I can definitely understand that. Unfortunately, you won't find many allies. The left won't oppose it because they love banning things and it checks all of their boxes. Trump fan-boys will obviously not hold him accountable and the NRA actually called for this and is not opposing it. Hopefully, the GOA and the other small lobbyists can pull off their lawsuit but they have nowhere near the clout that is probably necessary. Quite frankly, a lot of 2nd Amendment supporters are whistling past the graveyard for partisan reasons and I've never seen anything like this. It's like Quisling Central.
By refusing to hold the people responsible for the ban accountable. And to be clear, the people responsible are specifically Donald Trump and the NRA.
That firearm owners are not supporting the actions of either Donald Trump, or the ATF in this matter.
Some are and some aren't. The NRA actually called for the longstanding rule to be reviewed which was the impetus for the ban and are doing nothing to oppose it.
You're living in a fantasy world. This is a statement from the NRA, made while bump stocks were still legal: "Despite the fact that the Obama administration approved the sale of bump fire stocks on at least two occasions, the National Rifle Association is calling on the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) to immediately review whether these devices comply with federal law. The NRA believes that devices designed to allow semi-automatic rifles to function like fully-automatic rifles should be subject to additional regulations." The NRA is complicit in this new ban. There isn't even a question. Edit to add link: https://home.nra.org/joint-statement
A statement that was released after the ATF determined the bump stock did not modify a semi-automatic firearm into a full-automatic firearm. Furthermore, a statement that was released on the understanding that the ATF was devoid of legal authority to redefine existing federal legislation to read as something entirely different from how it was written.
"Despite the fact that the Obama administration approved the sale of bump fire stocks on at least two occasions, the National Rifle Association is calling on the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) to immediately review whether these devices comply with federal law. The NRA believes that devices designed to allow semi-automatic rifles to function like fully-automatic rifles should be subject to additional regulations." --NRA
Given that the ATF and the NRA both saw that these devices were not devices that allowed semiauto rifles to function as machine guns, it was the expectation of the NRA that any further review would yield the exact same results, especially under Trump, and shut the GCAs up about bump stocks once and for all.
The NRA literally said that they believe that there should be new regulations concerning bump stocks. Those were their words. "Despite the fact that the Obama administration approved the sale of bump fire stocks on at least two occasions, the National Rifle Association is calling on the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) to immediately review whether these devices comply with federal law. The NRA believes that devices designed to allow semi-automatic rifles to function like fully-automatic rifles should be subject to additional regulations." --NRA
And the bump stock does not achieve such a function. It does not cause a semi-automatic firearm to function like a fully-automatic firearm, that being the discharge of numerous rounds of ammunition with only a single pull of the trigger. No matter how fast a firearm may function with a bump stock attached, it is still functioning in a semi-automatic fashion, and only a semi-automatic fashion.
The NRA statement does not claim that a bump stock a device that should subject to additional regulations. This is a dig at Obama.
LMAO! I agree, bumpstocks do not create full-auto firearms. Tell it to the NRA. They're the ones that disagreed with you. In case you missed it: "Despite the fact that the Obama administration approved the sale of bump fire stocks on at least two occasions, the National Rifle Association is calling on the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) to immediately review whether these devices comply with federal law. The NRA believes that devices designed to allow semi-automatic rifles to function like fully-automatic rifles should be subject to additional regulations." --NRAYou should be angry with the NRA but instead you choose to defend them. Why?
Not in the slightest. If the NRA felt that bump stocks should be banned, their statement would have read "The NRA believes that THESE devices designed to allow semi-automatic rifles to function like fully-automatic rifles should be subject to additional regulations." --NRA. I believe that under NFA 1934, devices that allow semi-automatic rifles to function like fully-automatic rifles should be subject to additional regulations. Those rifles would be machine guns. Bump stocks are not such devices. I also don't support NFA 1934 restrictions, but I do acknowledge that they are in place, put their by Congress.
"This week, the Department of Justice announced that it would soon be releasing a final rule classifying “bump-stock-type-devices” as “machineguns” under the National Firearms Act. These devices came to national attention in October 2017 after the horrific attack in Las Vegas. As multiple media accounts correctly pointed to at the time, there was overwhelming legislative support for proposals that went far beyond these specific devices and some that could have potentially jeopardized all semiautomatic firearms. Rather than sit back and watch a legislative over-reaction, the NRA asked Congress to let ATF review its prior determinations on bump fire stocks. Some have used our October 2017 statement to claim that NRA supports ATF’s final rule, but as NRA-ILA’s Executive Director Chris Cox noted only days after our statement was issued, “We don’t believe that bans have ever worked on anything.” We also made this clear in our comments to ATF on the proposed rule earlier this year. In our comments, we further advised that ATF should at a minimum make an amnesty period available to deal with the fundamental inequity imposed on law-abiding gun owners who purchased their bump fire stocks in good faith reliance on prior ATF determinations. We continue to pursue the availability of a period of amnesty with the administration."
As others involved in the discussion are pointing out, it is the interpretation on the part of yourself regarding the above statement that is factually incorrect.
Personally I don't see where the NRA has anything to do with it. United States Code states: That to me says a firearm with a bump stock is a machine gun. While I do not support restrictions on private firearms ownership, that is current law. Based on that law bump stocks should never have been allowed in the first place without the ATF paperwork. If there is any blame to be placed here it all goes on the Feds.
Incorrect, even with a bump stock a semi-automatic firearm still must have it's trigger pulled for each individual discharge of the firearm.
A bump stock does not work unless the trigger is reset every single shot. That requires a separate pull of the trigger every single shot. By definition, that is not how a machine gun works. A bump stock enables bump fire, and bump fire is not against the law. If anything that allowed bump fire was considered to be a machine gun, then the feds would have to ban belt loops and rubber bands. A bump stock and rubbers bands function exactly in the same way. Why is one illegal and the other not?
