Appeals courts rules bump stocks aren't machine guns

164817138_10216959242165708_4939261624163465221_n.jpg
 
And yet it ultimately functions in a way that makes a semi automatic act exactly like an automatic weapon. I seriously don't get the reasoning presented.
 
Just to note.........this was put in place under Trump. The guy who said he would take guns and ask questions later.
 
Read the def of a machinegun. BATFe themselves declared bump stocks are NOT a machinegun long before any of this shitstorm.

Firearms Verification
National Firearms Act Definitions
Machinegun
26 U.S.C. § 5845(b)

For the purposes of the National Firearms Act the term Machinegun means:

  • Any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger
 
And yet it ultimately functions in a way that makes a semi automatic act exactly like an automatic weapon. I seriously don't get the reasoning presented.

1. It doesn't make a semi-auto act exactly like an automatic. The rate of fire isn't even the same.

2. The reasoning is: the law defines whst an automatic firearm is. A bump stock doesn't match that definition. Laws can't be re-defined at one's pleasure.
 
I neither have nor need one, but this is interesting.

The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Ohio ruled that former President Trump’s ban on bump stocks is unconstitutional and should no longer be enforced by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives.

This case was brought by Gun Owners of America, Gun Owners Foundation, the Virginia Citizens Defense League, Matt Watkins, Tim Harmsen of the Military Arms Channel and GOA’s Texas director, Rachel Malone.


Court deals blow to nationwide bump stock ban
 
I neither have nor need one, but this is interesting.

The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Ohio ruled that former President Trump’s ban on bump stocks is unconstitutional and should no longer be enforced by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives.

This case was brought by Gun Owners of America, Gun Owners Foundation, the Virginia Citizens Defense League, Matt Watkins, Tim Harmsen of the Military Arms Channel and GOA’s Texas director, Rachel Malone.


Court deals blow to nationwide bump stock ban

The problem is, it was done by an Executive Order. Shouldn't happen. It's going to take a full blown Law from Congress and signed by the President.
 
I neither have nor need one, but this is interesting.

The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Ohio ruled that former President Trump’s ban on bump stocks is unconstitutional and should no longer be enforced by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives.

This case was brought by Gun Owners of America, Gun Owners Foundation, the Virginia Citizens Defense League, Matt Watkins, Tim Harmsen of the Military Arms Channel and GOA’s Texas director, Rachel Malone.


Court deals blow to nationwide bump stock ban
Just read the actual reg from the trump department of justice. I haven't actually read the ruling from Ohio, 6th Circuit, but I don't like agencies setting their own rules in many cases. I am no fan of bump stocks, especially on the streets. I just don't like the way it was done.
 
No one needs one unless they somehow feel the need to murder a bunch of people.

"Need" is not an issue where concerns the 2nd Amendment.

Leave it up to the states. and the market will decide.

Continue to bring the federal government into the picture, and you will meet only resistance.
 
No one needs one unless they somehow feel the need to murder a bunch of people.

"Need" is not an issue where concerns the 2nd Amendment.

Leave it up to the states. and the market will decide.

Continue to bring the federal government into the picture, and you will meet only resistance.
Utility is a definite issue when it comes to gun laws. It's why we can't have missiles, artillery and land mines. No one can make the case that these weapons are needed for any practical reason and are an unreasonable threat to public safety. Simply resisting even the most common sense restrictions on mass murder weapons is not responsible gun ownership.
 
No one needs one unless they somehow feel the need to murder a bunch of people.

"Need" is not an issue where concerns the 2nd Amendment.

Leave it up to the states. and the market will decide.

Continue to bring the federal government into the picture, and you will meet only resistance.
states have no authority in the 2nd just like the feds,,
 

Forum List

Back
Top