an infringement.
Yes, it is.
A constitutional right is not unlimited. Free speech does not extend to the right to shout 'Fire!' in a crowded theater.
Yeah, I said it. So there. LOL
Anyway, that's where these arguments always end up, along with sinister but oblique references to slippery slopes.
#35. To: Tooconservative (#31)
Neither is a full-auto shear kit. But they're still illegal.
Geez, a knowledgeable person could do that in their garage.
Do you want also outlaw knowdledge and information?
#36. To: Tooconservative (#34)
It is NOT a radical position to assert that prohibiting full auto weapons is an infringement. Yes, it is.A constitutional right is not unlimited. Free speech does not extend to the right to shout 'Fire!' in a crowded theater.
Yeah, I said it. So there. LOL
Carrying an arm is not a threat, it is a constitutional right not to be infringed..
Shouting 'Fire!' in a crowded theater is a criminal act
Yep, you said it. Can't come up with anything but the old fire bull? -- LOL
#37. To: Tooconservative (#32)
You are part of a very small minority who wants every member of the public to have access to full-auto firepower, whether a bumpstock or a full-auto shear kit.
I'm saying that banning the bumpstock could lead to the banning of semi-auto weapons since they can be "converted" to rapid-fire, even without a bumpstock .
The arguments for both are the same.
#38. To: no gnu taxes (#35)
Geez, a knowledgeable person could do that in their garage.Do you want also outlaw knowdledge and information?
There are other full-auto trick trigger devices as well. You can't erase the knowledge of them. And in an era of computer-machined parts and 3d printing, you can't rid yourself of the knowledge or basic ability to construct such parts.
But selling such parts commercially does greatly increase their availability. I don't, for instance, think the Vegas shooter was nearly so likely to get a shear kit to convert his gun(s) to full-auto. The bumpstock was his shortcut obviously.
Of course, the Vegas shooting was an exceptional event, given the nearby crowd concentrated in a small area next to a tower. But there was already another scare for a similar event that frightened people into thinking it was a copycat attempt.
#39. To: Tooconservative (#38)
But selling such parts commercially does greatly increase their availability
You underestimate those who wish to construct such devices.
It will make them less available for the good guys and more available for the bad guys.
The Florida boy was recognized as a bad guy for a long time.
#40. To: misterwhite (#37)
I'm saying that banning the bumpstock could lead to the banning of semi-auto weapons since they can be "converted" to rapid-fire, even without a bumpstock .
Yet, that rarely happens. There are plenty of gunsmiths and gunowners with access to the necessary machine tools to produce their own shear kits.
And yet, no one making their own full-auto gear has perpetrated a massacre. I'm not saying those people don't exist and that they don't have some full-auto capability. I'm just saying that those are the people who never instigate one of these massacres.
There is a difference between responsible gun ownership and a general psychopathic outlook toward murdering large numbers of the public. The responsible gun owners shouldn't be penalized for the acts of some kook and the kooks shouldn't have a constitutional right to acquire deadly arsenals that skirt the legality of restrictions on full-auto weapons.
OTOH, for all we know, the Vegas shooter might have qualified to own a full-auto weapon as a collector, paying the federal $300 tax and conforming to the requirements of full-auto ownership. There's a sobering thought. I'm not sure what about him would have disqualified him.
#41. To: no gnu taxes (#39)
You underestimate those who wish to construct such devices.
Wishing for something is not the same thing as being capable of producing such devices.
One of the things in common with many of these mass shooters is a general incompetence and a helplessness in many areas of their lives. At least some of them would be too disorganized to produce auto-fire devices or shear kits on their own.
It's the simple truth. Most spree killers are fundamentally disorganized failures in life, mentally speaking.
.
.
.
Comments (42 - 62) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]