Bump fire stocks

[silvor]

So, destroy them or turn them in? With no monetary compensation?

There's no way that can fly.\

As a side, I'm not a semi auto rifle guy, so I'm surprised bump stocks and SIG braces are legal

[Ghost]

So, destroy them or turn them in? With no monetary compensation?

There's no way that can fly.\

As a side, I'm not a semi auto rifle guy, so I'm surprised bump stocks and SIG braces are legal

I can somewhat understand on bumpstocks (not that I agree) but why would you question the legality of an inanimate solid piece of plastic attached to the non business end of a rifle of any type?

[Holland&Holland]

So, destroy them or turn them in? With no monetary compensation?

There's no way that can fly.\

That is exactly what is being reported

[Ghost]

So, destroy them or turn them in? With no monetary compensation?

There's no way that can fly.\

That is exactly what is being reported

I'm really interested to see how this turns out.

[silvor]

So, destroy them or turn them in? With no monetary compensation?

There's no way that can fly.\

As a side, I'm not a semi auto rifle guy, so I'm surprised bump stocks and SIG braces are legal

I can somewhat understand on bumpstocks (not that I agree) but why would you question the legality of an inanimate solid piece of plastic attached to the non business end of a rifle of any type?

I'm not - just suprised the ATF allowed it.

[UnaStamus]

I saw this coming from the instant that the bump stocks came to market. It was the closest thing to making the heads of anti-gunners explode.

[Ghost]

I saw this coming from the instant that the bump stocks came to market. It was the closest thing to making the heads of anti-gunners explode.

I thought the .50 BMG did the best head explodings

[INOR]

It’s official now. Whittaker signed the order. Turn ‘em in or destroy them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ghost]

It’s official now. Whittaker signed the order. Turn ‘em in or destroy them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

About time, now we can start the lawsuits.

[INOR]

It’s official now. Whittaker signed the order. Turn ‘em in or destroy them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

About time, now we can start the lawsuits.

You should file your lawsuit first.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[gbono23]

https://apnews.com/6c1af80fb290472c89fb930e223505af

Found this article this morning.

[Ghost]

It’s official now. Whittaker signed the order. Turn ‘em in or destroy them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

About time, now we can start the lawsuits.

You should file your lawsuit first.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I won't be filing but I've already contributed $$$ to someone who will.

[Ghost]

Next they are coming for your hangers

[Ghost]

https://www.firearmspolicy.org/lawsuit-challenging-trump-bump-stock-ban

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 http://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 http://www.bit.ly/fpc-bumpstock-reg-opposition.

MORE AT LINK

[Rip Van Winkle]

I don't know why, but this bit just jumps out at me.

until the agency issued a new final rulemaking today.

So I guess the new final rule overrides the old final rule until the next final rule?

Sigh.