Posted on 11/29/2018 8:41:27 AM PST by skimbell
President Donald Trump is expected to announce that he will be signing a ban on bump stocks that gives Americans 90 days to hand them over or otherwise dispose of them.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
> Hillary would have done this in her first week as POTUS.
The difference is, like with Obama’s ignorant anti-gun rhetoric, anything she said or did would rile all of us up and she would be opposed forcefully.
With this error by Trump, many are still just confused and can’t believe it’s happening.
Lawsuits needed.
What part of “shall not be infringed” does President Trump not understand?
—
I agree with your question.
> legally indefensible POS
no, your post is a POS. Read the law. One function of the trigger producing multiple shots = machine gun.
One function of the trigger in a semiauto only, ever produces one shot. Bumpstock helps your body produce multiple functions of the trigger.
The law is the law and this ATF attempt breaks the written law.
Lawsuits please.
Why, oh why wont the wizards of smart on this forum run for president and show us all how it’s done!
No.
5.56mm
Good job (/SARC), President Trump, alienating a bunch of your core supporters to ban something that is simply a far more expensive version of something you can buy at Staples for about $10 for a pack of 100.
Any Trump admin and/or campaign people lurking here, you might want to point this out to him.
My position on all 2A issues is: Not one inch. Ever. On anything.
When you are engaged with an enemy who is intent on incremental gains, it is simply good strategy to oppose him on everything, everywhere.
> Just wondering what a class III license costs. If you want full auto, pay for it.
Tax stamp is $200 but this proposed ruling does not allow for registration. It just makes something illegal that you bought when it was legal, and tells you you have to destroy it, and does not compensate you, all while violating the written law itself.
Nasty stuff.
“But the vast majority are violent criminals incarcerated because they were guilty of murder, but witnesses were intimidated into providing no testimony.”
Well, if the witnesses wouldn’t testify to it, then they weren’t guilty. In this country you are innocent until proven guilty.
I do get what you are saying. Sure, sometimes you have to convict Al Capone of tax evasion because that’s all you can get him on. However, if we are keeping stupid or unjust laws on the books because those have become crutches for law enforcement or prosecutors who can’t otherwise do their jobs properly, then that is not a good development.
We should all start sending rubber bands to the Whitehouse. Maybe that would illustrate the folly of this action to POTUS.
likely..
Or do you think banning rubber bands is "common sense," too?
Now that is a hell of an idea!
LOL. That would be funny.
What’s not funny is the number of Freepers who actually support this idiocy. Replied to a few, but too many to get them all.
Thousands of privately owned 3D printers are already dialed in.
Now what?
> What’s not funny is the number of Freepers who actually support this idiocy. Replied to a few, but too many to get them all.
Our FRiends are just people. Any time there’s something you actually know something about, you’ll find that the common discourse on that subject is full of BS and misunderstandings.
Everybody, ATF ruled twice during Obama’s time that bump stocks do not violate the law. They do not violate the law. The law is now being twisted for a political agenda. That is all there is to it.
AMENDMENT V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
----------------
Sounds like this law would deprive people of their property without due process or just compensation.
If this story is true, I do not see how such a law could pass Constitutional muster.
Agree completely and also agree with the FReeper who suggested sending the WH envelopes of rubber bands.
The follow-up question should be...what happens after the sheep turn theirs in like good little progs?
Does the government now have a list of people who have guns and prefer “assault-style” additions?
Just call them Romaine Stocks and everyone will throw them out.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.