Bump Stocks become illegal come March...

[Burntorange Bowhunter]

I am not necessarily happy about this but I think Trump is just throwing them a bone. The POTUS is supposed to work with both sides, no? The difference in he and Obama is O tried all sorts of stuff including reenacting the assault weapons ban. If he did this it would be more of a "first step" type situation.

[duckmanep]

What do you mean? Like 100 round drums?
Because all STANDARD AR mags are 30 rounders. That is a standard magazine for AR's and AK's ect. Most .308 semi rifles are 20 rounders...standard capacity.

ask Cali and many other states that have already banned them what the definition is.

[flywise]

Holy Cow! Would ya look at this.


https://babylonbee.com/news/tragic-e...ating-accident

That's pretty good

[TeamAmerica]

Is a bump stock guaranteed by the 2nd amendment? No. Are they popular among the majority of americans? Guessing No.

Then they can regulate it or ban it. And don't give me that "slippery slope" BS or that "give em an inch they'll take a mile" garbage. The ability to own a gun and protect yourself and your home has not been diminished by any significant objective measure in the last half century no matter how paranoid the NRA or that cheap weed makes you feel. Give it a rest.

[Tuffbroadhead]

Where were all you whiny tits back in 1981???

[altabonita]

My logic is that it doesn't matter if the weapon was built fully automatic or if adding parts inside or outside of the gun makes it fully automatic. The end result is the same. I believe that the gun industry was pushing the envelope on the legality of the things, got the ruling that they wanted for awhile, then common sense prevailed and the ruling was reversed. I support tough vetting of anyone desiring to own fully automatic weapons so I support the bump stock loophole being closed. If you want a fully automatic weapon and qualify, you can still own one.

You are so misguided.

[TacticalCowboy]

Is a bump stock guaranteed by the 2nd amendment? No. Are they popular among the majority of americans? Guessing No.

Then they can regulate it or ban it. And don't give me that "slippery slope" BS or that "give em an inch they'll take a mile" garbage. The ability to own a gun and protect yourself and your home has not been diminished by any significant objective measure in the last half century no matter how paranoid the NRA or that cheap weed makes you feel. Give it a rest.

Through legislation, yes.

[Burntorange Bowhunter]

Is a bump stock guaranteed by the 2nd amendment? No. Are they popular among the majority of americans? Guessing No.

Then they can regulate it or ban it. And don't give me that "slippery slope" BS or that "give em an inch they'll take a mile" garbage. The ability to own a gun and protect yourself and your home has not been diminished by any significant objective measure in the last half century no matter how paranoid the NRA or that cheap weed makes you feel. Give it a rest.

Huh? Didn't Clinton enact the assault weapons ban?

The Federal Assault Weapons Ban enacted in 1994 expired in 2004. Attempts to renew this ban have failed, as have attempts to pass a new ban, such as the Assault Weapons Ban of 2013 (AWB 2013).

[duckmanep]

Where were all you whiny tits back in 1981???

not born yet.

[Tuffbroadhead]

Through legislation, yes.

If my google foo is correct it was done before the "bumpstock" was ever invented.


In 1968, Congress enlarged the statutory definition of machinegun (26 U.S.C. section 5845 (b)) to specifically include a collection of parts as well as (3) the frame or receiver of a machinegun and (4) any part or collection of parts which would convert a semiautomatic firearm into a machinegun.


Now that would all fall into legal definition.

[Clay C]

Is a bump stock guaranteed by the 2nd amendment? No. Are they popular among the majority of americans? Guessing No.

Then they can regulate it or ban it. And don't give me that "slippery slope" BS or that "give em an inch they'll take a mile" garbage. The ability to own a gun and protect yourself and your home has not been diminished by any significant objective measure in the last half century no matter how paranoid the NRA or that cheap weed makes you feel. Give it a rest.

That’s a terrible argument. Using that logic, you’d be okay with them banning everything except for a lower receiver, barreled action etc.

Why do you think they aren’t protected? How can you say those things haven’t been diminished? It doesn’t say “shall not prevent from owning” it says “shall not be infringed”. I think some of you do not know the definition of infringed. Also, the second amendment is not about protecting you home.

It always surprises me how much more gun friendly Californians that move here are than a lot of native Texans.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[flywise]

That’s a terrible argument. Using that logic, you’d be okay with them banning everything except for a lower receiver, barreled action etc.

Why do you think they aren’t protected? How can you say those things haven’t been diminished? It doesn’t say “shall not prevent from owning” it says “shall not be infringed”. I think some of you do not know the definition of infringed. Also, the second amendment is not about protecting you home.

It always surprises me how much more gun friendly Californians that move here are than a lot of native Texans.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Maybe i missed it but i don't recall this latest decision saying anything about my guns. Or my right to own one being infringed upon.

[Clay C]

Maybe i missed it but i don't recall this latest decision saying anything about my guns. Or my right to own one being infringed upon.

Would you be okay with it if they decided flash hiders are silencers? Because that’s essentially what they did here. Ignored a legal definition to add something to it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CRM_95]

Where were all you whiny tits back in 1981???

I was 3.

[Burntorange Bowhunter]

Again, I'm not happy about it, but.....were you suicidal from 1994-2004 Clay?