Author |
Message |
root
Site Supporter
Location: Apple Country! Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2012 Posts: 4578
Real Name: J
|
Quote: This rule is intended to clarify that the statutory definition of machinegun includes certain devices (i.e., bump-stock-type devices) that, when affixed to a firearm, allow that firearm to fire automatically with a single function of the trigger, such that they are subject to regulation under the National Firearms Act (NFA) and the Gun Control Act (GCA). The rule will amend 27 CFR 447.11, 478.11, and 479.11 to clarify that bump-stock-type devices are machineguns as defined by the NFA and GCA because such devices allow a shooter of a semiautomatic firearm to initiate a continuous firing cycle with a single pull of the trigger. Specifically, these devices convert an otherwise semiautomatic firearm into a machinegun by functioning as a self-acting or self-regulating mechanism that harnesses the recoil energy of the semiautomatic firearm in a manner that allows the trigger to reset and continue firing without additional physical manipulation of the trigger by the shooter. https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgen ... =1140-AA52Quote: “The Department of Justice is issuing a rulemaking that would interpret the statutory definition of machine gun in the National Firearms Act of 1934 and Gun Control Act of 1968 to clarify whether certain devices, commonly known as bump-fire stocks, fall within that definition.” https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2018/ ... egulation/Meaning that all in WA that have one, are now felons! YAY! tl;dr: Bumpstocks affixed to guns are now MGs, and Trump's DOJ/ATF just made a million Americans felons.
_________________ "Guns are dangerous." -Massivedesign
|
Thu Nov 15, 2018 8:00 am |
|
|
Guns4Liberty
Site Supporter
Location: Lynnwood/Bothell Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2014 Posts: 8564
Real Name: Curtis
|
Except we all realize the obvious flaw in their logic, right? Quote: This rule is intended to clarify that the statutory definition of machinegun includes certain devices (i.e., bump-stock-type devices) that, when affixed to a firearm, allow that firearm to fire automatically with a single function of the trigger, such that they are subject to regulation under the National Firearms Act (NFA) and the Gun Control Act (GCA). The rule will amend 27 CFR 447.11, 478.11, and 479.11 to clarify that bump-stock-type devices are machineguns as defined by the NFA and GCA because such devices allow a shooter of a semiautomatic firearm to initiate a continuous firing cycle with a single pull of the trigger. Specifically, these devices convert an otherwise semiautomatic firearm into a machinegun by functioning as a self-acting or self-regulating mechanism that harnesses the recoil energy of the semiautomatic firearm in a manner that allows the trigger to reset and continue firing without additional physical manipulation of the trigger by the shooter. So, it's a single pull, but the trigger is reset? It can't be both, so which is it? This shit will not hold up in a court of law.
|
Thu Nov 15, 2018 8:35 am |
|
|
Barfly
Site Supporter
Location: Lacey Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2012 Posts: 2292
Real Name: Jim
|
we've seen this coming for quite some time now. Bumpstocks being illegal really doesn't bother me as you don't need a bump stock to bump fire a rifle. The one that gets me is the crank handle. I was hoping to build a 1919 some day and put a crank handle on it...
|
Thu Nov 15, 2018 8:36 am |
|
|
jukk0u
Site Supporter
Location: Lynnwood and at large Joined: Wed May 1, 2013 Posts: 21290
Real Name: Vick Lagina
|
Barfly wrote: we've seen this coming for quite some time now. Bumpstocks being illegal really doesn't bother me as you don't need a bump stock to bump fire a rifle. The one that gets me is the crank handle. I was hoping to build a 1919 some day and put a crank handle on it... Don't be fooled into the FUD mindset. Any erosion WILL have effects further down the line and emboldens the antis. (as you can see by your crank handle comment)
_________________ “Finding ‘common ground’ with the thinking of evil men is a fool’s errand” ~ Herschel Smith
"The said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." ~ Samuel Adams
“A return to First Principles in a Republic is sometimes caused by simple virtues of a single man. His good example has such an influence that the good men strive to imitate him, and the wicked are ashamed to lead a life so contrary to his example. Before all else, be armed!” ~ Niccolo Machiavelli
Láodòng zhèng zhūwèi zìyóu
FJB
|
Thu Nov 15, 2018 8:58 am |
|
|
root
Site Supporter
Location: Apple Country! Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2012 Posts: 4578
Real Name: J
|
Guns4Liberty wrote: Except we all realize the obvious flaw in their logic, right? Quote: This rule is intended to clarify that the statutory definition of machinegun includes certain devices (i.e., bump-stock-type devices) that, when affixed to a firearm, allow that firearm to fire automatically with a single function of the trigger, such that they are subject to regulation under the National Firearms Act (NFA) and the Gun Control Act (GCA). The rule will amend 27 CFR 447.11, 478.11, and 479.11 to clarify that bump-stock-type devices are machineguns as defined by the NFA and GCA because such devices allow a shooter of a semiautomatic firearm to initiate a continuous firing cycle with a single pull of the trigger. Specifically, these devices convert an otherwise semiautomatic firearm into a machinegun by functioning as a self-acting or self-regulating mechanism that harnesses the recoil energy of the semiautomatic firearm in a manner that allows the trigger to reset and continue firing without additional physical manipulation of the trigger by the shooter. So, it's a single pull, but the trigger is reset? It can't be both, so which is it? This shit will not hold up in a court of law. Government using logic? Lulz.
_________________ "Guns are dangerous." -Massivedesign
|
Thu Nov 15, 2018 9:29 am |
|
|
TechnoWeenie
Site Supporter
Location: Nova Laboratories Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2011 Posts: 18470
Real Name: Johnny 5
|
So, turn in for destruction or allow for registration and amnesty? Put it on your AR, pay your tax stamp as a machine gun, put in FA fcg as it's already a MG.
_________________NO DISASSEMBLE!Thomas Paine wrote: "He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself."
|
Thu Nov 15, 2018 10:47 am |
|
|
root
Site Supporter
Location: Apple Country! Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2012 Posts: 4578
Real Name: J
|
TechnoWeenie wrote: So, turn in for destruction or allow for registration and amnesty? Put it on your AR, pay your tax stamp as a machine gun, put in FA fcg as it's already a MG. You forgot "Move to ID" first.
_________________ "Guns are dangerous." -Massivedesign
|
Thu Nov 15, 2018 11:05 am |
|
|
L_O_G
Site Supporter
Location: South Seattle Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2011 Posts: 13486
Real Name: JP
|
Yup, if Clinton was in office these would still be legal. Its all Trumps fault lol
_________________ Yes I Do Have A Beautiful Daughter.. I Also Have A Gun, A Shovel, & An Alibi
|
Thu Nov 15, 2018 12:00 pm |
|
|
leadcounsel
Site Supporter
Location: Can't say Joined: Sun Sep 7, 2014 Posts: 8134
|
I am angry these were banned, and there's a lot to be angry about these days regarding gun laws. I never had one but I still support the rights to have them.
But I place blame on * The numbskull murderer who used them in Vegas mass murder * Numbskull voters too lazy and stupid to vote * Liberals and antigunners who push bans
_________________ I defend the 2A. US Army Combat Veteran and Paratrooper: OIF Veteran. BSM and MSM recipient. NRA Lifetime. Entertainment purposes only. I'm a lawyer, but have not offered you legal advice.
|
Thu Nov 15, 2018 12:07 pm |
|
|
DONOTBUGME
Site Supporter
Location: Auburn Joined: Wed May 4, 2016 Posts: 309
|
I still have a curved finger and a belt loop....
|
Thu Nov 15, 2018 12:10 pm |
|
|
leadcounsel
Site Supporter
Location: Can't say Joined: Sun Sep 7, 2014 Posts: 8134
|
DONOTBUGME wrote: I still have a curved finger and a belt loop.... Are you politically active and do you vote against liberals and gun control? In WA they are about 1-3 election cycles away from banning "assault weapons" and components. So your ownership will be heavily restricted or even illegal here. If liberals get power in Washington, you can bet they will push a nationwide AWB.
_________________ I defend the 2A. US Army Combat Veteran and Paratrooper: OIF Veteran. BSM and MSM recipient. NRA Lifetime. Entertainment purposes only. I'm a lawyer, but have not offered you legal advice.
|
Thu Nov 15, 2018 12:41 pm |
|
|
root
Site Supporter
Location: Apple Country! Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2012 Posts: 4578
Real Name: J
|
L_O_G wrote: Yup, if Clinton was in office these would still be legal. Its all Trumps fault lol Thats totally the right way! If Trump clearly did it, plug ears and yell Clinton. Not actually hold asshats in Washington responsible for their own actions. Just blame Clinton! This just makes your point weaker in the long run, own up to the POTUS fucking something up. Trump's directive is the reason this is happening. Don't trust a politician, regardless of his current allegiances. leadcounsel wrote: I am angry these were banned, and there's a lot to be angry about these days regarding gun laws. I never had one but I still support the rights to have them.
But I place blame on * The numbskull murderer who used them in Vegas mass murder * Numbskull voters too lazy and stupid to vote * Liberals and antigunners who push bans I also blame the man who literally pushed for this ban. He is by far, not blameless in this situation. leadcounsel wrote: DONOTBUGME wrote: I still have a curved finger and a belt loop.... Are you politically active and do you vote against liberals and gun control? In WA they are about 1-3 election cycles away from banning "assault weapons" and components. So your ownership will be heavily restricted or even illegal here. If liberals get power in Washington, you can bet they will push a nationwide AWB. You realize that most of our strongest progun political critters in WA are not Republicans, right? Voting a party line is dumb.
_________________ "Guns are dangerous." -Massivedesign
|
Thu Nov 15, 2018 1:43 pm |
|
|
mislabeled
Site Supporter
Location: N-Sno Joined: Thu Oct 3, 2013 Posts: 4015
|
root wrote: ... You realize that most of our strongest progun political critters in WA are not Republicans, right? Voting a party line is dumb. Interesting. Who do you think are the "strongest pro-gun political critters" in this state?
_________________ "Hmmm. I've been looking for a way to serve the community that incorporates my violence." -- Leela
|
Thu Nov 15, 2018 1:47 pm |
|
|
Alpine
Site Supporter
Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2012 Posts: 7649
|
"pro gun Democrats" still caucus with Frank Chopp, Jamie Pedersen and Laurie Jenkins.
How useful will they be when they get outvoted on gun bills by larger Dem floor majorities?
_________________If you vote for Biden you are voting to be murdered when he sends Beto to come take your "semi automatic assault weapon" (any semi auto). If you have family or friends voting for Biden show them this and ask if they are willing to vote for your murder or maybe even their own if they are gun owners or live with any. https://nypost.com/2020/03/03/joe-biden ... n-control/Quote: “I want to make something clear, I’m going to guarantee you this is not the last you’ve seen of him (Beto),” Biden said Monday evening during a campaign rally in Dallas. “You’re (Beto) going to take care of the gun problem with me. You’re (Beto) going to be the one who leads this effort.” https://www.newsweek.com/beto-orourke-g ... ns-1465738Quote: [Beto O'Rourke Suggests Police Would 'Visit' Homes To Implement Proposed Assault Weapons Ban] "In that case, I think that there would be a visit by law enforcement to recover that firearm... ..."If someone does not turn in an AR-15 or an AK-47, one of these weapons of war...then that weapon will be taken from them"
|
Thu Nov 15, 2018 1:47 pm |
|
|
root
Site Supporter
Location: Apple Country! Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2012 Posts: 4578
Real Name: J
|
mislabeled wrote: root wrote: ... You realize that most of our strongest progun political critters in WA are not Republicans, right? Voting a party line is dumb. Interesting. Who do you think are the "strongest pro-gun political critters" in this state? Really? How quickly we forget Brian Hatfield and Tim Sheldon. Or do they not count? Alpine wrote: "pro gun Democrats" still caucus with Frank Chopp, Jamie Pedersen and Laurie Jenkins.
How useful will they be when they get outvoted on gun bills by larger Dem floor majorities? Dunno, glad they are there however.
_________________ "Guns are dangerous." -Massivedesign
|
Thu Nov 15, 2018 1:51 pm |
|
|
|