# Bump Stocks to be Banned 90 days from Friday



## Chuck R. (Apr 24, 2008)

> The Trump administration moved Tuesday to officially ban bump stocks, which allow semi-automatic weapons to fire rapidly like automatic firearms, and has made them illegal to possess beginning in late March.
> The devices will be banned under a federal law that prohibits machine guns, according to a senior Justice Department official.
> 
> The regulation, which was signed by Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker on Tuesday morning, will go into effect 90 days after it is formally published in the Federal Register, which is expected to happen on Friday, the Justice Department official said.


https://apnews.com/6c1af80fb290472c89fb930e223505af


----------



## shawnlee (Apr 13, 2010)

That's going to upset a few people.....


----------



## flewism (Apr 2, 2007)

I don't care, as I have no use for one. Even when I'm playing around semi-auto is fast enough for me.


----------



## GREENCOUNTYPETE (Jul 25, 2006)

will there be a required turn in?

I think it is a mighty slippery slope.

if people actually knew how much more effective the Vegas shoot would have been with a tiny fraction the hardware had he prepared to make every round count and fired them slowly they would be begging for bad people to keep believing in toys that attach to guns are the way to go.

I am not upset about the loss of the device but the blow to liberty by not giving this due process and requiring a vote of legislators who have to answer to their constituents.

nothing and I mean nothing should be banned without a 2/3 majority of both houses.

but at bear minimum they need to put their vote down and get a 51% majority in each house with a signature form the president.


this was an end run on the process of law and it will be used over and over now


----------



## shawnlee (Apr 13, 2010)

The issue really is not the item, its just a toy....of limited usefulness..

Yes the article said surrender with no compensation or destroy.


----------



## GREENCOUNTYPETE (Jul 25, 2006)

shawnlee said:


> The issue really is not the item, its just a toy....of limited usefulness..
> 
> Yes the article said* surrender with no compensation or destroy*.


any time a government demands this without full due process it would seem to be setting it's self up for a major lawsuit. not to mention a very very bad place for government to be.


----------



## Cabin Fever (May 10, 2002)

A properly placed rubber band and a forward pull on the hand guard does the same thing.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

GREENCOUNTYPETE said:


> will there be a required turn in?


Yes, unless you destroy them.
Possession will no longer be legal.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

Definitely a case where the practical issue (I.e., being denied a device to waste copious amounts of ammunition to little useful effect) and the matter of principle (I.e., chiseling at the Second Amendment in spite of the clear language "shall my be infringed") are two entirely different issues with vastly different consequences.


----------



## Shrek (May 1, 2002)

Although the LV shooter had many suitcases when he checked in and it was reported that four or five of the weapons were bump stock equipped, I don't recall any news source actually saying the Las Vegas shooter used them in his attack. Of course the news videos all zoomed in on the bump stock equipped weapons

A bump fired weapon generally has a erratic rate of fire often uncontrolled jam potential magazine emptying.

Listening to audio on the news reports when the attack happened, it sounded more as if the attacker was steady firing a semi automatic and possibly had other weapons in line much as Revolutionary era cotton bale protected American snipers had multiple rifles and a reload assistant with them behind the cotton bale.

Banning bump stocks is probably an appeasement concession similar to the ban of Triburst trigger ratchets back in the 1980s because when mounted to a weapon it was supposed to fire 3 rounds with each pull of the ratchet trigger as the weapon functioned in normal semiautomatic fire technically not crossing the semiautomatic / full automatic differencing.

As bump firing results in erractic aim and almost instant magazine emptying, the 1980s era triburst ratchets often resulted in jamming of the weapon they were mounted on. When the ban of the triburst attachment occurred I read that they were not popular with firearm owners to attach to their weapons anyway as the attachment was cumbersome and the manufacturer sales were down so the ban was pretty much a moot point.


----------



## crehberg (Mar 16, 2008)

GREENCOUNTYPETE said:


> any time a government demands this without full due process it would seem to be setting it's self up for a major lawsuit. not to mention a very very bad place for government to be.


I just don't get it. If it's illegal fine. But you want me to give up a legally purchased item with no just compensation when I haven't done anything wrong....bull.

And no I don't own one...in fact every weapon I do own doesn't combine to the value of the one of these things...but sheesh this is a bunch of junk!


----------



## ShannonR (Nov 28, 2012)

shawnlee said:


> The issue really is not the item, its just a toy....of limited usefulness..
> 
> Yes the article said surrender with no compensation or destroy.


Are they going to come door to door collecting them from folks who don't? I had a laugh over that earlier tonight.


----------



## shawnlee (Apr 13, 2010)

ShannonR said:


> Are they going to come door to door collecting them from folks who don't? I had a laugh over that earlier tonight.



The saddest part is people who do not keep up on these laws, the occasional shooter...…


Take gun out of safe in 10 or 20 years, goes out to enjoy the sound of freedom and lands up with a felony.


----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

Cabin Fever said:


> A properly placed rubber band and a forward pull on the hand guard does the same thing.


Now stop giving Trump ideas, I have no use for a bump stock, but I do occasionally use rubber bands and dont need them outlawed. Still amazed pressure cookers didnt get banned. Pretty sure its why larger iron pipe fittings disappeared. Nobody really uses galvanized iron pipe for plumbing anymore but it and the fittings sometimes very useful for things other than plumbing (or bombs).

By way it is just a novelty for stupid people to waste huge amounts ammunition in a very short amount time, pretending they had a machine gune, but to ban anything that WAS legally acquired, should require opportunity for compensation. Its bit like suddenly passing a law banning Cadillacs. And not compensating the owners. Just making it a crime to have one in your possession.


----------



## shawnlee (Apr 13, 2010)

……....and its up to you to figure out they banned Cadillacs, if they catch you driving one without knowing you lose the right to any car for the rest of your life.


----------



## goodatit (May 1, 2013)

GREENCOUNTYPETE said:


> will there be a required turn in?
> 
> I think it is a mighty slippery slope.
> 
> ...


i've always said that rat nest needs cleaned out.


----------



## GREENCOUNTYPETE (Jul 25, 2006)

if you are saying people should be killed I disagree.

if you are saying the legislative branch needs to step up or be elected all new , I agree.


----------



## goodatit (May 1, 2013)

GREENCOUNTYPETE said:


> if you are saying people should be killed I disagree.
> 
> if you are saying the legislative branch needs to step up or be elected all new , I agree.


only way this kind of change will take place. of course if you want to wait several lifetimes you may see some change. everyone of those people in the WH are nothing but self serving crooks. every year they are in they make laws that make it harder to get rid of them. what you are suggesting won't happen in a million years


----------



## Grafton County Couple (Sep 20, 2018)

The 1st attachment is a pdf copy of the 2010 ATF response letter re: bump stock (see last sentence paragraph 2).
The second is from the March 29, 2018 Federal Register - proposed rules.


----------

