Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
ATF’s Proposal to Regulate Bump Fire Stocks as Machine Guns
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Glocktogo" data-source="post: 3066099" data-attributes="member: 1132"><p>IMO, any attempt by BATFE to define bumpstocks as or within the classification of MG's is an executive branch overreach and should rightly be struck down in federal court. IF the U.S. .gov wants to ban these stocks, then they must have the legislature pass a bill and have it signed by POTUS.</p><p></p><p>I also notice on Page 9 pf the document that BATFE has the intent to restrict comments to 23 specifically listed questions, which is something they cannot do. But when has that ever stopped them from doing anything, right? <img src="/images/smilies/frown.png" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":(" title="Frown :(" data-shortname=":(" /></p><p></p><p>None of the 23 points include the fact that the reason BATFE has always classified bump stocks as NOT being a MG, is because they had to comply with the actual law and legal definition, which is listed on their own webpage.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>They can pretend all they want, but bumpstocks, belt loops and Jerry Miculek's trigger finger can all mimic the cyclic rate of a MG, but they cannot make any firearm an actual MG as defined by law. BATFE doesn't have the authority to write or rewrite U.S. law. It really is that simple. <img src="/images/smilies/frown.png" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":(" title="Frown :(" data-shortname=":(" /></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Glocktogo, post: 3066099, member: 1132"] IMO, any attempt by BATFE to define bumpstocks as or within the classification of MG's is an executive branch overreach and should rightly be struck down in federal court. IF the U.S. .gov wants to ban these stocks, then they must have the legislature pass a bill and have it signed by POTUS. I also notice on Page 9 pf the document that BATFE has the intent to restrict comments to 23 specifically listed questions, which is something they cannot do. But when has that ever stopped them from doing anything, right? :( None of the 23 points include the fact that the reason BATFE has always classified bump stocks as NOT being a MG, is because they had to comply with the actual law and legal definition, which is listed on their own webpage. They can pretend all they want, but bumpstocks, belt loops and Jerry Miculek's trigger finger can all mimic the cyclic rate of a MG, but they cannot make any firearm an actual MG as defined by law. BATFE doesn't have the authority to write or rewrite U.S. law. It really is that simple. :( [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
ATF’s Proposal to Regulate Bump Fire Stocks as Machine Guns
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom