TexasCHLforum.com

For those of you who haven't heard, the ATF has been asked to create a new regulation that will ban bump fire devices and presumably any other device that will increase the rate of fire of a firearm. This is a huge slippery slope if it goes through, as this will pave the way for the alphabet agency to regulate our 2A rights instead of Congress. At this point, the regulation is open for public comments before the ATF reviews them and decides on the wording or fate of the proposed regulation. Please add your comments and politely tell the ATF to stop this nonsense.

Regulation proposal: https://www.regulations.gov/document?D= ... -0001-0001
Link to make comment: https://www.regulations.gov/comment?D=A ... -0001-7186
Note: your comment and first/last name will be made public on the website, but your address and other contact info will be held confidentially, for whatever that's worth.

strogg wrote:For those of you who haven't heard, the ATF has been asked to create a new regulation that will ban bump fire devices and presumably any other device that will increase the rate of fire of a firearm. This is a huge slippery slope if it goes through, as this will pave the way for the alphabet agency to regulate our 2A rights instead of Congress. At this point, the regulation is open for public comments before the ATF reviews them and decides on the wording or fate of the proposed regulation. Please add your comments and politely tell the ATF to stop this nonsense.

Regulation proposal: https://www.regulations.gov/document?D= ... -0001-0001
Link to make comment: https://www.regulations.gov/comment?D=A ... -0001-7186
Note: your comment and first/last name will be made public on the website, but your address and other contact info will be held confidentially, for whatever that's worth.

The part I bolded is my biggest concern with these types of regulations and recent laws. Taken literally, this would ban any strip of cloth (including clothing that could be cut into appropriately sized strips, rubber bands, belt loops, fingers, thumbs, etc., etc.). Given the ability to interpret this, the regulatory powers that be will be able to ban anything (and I mean anything) that they decide they don't like.

My second biggest concern is with any proposal that does not grandfather in items already legally owned. This sets an extremely dangerous precedent for future gun grabbing efforts.

I still fail to see the compelling national security need that is causing folks to want to further restrict our 2A rights. IMHO, there is a much more compelling need to restrict 1A rights if we are so eager to have a totalitarian government.

Soccerdad1995 wrote:My second biggest concern is with any proposal that does not grandfather in items already legally owned. This sets an extremely dangerous precedent for future gun grabbing efforts.

Why should it have a grandfather clause? If an inanimate object is so dangerous to warrant a ban, they should all be banned. Otherwise, how dangerous can they really be?

ninjabread wrote:

Soccerdad1995 wrote:My second biggest concern is with any proposal that does not grandfather in items already legally owned. This sets an extremely dangerous precedent for future gun grabbing efforts.

Why should it have a grandfather clause? If an inanimate object is so dangerous to warrant a ban, they should all be banned. Otherwise, how dangerous can they really be?

I'm assuming you are being sarcastic. But just in case someone thinks you are serious, let me remind you of the immortal words of our last President. "Don't worry, we aren't coming after your guns." He was a Socialist, but he at least claimed to not be in favor of confiscating guns that were already legally owned. There is a difference between a ban and outright confiscation. Lack of a grandfather clause = confiscation.

Since there are a multitude of things that can "increase the rate of fire", it is only practical to ban the guns themselves. Well except for those owned by the agents of the government, of course...

Soccerdad1995 wrote:

ninjabread wrote:

Soccerdad1995 wrote:My second biggest concern is with any proposal that does not grandfather in items already legally owned. This sets an extremely dangerous precedent for future gun grabbing efforts.

Why should it have a grandfather clause? If an inanimate object is so dangerous to warrant a ban, they should all be banned. Otherwise, how dangerous can they really be?

I'm assuming you are being sarcastic.

Not at all. If an inanimate object is so dangerous to warrant a ban, they should all be banned. If they're not going to round them all up then it's as pointless as shutting the barn door after the horses run away.

My question is how do you ban a technique? If a stock can be bump fired does that make it a bump fire stock?

crazy2medic wrote:My question is how do you ban a technique? If a stock can be bump fired does that make it a bump fire stock?

Are they banning the belt loops on Denim pants?

Beiruty wrote:

crazy2medic wrote:My question is how do you ban a technique? If a stock can be bump fired does that make it a bump fire stock?

Are they banning the belt loops on Denim pants?

My son can bump fire my .45 carbine by just how he holds it, it has a typical AR type stock, does the fact that it can be bump fired make it a bump fired stock? Slippery slippery slope! Even if the court eventually ruled that it wasn't a "bump fire" stock the money needed to defend yourself in court would wreck your average person's finances!

ninjabread wrote:

Soccerdad1995 wrote:

ninjabread wrote:

Soccerdad1995 wrote:My second biggest concern is with any proposal that does not grandfather in items already legally owned. This sets an extremely dangerous precedent for future gun grabbing efforts.

Why should it have a grandfather clause? If an inanimate object is so dangerous to warrant a ban, they should all be banned. Otherwise, how dangerous can they really be?

I'm assuming you are being sarcastic.

Not at all. If an inanimate object is so dangerous to warrant a ban, they should all be banned. If they're not going to round them all up then it's as pointless as shutting the barn door after the horses run away.

Let's use that same logic. Up until recently, these inanimate objects were considered safe enough for the public to possess. So since they were considered safe, they should always be allowed. After all, we can never, ever, change our minds on what should or should not be legal. Personally I disagree with this principle. I think we can get smarter, and we can change our minds on whether things should be legal.

But there is a huge difference between confiscation of guns (or anything else) and the prohibition of acquiring that item prospectively. When we get smarter and make decisions that things which were legal are in fact so unsafe that they should no longer be legal, then prospective bans may make sense. But confiscation raises real concerns about government abuse and whether we can trust the government to not confiscate our guns and other property after the fact. This cuts to the core reason why the 2nd amendment was included in the constitution in the first place. To allow the citizens of this country a means to resist and overthrow a tyrannical government that "has become destructive" of the very reasons why men form governments in the first place.

And make no mistake about it. A "bump stock" ban is a means for banning ownership of all semi-auto firearms, since each and every one of them is capable of being fired in a "bump stock" manner, using common household items, or even no items at all. They may not immediately confiscate all semi-auto guns, since that would incite a very passionate response. But it would give a legal justification for this confiscation.

Rob72 wrote:

ninjabread wrote:

Soccerdad1995 wrote:

ninjabread wrote:

Soccerdad1995 wrote:My second biggest concern is with any proposal that does not grandfather in items already legally owned. This sets an extremely dangerous precedent for future gun grabbing efforts.

Why should it have a grandfather clause? If an inanimate object is so dangerous to warrant a ban, they should all be banned. Otherwise, how dangerous can they really be?

I'm assuming you are being sarcastic.

Not at all. If an inanimate object is so dangerous to warrant a ban, they should all be banned. If they're not going to round them all up then it's as pointless as shutting the barn door after the horses run away.

Nope. I had this discussion with a co-worker in EMS 20 odd years ago, when we were "encouraged" to alert PD to drugs/paraphernalia in a residence on a medical call. Call EMS because Daddy is having a heart attack, and a PO comes by for a "public wellness check", looking for firearms and/or indicators that firearms may be in the home. Drug-use, by the Bureaucracy, is considered a public-pacification mechanism, unless and until it disrupts the economy. Firearms, not so much. It would not be difficult at all to start the round-up.

Nope. I had pizza for lunch and two cops were in there eating pizza too.