Trump to Ban All Devices That Turn Semi Auto Into FA

54dc5134de5dac7477850f80dfb9a044.jpg



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Vote for Trump they said.

He is gun friendly they said.....


BTW they gonna ban blue jeans or anything that has a belt loop? Hook yer finger through your loop and you can do the exact same thing.

I had something snazzy to say about the difference between an actual full auto and a fast firing semi auto. But facts seem not to matter these days
 
Last edited:
Ban all you want. Untraceable piece of plastic and no one is gonna turn em in
 
Well, he is anti-establishment, correct?

Obama said bump stocks were cool, and he's establishment.

Why the shocked face?
 
It's a little more insidious than it at first appears. From TTAG:

ATF has now determined that the conclusion [that bump fire stocks are not machine guns] does not reflect the best interpretation of the term “machinegun” to clarify that all bump-stock type devices are “machineguns”under GCA and NFA because they convert a semiautomatic firearm into a firearm that shoots automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.
Click to expand...

So an external device can "convert" a semi into full auto and apparently being able to "automatically shoot more than one shot without manual reloading" is a feature of full auto. This is a set up for banning semi-autos down the road.

It's official, I'm getting tired of all the winning.
 
Here is the proposed rule for those who are interested; it's only 65 pages.

And here is the bizarre reasoning starting on page 18:

The relevant statutory question is whether a particular device causes a firearm to "shoot . . .automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger." 26 U.S.C. 5845(b). Bump firing and other techniques for increasing the rate of fire do not satisfy this definition because they do not produce an automatic firing sequence with a single pull of the trigger. Instead, bump firing with an assistive device requires the shooter to exert pressure with the trigger finger to re-engage the trigger for each round fired. The bump-stock-type devices described above, however, satisfy the definition.
.....
Because these bump-stock-type devices allow multiple rounds to be fired when the shooter maintains pressure on the extension ledge of the device, ATF has determined that bump-stock-type devices are machinegun conversion devices, and therefore qualify as machineguns under the GCA and the NFA.
​
This is the sort of stuff that begs to be rebutted.
 
Last edited:
gc70 said:
Here is the proposed rule for those who are interested; it's only 65 pages.

And here is the bizarre reasoning starting on page 18:

The relevant statutory question is whether a particular device causes a firearm to "shoot . . .automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger." 26 U.S.C. 5845(b). Bump firing and other techniques for increasing the rate of fire do not satisfy this definition because they do not produce an automatic firing sequence with a single pull of the trigger. Instead, bump firing with an assistive device requires the shooter to exert pressure with the trigger finger to re-engage the trigger for each round fired. The bump-stock-type devices described above, however, satisfy the definition.
.....
Because these bump-stock-type devices allow multiple rounds to be fired when the shooter maintains pressure on the extension ledge of the device, ATF has determined that bump-stock-type devices are machinegun conversion devices, and therefore qualify as machineguns under the GCA and the NFA.
​
This is the sort of stuff that begs to be rebutted.
Click to expand...

Yeah, because the bump fire stock allows the gun to be fired without re engaging the trigger with the trigger finger. Wait, what!? :confused:
 
Any regulation like this will end up in court and once Trump has two more SCOTUS judges nominated,
the court will take the cases that it has refused to hear over the last 20 years.
Trump is playing the Demorats like a violin, any regulations are better then another gun ban bill.
 
Button Pusher said:
Any regulation like this will end up in court and once Trump has two more SCOTUS judges nominated,
the court will take the cases that it has refused to hear over the last 20 years.
Trump is playing the Demorats like a violin, any regulations are better then another gun ban bill.
Click to expand...
I really really hope you are right, because this is playing with (literal) fire.
 
So I was thinking a minute ago, aren't firearms that can easily be converted to full auto already machine guns under current law? So AR-15 receivers s don't have the 3rd hole, and other guns that have a full auto counterpart are significantly changed to prevent dropping in full auto parts.

Doesn't redefining full auto from "multiple shots per trigger actuation" to "can fire really fast" mean that every semi-auto is now a machine gun, since they can all be trivially converted to the new definition of full auto? Bump stocks, 10/22 trigger cranks, binary triggers, etc... There are plenty of ways to pull the trigger really fast. They are all useless in the real world, but that irrelevant.

I think this is the proverbial "give them an inch and they'll take a mile", or the "camel's nose in the tent".

We cannot surrender more of our rights (I refuse to call it compromise since we aren't getting anything at all in return).
 
Last edited:
chiefjason said:
Yeah, because the bump fire stock allows the gun to be fired without re engaging the trigger with the trigger finger. Wait, what!? :confused:
Click to expand...
Precisely. It is okay if your finger hits the trigger each time to fire a round, but resting your finger against something else magically means your finger is really not hitting the trigger.
 
JimP42 said:
Doesn't redefining full auto from "multiple shots per trigger actuation" to "can fire really fast" mean that every semi-auto is not a machine gun, since they can all be trivially converted to the new definition of full auto? Bump stocks, 10/22 trigger cranks, binary triggers, etc... There are plenty of ways to pull the trigger really fast. They are all useless in the real world, but that irrelevant.
Click to expand...

What is being defined is the meaning of "automatically" as used in the law (see page 54).
27 CRF 478.11 Meaning of Terms
Machine gun.
* * * For purposes of this definition, the term "automatically" as it modifies "shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot," means functioning as the result of a self-acting or self-regulating mechanism that allows the firing of multiple rounds through a single function of the trigger; and "single function of the trigger" means a single pull of the trigger. The term "machine gun" includes bump-stock-type devices, i.e., devices that allow a semiautomatic firearm to shoot more than one shot with a single pull of the trigger by harnessing the recoil energy of the semiautomatic firearm to which it is affixed so that the trigger resets and continues firing without additional physical manipulation of the trigger by the shooter.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Well....looks like I'll be getting a binary trigger for a rainy day. Do have a mg42 I want to build.


Oh and bump stock only shoot about half as fast (5-7 rounds a second) than full auto m4/m16 on the low end is 12.5 rounds a second...

There was a video floating around but can't seem to find it that showed this data.
 
Button Pusher said:
Any regulation like this will end up in court and once Trump has two more SCOTUS judges nominated,
the court will take the cases that it has refused to hear over the last 20 years.
Trump is playing the Demorats like a violin, any regulations are better then another gun ban bill.
Click to expand...
What was the law Bush just knew SCOTUS would toss out???
This technique has failed before.
Drumph is motivated by two things, his ego and wallet, NOT by principles.
 
Button Pusher said:
Any regulation like this will end up in court and once Trump has two more SCOTUS judges nominated,
the court will take the cases that it has refused to hear over the last 20 years.
Trump is playing the Demorats like a violin, any regulations are better then another gun ban bill.
Click to expand...

THANK YOU! I havent seen a 4D chess comment in a while lol
 
Button Pusher said:
Any regulation like this will end up in court and once Trump has two more SCOTUS judges nominated,
the court will take the cases that it has refused to hear over the last 20 years.
Trump is playing the Demorats like a violin, any regulations are better then another gun ban bill.
Click to expand...
1) there is no guarantee that Trump will get two more SCOTUS nominees, so that would be very bad planning.
2) how on earth is this playing the democrats? It would only serve to make Trump look bad.
3) you know what's better than some secret squirrel plan to somehow, eventually, get this overturned? NOT INSTITUTING IT IN THE FIRST PLACE
 
Button Pusher said:
Any regulation like this will end up in court and once Trump has two more SCOTUS judges nominated,
the court will take the cases that it has refused to hear over the last 20 years.
Trump is playing the Demorats like a violin, any regulations are better then another gun ban bill.
Click to expand...

I'm waiting for the seven level chess moves.
 
You know....I keep hearing "SCOTUS" this, "SCOTUS" that and Trump'll stack the "SCOTUS" with a couple more appoinments.

Worth remembering that a judge's robe is not a cloak of honesty and integrity. Judges are bought and paid for all the time...think SCOTUS is any different? Look at how the court has "interpreted" the Constitution over the years.

If you are placing your faith in 9 justices to preserve/protect your individual rights, I am afraid you are going to be sorely disappointed. They have strings attached; those strings can be and are pulled to further specific agendas. But no matter how corrupted a President, a legislature or a court can become, neither of the three are the final arbiter of our rights....

We are.
 
Speaking of SCOTUS have you ever caught on how when they heard a case with O in office he was always say and I'm confident the courts will go this way or that way(which ever way he was leaning)
I saw RED FLAGS everytime I heard him say that. I can't think of onetime they didn't go the way he suggested.

Their all a bunch of traitors.
 
It’s all common core physics...none of us are smart enough to understand it! 1 + 1 = red triangle...duh!!!
 
So here is my opinion. If Congress does not change the language of the law then what we have is an agency reinterpreting the law. That interpretation is subject to judicial review, and it’s going to be an uphill battle for the DOJ since they previously interpreted it differently. Of course they’ll pick the court to hear it and SCOTUS will likely not review, so they’ll win.

I do want to read through the proposal and understand how we avoid all the issues of semi auto AR15’s being easily converted to full auto. I do wish everyone would STFU about shoestrings and belt loops, I get the intent, but what the liberals hear is that they need to require a change to the gun to prevent bump firing in addition to getting bump stocks banned.
 
JimB said:
I do want to read through the proposal and understand how we avoid all the issues of semi auto AR15’s being easily converted to full auto. I do wish everyone would STFU about shoestrings and belt loops, I get the intent, but what the liberals hear is that they need to require a change to the gun to prevent bump firing in addition to getting bump stocks banned.
Click to expand...

You really think that not saying something is gonna make them no think about it. Libtards will sit around and make shit up as they go along regardless what is said here or anywhere else.

They got retards like that guy going on camera making up scary combo words like fully semi auto for the less informed. Even though the other side is thinking what a dumb ass.
 
JimB said:
I do wish everyone would STFU about shoestrings and belt loops, I get the intent, but what the liberals hear is that they need to require a change to the gun to prevent bump firing in addition to getting bump stocks banned.
Click to expand...

Funny you say that, because they are mentioned in the proposal in what seems like as a 'viable' alternative to bump stocks for those who wish to 'simulate' automatic fire...

IMG_3802.jpg
 
Button Pusher said:
Any regulation like this will end up in court and once Trump has two more SCOTUS judges nominated,
the court will take the cases that it has refused to hear over the last 20 years.
Trump is playing the Demorats like a violin, any regulations are better then another gun ban bill.
Click to expand...
And weren't we sure that SCOTUS would knock down Obamacare as unconstitutional?
And weren't we sure that Trump and The Republicans were going to repeal Obamacare the first day?
And weren't we sure that Mexico was going to pay for the wall?
And ................

Terry
 
Talk about a slippery slope.... I mean you literally shoot one bullet per pull of the trigger.... it just happens at a extremely high rate of speed. Personally I see no real practical use for them but, I see no legal way or terminology that could ban them. I never really wanted one until they were telling me I wasn't going to be able to buy one. I bought one after Vegas just in case.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
backwoodsshooter said:
You really think that not saying something is gonna make them no think about it. Libtards will sit around and make shit up as they go along regardless what is said here or anywhere else.

They got retards like that guy going on camera making up scary combo words like fully semi auto for the less informed. Even though the other side is thinking what a dumb ass.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I was thinking like a liberal, if there were no guns there would be no gun violence = if nobody would tell them then they’d never figure it out on their own. In both cases the premise is just stupid.
 
wsfiredude said:
Funny you say that, because they are mentioned in the proposal in what seems like as a 'viable' alternative to bump stocks for those who wish to 'simulate' automatic fire...

View attachment 48198
Click to expand...

I have to read it all, but are they saying that bump stocks make it automatic, but that these alternatives just simulate automatic and so will still be okay?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom