• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Trump announced he wiil ban bump-stocks by EO

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,936
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
I can't conceive how Trump thinks he can change the definition of machine-gun. At noon today said that he was going to sign an EO to outlaw bump-stocks. If he misspoke, I hope that is what he did.
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
I can't conceive how Trump thinks he can change the definition of machine-gun. At noon today said that he was going to sign an EO to outlaw bump-stocks. If he misspoke, I hope that is what he did.

He is going down Obama's dark path, completely ignoring congress. This will probably ruin his chances of reelection.
 
Last edited:

RedNeck Texan

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2018
Messages
11
Location
Angelina Co. Texas
Trump announced he wiil ban bump-stocks by EO.

So much for him being a law and order guy.

Man I hate this. :banghead: Bump-stocks fall into my file of I don't need one don't care for one but your right and I am for defending that.
When asked about their need and usefulness I know this could some day easily be the closest thing to equalizing Patriot Citizen to a foreign invading enemy or a domestic despot enemy.
Why do we need bump-stocks - National defense and personal defense.
Shure would have been nice for someone in Las Vegas to have one and able to keep that fool pinned down til they got to him.
I am old enough to vividly remember 1968 and Whitman being pinned down in the UT tower by Joe citizen til the LEOs got him.
 

gutshot II

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2017
Messages
782
Location
Central Ky.
He is going down Obama's dark path, completely ignoring congress. This will probably ruin his chances of reelection.

I really doubt that. If every person that bought one and every person that ever wanted to buy one decided that they would not vote for Trump, who do you think they might vote for?
Hilary? No
Elizabeth Warren? No
Nancy Pelosi? No
Kamala Harris? No
Any other Dem.? No
Now, maybe these people might just not vote and stay home, all 1,528 of them.
The more likely scenario is that by the time the election gets here, bump stocks will be old news that nobody remembers and a dozen new, more serious outrages will have taken our attention. It will be those issues that will decide the election, not this insignificant speed "bump". Bump stocks will not be the cause of the next civil war.
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,315
Location
here nc
snippp...

I am old enough to vividly remember 1968 and Whitman being pinned down in the UT tower by Joe citizen til the LEOs got him.

me thinks your memory is might be fuzzy regarding the event...

while not my first choice here is the wiki version...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Texas_tower_shooting

note the part which states Officers and civilians w/handguns & hunting rifles provide suppressive fire from the ground...still continued to fire through manhole slots toward the ground at victims.

Officers and civilians finally reached the observation deck and an Officer Martinez finished off the gunman with a point blank head shot as his revolver was empty.
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
I really doubt that. If every person that bought one and every person that ever wanted to buy one decided that they would not vote for Trump, who do you think they might vote for?
Hilary? No
Elizabeth Warren? No
Nancy Pelosi? No
Kamala Harris? No
Any other Dem.? No
Now, maybe these people might just not vote and stay home, all 1,528 of them.
The more likely scenario is that by the time the election gets here, bump stocks will be old news that nobody remembers and a dozen new, more serious outrages will have taken our attention. It will be those issues that will decide the election, not this insignificant speed "bump". Bump stocks will not be the cause of the next civil war.

Turnout is what got Trump elected, lack of turnout was crippling to Hillary. It is not just the owners of bump stocks that find this offensive, he will need every vote he can get, and this will hurt him.
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
Let's be very clear, gun owners, and the NRA got Trump elected. Gun ownership is very strong in the rust belt states he turned, while I do not expect those dem gun owners to support another anti gun zealot they will stay home.

I will vote for him to keep a anti gun dem out, but I am highly disappointed he has gone this direction. Especially after we know now it was the FBI, and Sheriff's Israel's fault that this guy slipped through the cracks. The gun grabbers balloon sprung a massive leak when the incompetence came out, there is no reason for him to buckle.
 

MontanaResident

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 25, 2013
Messages
160
Location
Montana
Let's be very clear, gun owners, and the NRA got Trump elected. Gun ownership is very strong in the rust belt states he turned, while I do not expect those dem gun owners to support another anti gun zealot they will stay home.

I will vote for him to keep a anti gun dem out, but I am highly disappointed he has gone this direction. Especially after we know now it was the FBI, and Sheriff's Israel's fault that this guy slipped through the cracks. The gun grabbers balloon sprung a massive leak when the incompetence came out, there is no reason for him to buckle.

Who dropped the ball, letting Trump off the hook, in the Vegas Shooting? Gun Control is not about preventing gun violence that has already happened. At least that is how I understand the people calling for some gun control action.
 
Last edited:

georg jetson

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
2,416
Location
Slidell, Louisiana
Trump is distracting Congress. His insistence that he has already taken care of it takes it off the table. No reason to put it in a bill. I'll bet all he's done is instructed the Batf to take their time on the ruling... which won't change.
 

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
Bump stocks were officially recognized as legal by a BATFE ruling under Obama. While not quite an EO, it isn't like bump stocks legality or lack of legality was ever decided by congressional action via legislation, or even a judicial decision.

The BATFE looked at the legal definition of a machine gun and decided (probably correctly) that bump stocks didn't fit the bill. I have no doubt that with enough legal training and experience, any number of black robed lawyers could decide the law actually did intend to include things like bump stocks as banned.

Trump can, legitimately by EO, direct his current BATFE to re-examine the issue. That a different interpretation of law will result in a de facto ban is a foregone conclusion does not actually undermine the legitimacy of that EO.

I don't think the legality of the EO is the issue. I don't think an outright ban of bump stocks has any material effect on our ability to maintain effective self defense or even effective readiness to act as a citizen militia. I think if we can get away with nothing more than a ban on bump stocks, while getting teachers armed (Utah has allowed this for over a decade), and meaningful school security, it may actually be a major PR win for RKBA. If mass shootings don't result in calls for banning guns, but instead result in allowing more non-cops to carry guns into more locations, that is a big enough win it probably results in a change in how, and how often, the media reports on mass shootings.

There is clearly an agenda to ban guns and over-reporting on very rare mass shootings--even as rare terror cases are under-reported or dishonestly mischaracterized as "workplace violence"--is clearly part of pushing that agenda. If reporting on mass shootings results in the feds and States allowing more guns, I think the reporting will change.

That said, I agree with WalkingWolf that the perception among gun owners--not entirely wrong--is one of betrayal and that hurts Trump and the GOP come election time.
 

HP995

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2012
Messages
730
Location
MO, USA
Georg, I don't think Trump is doing some kind of tactical distraction with bump stocks. In this 3/8 video meeting he affirms that he intends to outlaw them, he praises Florida for implementing his plans, he affirms the ERPO system, encourages states to act on their own, and etc. Very clear in his push.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4rz6Pk7XyTg

In other words Trump IS NOT really hearing the message from us yet! Not at all. I suspected that when the NRA met with him, but all he said is it was a great meeting, nothing else. He hasn't really changed position much if any.

Trump thinks just the way UT expressed it: "if we can get away with nothing more than a ban on bump stocks, while getting teachers armed (Utah has allowed this for over a decade), and meaningful school security, it may actually be a major PR win for RKBA." (That's the "deal" - along with age 21 and suspending due process when certain people feel like they have a hunch.)

A lot of people think that way, and I can understand why, but they don't see the cliff. They trust others with more power and themselves with fewer protections. If people were always angels, that might work out just fine. They also trust that a bump stock ban would be interpreted fairly and no judge or bureaucrat would feel tempted to grab a bit more. Ignoring lessons already learned long ago.
 

hammer6

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2008
Messages
1,461
Location
Florida
Bump stocks were officially recognized as legal by a BATFE ruling under Obama. While not quite an EO, it isn't like bump stocks legality or lack of legality was ever decided by congressional action via legislation, or even a judicial decision.

The BATFE looked at the legal definition of a machine gun and decided (probably correctly) that bump stocks didn't fit the bill. I have no doubt that with enough legal training and experience, any number of black robed lawyers could decide the law actually did intend to include things like bump stocks as banned.

Trump can, legitimately by EO, direct his current BATFE to re-examine the issue. That a different interpretation of law will result in a de facto ban is a foregone conclusion does not actually undermine the legitimacy of that EO.

I don't think the legality of the EO is the issue. I don't think an outright ban of bump stocks has any material effect on our ability to maintain effective self defense or even effective readiness to act as a citizen militia. I think if we can get away with nothing more than a ban on bump stocks, while getting teachers armed (Utah has allowed this for over a decade), and meaningful school security, it may actually be a major PR win for RKBA. If mass shootings don't result in calls for banning guns, but instead result in allowing more non-cops to carry guns into more locations, that is a big enough win it probably results in a change in how, and how often, the media reports on mass shootings.

There is clearly an agenda to ban guns and over-reporting on very rare mass shootings--even as rare terror cases are under-reported or dishonestly mischaracterized as "workplace violence"--is clearly part of pushing that agenda. If reporting on mass shootings results in the feds and States allowing more guns, I think the reporting will change.

That said, I agree with WalkingWolf that the perception among gun owners--not entirely wrong--is one of betrayal and that hurts Trump and the GOP come election time.


so you think the government declaring that a certain class of people is eligible to exercise a fundamental right but the rest of the citizens are not is a win? ha
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,936
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Like everything else with Trump, it is a starting position, EO bump-stocks gone.

Now per Trump, this is a very complicated process. Unfortunately the regulatory process is long and drawn out.

What is next?
 
Top