[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Police clash with pro-Palestine protesters on Ohio State University campus

Joe Rogan Experience #2138 - Tucker Carlson

Police Dispersing Student Protesters at USC - Breaking News Coverage (College Protests)

What Passover Means For The New Testament Believer

Are We Closer Than Ever To The Next Pandemic?

War in Ukraine Turns on Russia

what happened during total solar eclipse

Israel Attacks Iran, Report Says - LIVE Breaking News Coverage

Earth is Scorched with Heat

Antiwar Activists Chant ‘Death to America’ at Event Featuring Chicago Alderman

Vibe Shift

A stream that makes the pleasant Rain sound.

Older Men - Keep One Foot In The Dark Ages

When You Really Want to Meet the Diversity Requirements

CERN to test world's most powerful particle accelerator during April's solar eclipse

Utopian Visionaries Who Won’t Leave People Alone

No - no - no Ain'T going To get away with iT

Pete Buttplug's Butt Plugger Trying to Turn Kids into Faggots

Mark Levin: I'm sick and tired of these attacks

Questioning the Big Bang

James Webb Data Contradicts the Big Bang

Pssst! Don't tell the creationists, but scientists don't have a clue how life began

A fine romance: how humans and chimps just couldn't let go

Early humans had sex with chimps

O’Keefe dons bulletproof vest to extract undercover journalist from NGO camp.

Biblical Contradictions (Alleged)

Catholic Church Praising Lucifer

Raising the Knife

One Of The HARDEST Videos I Had To Make..

Houthi rebels' attack severely damages a Belize-flagged ship in key strait leading to the Red Sea (British Ship)

Chinese Illegal Alien. I'm here for the moneuy

Red Tides Plague Gulf Beaches

Tucker Carlson calls out Nikki Haley, Ben Shapiro, and every other person calling for war:

{Are there 7 Deadly Sins?} I’ve heard people refer to the “7 Deadly Sins,” but I haven’t been able to find that sort of list in Scripture.

Abomination of Desolation | THEORY, BIBLE STUDY

Bible Help

Libertysflame Database Updated

Crush EVERYONE with the Alien Gambit!

Vladimir Putin tells Tucker Carlson US should stop arming Ukraine to end war

Putin hints Moscow and Washington in back-channel talks in revealing Tucker Carlson interview

Trump accuses Fulton County DA Fani Willis of lying in court response to Roman's motion

Mandatory anti-white racism at Disney.

Iceland Volcano Erupts For Third Time In 2 Months, State Of Emergency Declared

Tucker Carlson Interview with Vladamir Putin

How will Ar Mageddon / WW III End?

What on EARTH is going on in Acts 16:11? New Discovery!

2023 Hottest in over 120 Million Years

2024 and beyond in prophecy

Questions

This Speech Just Broke the Internet


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

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: 5955
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  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 30.

#1. To: hondo68 (#0)

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.

sneakypete  posted on  2018-02-20   20:17:06 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#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.

Tooconservative  posted on  2018-02-20   20:25:18 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#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.

misterwhite  posted on  2018-02-21   9:57:23 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#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.

Tooconservative  posted on  2018-02-21   10:16:17 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#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.

misterwhite  posted on  2018-02-21   12:56:04 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#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).

Tooconservative  posted on  2018-02-21   13:23:39 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#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.

misterwhite  posted on  2018-02-21   13:32:34 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#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.

Tooconservative  posted on  2018-02-21   13:37:26 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#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?

misterwhite  posted on  2018-02-21   13:50:21 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#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.

Tooconservative  posted on  2018-02-21   14:00:00 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#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.

no gnu taxes  posted on  2018-02-21   14:11:58 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 30.

#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?

Tooconservative  posted on  2018-02-21 14:16:16 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


End Trace Mode for Comment # 30.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com