LOL! As I just pointed out, the absurd "bump stock ban" is as stupid for the Trump administration as it was for Obama.
Don't worry - it wont be after until the first one is used in a crime, as they currently do not have any dead bodies to stand on or blood to soak themselves in.
The Obama never talked about banning bump stocks - He, like the rest of the anti-gun left, knew nothing about them before the LV shooting.
This is an idiotic, nonsensical gesture. So, a previously legal item, sold legally for often hundreds of dollars... and the government arbitrarily bans it and demands it be turned in without any compensation to the people who are now ordered to turn them in? Yeah, bump stocks are nothing but nonsensical range toys with zero real-world utility; but that doesn't change that this action is likewise nonsensical, and very dangerous Constitutionally.
It should go without saying that the executive branch cannot change the text of a law through simple regulation. The leftists, however, love to do thus - and thus, their outrage, below. http://www.politicalforum.com/index...itable-power-grab-with-kisor-v-wilkie.547310/
All of which will ultimately change nothing of significance whatsoever. Such will not prevent so much as a single killing from occurring, nor will it prevent private individuals from producing their own bump stocks and continuing with business as usual. They will simply do so under the radar, as no one is looking for the homemade variants. Look for widespread civil disobedience as those who own them refuse to surrender or otherwise destroy them, thus putting the government in the precarious position of deciding what to do with the tens to hundreds of thousands of individuals that are refusing to comply.
And another suit: BREAKING: Federal Lawsuit Filed Challenging Trump Bump-Stock Ban; Injunction Sought Home News WASHINGTON, D.C. (December 18, 201 — Today, attorneys for an owner of a “bump-stock” device and three constitutional rights advocacy organizations filed a federal lawsuit against the Trump Administration’s new confiscatory ban on firearm parts, additionally challenging Matthew Whitaker’s legal authority to serve as Acting Attorney General and issue rules without being nominated to the role and confirmed by the Senate or by operation of law. A copy of the court filings can be viewed at www.bumpstockcase.com. The plaintiffs also filed a motion seeking a temporary injunction to prevent the Trump Administration from implementing and enforcing the new regulation. The lawsuit, captioned as Guedes, et al. v. BATFE, et al., is backed by Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC), Firearms Policy Foundation (FPF), and Madison Society Foundation (MSF), also institutional plaintiffs in the case. “Bump-stocks” were legal under federal law and prior determinations of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives until the agency issued a new final rulemaking today. Under the new rule, owners of the devices have just 90 days to surrender or destroy their property, after which they could face federal ‘machinegun’ charges that carry up to 10 years in prison and $250,000 in fines for each violation. The plaintiffs are represented by attorneys Joshua Prince and Adam Kraut of Firearms Industry Consulting Group, a division of Civil Rights Defense Firm, P.C. Prince and Kraut previously filed a nearly 1,000-page formal opposition to the proposed regulation, which included a video exhibit showing the actual operation of a “bump-stock” device on an AR-15 type firearm. That opposition and its 35 exhibits can be viewed at www.bit.ly/fpc-bumpstock-reg-opposition. “The ATF has misled the public about bump-stock devices,” Prince said. “Worse, they are actively attempting to make felons out of people who relied on their legal opinions to lawfully acquire and possess devices the government unilaterally, unconstitutionally, and improperly decided to reclassify as ‘machineguns’. We are optimistic that the court will act swiftly to protect the rights and property of Americans who own these devices, and once the matter has been fully briefed and considered by the court, that the regulation will be struck down permanently.” https://www.firearmspolicy.org/laws...dYUp8Vb7GAvfXvvUcERHlkoqH47jIj__zT1L7EV3daYVQ
The most likely course of development pertaining to this case, is that the suit will be heard by a court dominated by judges who align with what is regarded as leftwing liberal ideology, who will dismiss the suit entirely and hold not only do the plaintiffs not have standing to challenge the action, but that the ATF is well within its authority to reinterpret established federal laws as it sees fit, without the need of congress to actually change the laws. Such a ruling will naturally be appealed to higher courts of review, that will likely refuse to hear the appeal, up to and including the united state supreme court. All of which will essentially boil down to declaring that the rule of law is dead in the united states, and that government is free to do as it pleases.
The most likely course of development pertaining to this case, is that the suit will be heard by a court dominated by judges who align with what is regarded as leftwing liberal ideology, who will dismiss the suit entirely and hold not only do the plaintiffs not have standing to challenge the action, but that the ATF is well within its authority to reinterpret established federal laws as it sees fit, without the need of congress to actually change the laws. Such a ruling will naturally be appealed to higher courts of review, that will likely refuse to hear the appeal, up to and including the united state supreme court. All of which will essentially boil down to declaring that the rule of law is dead in the united states, and that government is free to do as it pleases without need for concern what the law may or may not say.
I thought you supported things like background checks, registration, licensing and training. Now I see you would also support confiscation of products that are legally owned today.
If one can legitimately exercise less care about a particular subject, perhaps they should remain silent, and cease commenting on the matter entirely.
And yet on October 1st you said this: If you don't care why would you take time to comment that their banning was "long overdue"?
Yeah.... don't think is in the corner. He seems to be right out in the open for all to see. Maybe based on that, he is not a troll? Just sayin'.