BATFE: Bump-Stock-Type Devices: Notice of proposed rulemaking

What's going on in Washington, D.C.?

Moderators: Charles L. Cotton, carlson1

User avatar

The Annoyed Man
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 13
Posts: 24113
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 12:59 pm
Location: North Richland Hills, Texas
Contact:

Re: BATFE: Bump-Stock-Type Devices: Notice of proposed rulemaking

#76

Post by The Annoyed Man » Tue Dec 04, 2018 4:40 pm

jason812 wrote:
Tue Dec 04, 2018 1:51 pm
I understand the NRA's statement about the bump stocks. The organization has to uphold an image, maintain membership/cash flow, plus operate in very hostile waters (DC). It would just add fuel to the hatred of the NRA if they were for keeping bump stocks around. That doesn't mean I agree with the statement. Its funny or sad but they (the NRA) are stuck in the middle. To the antis, the NRA is the most evil organization around. To those who believe "Shall not be infinged" means just that, they do not fully support our 2A rights.
I’m actually not that upset about NRA failing to defend bumpstocks. Like I said in my previous post, I get it that there is no political will to defend these things, as much as I wish it weren’t the case. What I am a little irritated at the NRA for - and mind you, I am an Endowment Life Member - is that the NRA has taken a public position against them. I would have been OK with NRA simply declaring that they are not taking a position on bumpstocks. Maybe that’s unrealistic, but that’s what I think about it.

The only way one can logically defend bumpstocks is with the same argument one would use to advocate for the decontrol of fully automatic capable weapons ... and if we had unrestricted access to those, bumpstocks wouldn’t even be a thing. I suspect that those of us who think that bumpstocks should be unrestricted, probably also think that automatic weapons should unrestricted. The problem is that, even among fairly strong 2nd Amendment advocates, there is significant percentage of 2A advocates who do NOT think that machineguns should unrestricted. That probably describes the leadership at NRA, and I suspect that is why NRA has taken a proactive position against bumpstocks.

I’ve heard rumors that GOA is going to try and litigate this. I wish them luck, but I’m not hopeful.

I wish it weren’t so, but I don’t think we’re going to have a positive outcome here, and the BEST we can hope for is that SCOTUS will judge it to be a “taking” and order ATF to compensate bumpstock owners for the loss of their property.
Give me Liberty, or I'll get up and get it myself.—Hookalakah Meshobbab
I don't carry because of the odds, I carry because of the stakes.—The Annoyed Boy


Papa_Tiger
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 505
Joined: Fri May 24, 2013 9:55 am

Re: BATFE: Bump-Stock-Type Devices: Notice of proposed rulemaking

#77

Post by Papa_Tiger » Tue Dec 04, 2018 5:39 pm

The Annoyed Man wrote:
Tue Dec 04, 2018 4:40 pm
I’ve heard rumors that GOA is going to try and litigate this. I wish them luck, but I’m not hopeful.

I wish it weren’t so, but I don’t think we’re going to have a positive outcome here, and the BEST we can hope for is that SCOTUS will judge it to be a “taking” and order ATF to compensate bumpstock owners for the loss of their property.
Accounted for in the rule, unless it is just an "oh, so sorry, you (the public) must destroy these without compensation and just suck it up."
The estimate includes costs to the public for loss of property ($102,470,977); costs of forgone future production and sales ($213,031,753); and costs for disposal ($5,448,330). Unquantified costs include lost employment, notification to bump-stock-type device owners of the need to destroy the bump-stock-type devices, and loss of future usage by the owners of bump-stock-type devices. ATF did not calculate any cost savings for this final rule. It is anticipated that the rule will cost $129,222,483 million in the first year (the year with the highest costs). This cost includes the first-year cost to destroy or modify all existing bump-stock-type devices, including unsellable inventory and opportunity cost of time.


glock27
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 644
Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2010 8:18 pm

Re: BATFE: Bump-Stock-Type Devices: Notice of proposed rulemaking

#78

Post by glock27 » Wed Dec 05, 2018 11:40 am

Is there a date set that will make them illegal?
"Dont rush me, i get paid by the hour"
Mailed 7-5-10
9-16-10 PLASTIC!

User avatar

The Annoyed Man
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 13
Posts: 24113
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 12:59 pm
Location: North Richland Hills, Texas
Contact:

Re: BATFE: Bump-Stock-Type Devices: Notice of proposed rulemaking

#79

Post by The Annoyed Man » Wed Dec 05, 2018 12:46 pm

glock27 wrote:
Wed Dec 05, 2018 11:40 am
Is there a date set that will make them illegal?
Not positive, but I don’t think so.
Papa_Tiger wrote:
Tue Dec 04, 2018 5:39 pm
The Annoyed Man wrote: I’ve heard rumors that GOA is going to try and litigate this. I wish them luck, but I’m not hopeful.

I wish it weren’t so, but I don’t think we’re going to have a positive outcome here, and the BEST we can hope for is that SCOTUS will judge it to be a “taking” and order ATF to compensate bumpstock owners for the loss of their property.
Accounted for in the rule, unless it is just an "oh, so sorry, you (the public) must destroy these without compensation and just suck it up."
The estimate includes costs to the public for loss of property ($102,470,977); costs of forgone future production and sales ($213,031,753); and costs for disposal ($5,448,330). Unquantified costs include lost employment, notification to bump-stock-type device owners of the need to destroy the bump-stock-type devices, and loss of future usage by the owners of bump-stock-type devices. ATF did not calculate any cost savings for this final rule. It is anticipated that the rule will cost $129,222,483 million in the first year (the year with the highest costs). This cost includes the first-year cost to destroy or modify all existing bump-stock-type devices, including unsellable inventory and opportunity cost of time.
AS I read the wording, it’s a “so sorry, you’re just going to have to suck it up” situation. It does NOT specifically mention compensation ... just “loss to the public”, including any costs of destruction/modification and loss of unsellable inventory and opportunity cost. I read that as: “whoever has money in these things, either as a user or a seller, is going to take a loss”. It does NOT mention a specific loss to those who don’t have one - which would at least imply compensation. I think it is a safe bet that this will be a “sorry, you’re out of luck” taking.

...which casts this administration in a whole new light for me. Maybe they were right.... Orange Man bad. He could have easily blown it off and refused to take it up as an issue. He could have said something like “maybe this bears looking at down the road, but right now we have bigger fish to fry”. He chose to take it up. Same as the NRA. They could have simply said, “we take no position for or against”. They chose to take it up. You don’t ALWAYS have to take a proactive approach. Sometimes, doing nothing is the best thing, because doing something about “A” can create precedents for doing something down the road about “B” ... even though “B” wasn’t involved in a mass-shooting. For instance, banning bumpstocks being used as a justification for banning “sniper scopes”.

In the first novel of his “Enemies” trilogy, Matthew Bracken very believably hypothesizes a situation eerily similar to the Vegas shooting (which the book predates by several years), in which a mass shooting with an SKS is intitially used as a pretext to banning all semiauto rifles, and then followed up with a ban magnifying optics, civilian use of “military” calibers, and utlimately, ALL civilian firearms ownership.

If you have never read the series, at least read the first book, “Enemies, Foreign and Domestic” (https://www.amazon.com/Enemies-Foreign- ... 0972831010). If you don’t read the prologue and the first four chapters of that book and make an immediate comparison to the Vegas shooting and what’s happening with bumpstocks....and where this is all headed, you’re blind. Yeah, it’s fiction, but it it is so predictive that you can’t ignore it....especially when the Vegas authorities seem to have gone out of their way to both hinder the investigation and bury evidence in that shooting, and to keep the details as opaque as possible.

Sometimes fiction is just entertainment. Other times, it is written with the intent to wake people up and get them to open their eyes, and Bracken is on record saying that is his purpose with his books. After having first read the book years before, I’ve known since then that it was very plausibly a matter of time until someone did something similar - as part of a conspiracy to begin disarming the public. Vegas eerily fits that bill, and new ATF regs coming down the pike now do nothing but reinforce that belief. As Freud once said, “sometimes a cigar is just a cigar”. But what is implied in that statement is that, sometimes it is NOT just a cigar ... it is something else. Maybe I am hyperventilating, but I don’t think I am, and I would LOVE to be wrong.
Give me Liberty, or I'll get up and get it myself.—Hookalakah Meshobbab
I don't carry because of the odds, I carry because of the stakes.—The Annoyed Boy

User avatar

Zoo
Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 135
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2012 8:47 pm

Re: BATFE: Bump-Stock-Type Devices: Notice of proposed rulemaking

#80

Post by Zoo » Wed Dec 05, 2018 7:18 pm

The Annoyed Man wrote:
Tue Dec 04, 2018 4:40 pm
I’m actually not that upset about NRA failing to defend bumpstocks. Like I said in my previous post, I get it that there is no political will to defend these things, as much as I wish it weren’t the case. What I am a little irritated at the NRA for - and mind you, I am an Endowment Life Member - is that the NRA has taken a public position against them. I would have been OK with NRA simply declaring that they are not taking a position on bumpstocks. Maybe that’s unrealistic, but that’s what I think about it.

:iagree:

I understand one must pick one's battles, but there's a big difference between avoiding a battle you think you can't win, and jumping in to give aid and comfort to the enemy. Unlike the recently departed POTUS, I'm not going to renounce my NRA membership over this, but I can't justify donating any more money to an organization that supports efforts to infringe the right of the people to own and carry guns.
The city is not a concrete jungle. It is a human zoo.

User avatar

bblhd672
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 8
Posts: 4140
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2016 10:43 am
Location: TX

Re: BATFE: Bump-Stock-Type Devices: Notice of proposed rulemaking

#81

Post by bblhd672 » Wed Dec 05, 2018 8:13 pm

Zoo wrote:
Wed Dec 05, 2018 7:18 pm
The Annoyed Man wrote:
Tue Dec 04, 2018 4:40 pm
I’m actually not that upset about NRA failing to defend bumpstocks. Like I said in my previous post, I get it that there is no political will to defend these things, as much as I wish it weren’t the case. What I am a little irritated at the NRA for - and mind you, I am an Endowment Life Member - is that the NRA has taken a public position against them. I would have been OK with NRA simply declaring that they are not taking a position on bumpstocks. Maybe that’s unrealistic, but that’s what I think about it.

:iagree:

I understand one must pick one's battles, but there's a big difference between avoiding a battle you think you can't win, and jumping in to give aid and comfort to the enemy. Unlike the recently departed POTUS, I'm not going to renounce my NRA membership over this, but I can't justify donating any more money to an organization that supports efforts to infringe the right of the people to own and carry guns.
One has to wonder at what proposed infringement the NRA will say “Enough, no farther!”?

Perhaps the NRA isn’t going to miss the few dollars a year sent in by the average ticked off members who have had it with the progressive infringement of the 2nd Amendment.


flechero
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 2254
Joined: Thu Dec 06, 2007 5:04 pm
Location: Central Texas

Re: BATFE: Bump-Stock-Type Devices: Notice of proposed rulemaking

#82

Post by flechero » Wed Dec 05, 2018 8:41 pm

I'm hoping that the gesture is one that will gain the NRA some additional political capital to expend elsewhere.

I also sincerely hope that the courts will mandate payment for the taking of personal property, as they do with real property.

User avatar

spectre
Banned
Posts in topic: 4
Posts: 347
Joined: Sun Jun 18, 2017 11:44 am

Re: BATFE: Bump-Stock-Type Devices: Notice of proposed rulemaking

#83

Post by spectre » Thu Dec 06, 2018 1:26 pm

The Annoyed Man wrote:
Wed Dec 05, 2018 12:46 pm
If you have never read the series, at least read the first book, “Enemies, Foreign and Domestic” (https://www.amazon.com/Enemies-Foreign- ... 0972831010). If you don’t read the prologue and the first four chapters of that book and make an immediate comparison to the Vegas shooting and what’s happening with bumpstocks....and where this is all headed, you’re blind. Yeah, it’s fiction, but it it is so predictive that you can’t ignore it....especially when the Vegas authorities seem to have gone out of their way to both hinder the investigation and bury evidence in that shooting, and to keep the details as opaque as possible.
If you haven't read the book, here's the prologue (from the author's website) to get you started.
http://enemiesforeignanddomestic.com/ex ... nning.html
I'm in a good place right now
Not emotionally or financially
But I am at the gun store


jordanmills
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 310
Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2008 11:42 am

Re: BATFE: Bump-Stock-Type Devices: Notice of proposed rulemaking

#84

Post by jordanmills » Sat Dec 08, 2018 10:58 pm

The Annoyed Man wrote:
Tue Dec 04, 2018 4:40 pm
I’ve heard rumors that GOA is going to try and litigate this. I wish them luck, but I’m not hopeful.
And that's an example of why i give money to the GOA and not the NRA.

User avatar

The Annoyed Man
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 13
Posts: 24113
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 12:59 pm
Location: North Richland Hills, Texas
Contact:

Re: BATFE: Bump-Stock-Type Devices: Notice of proposed rulemaking

#85

Post by The Annoyed Man » Sat Dec 08, 2018 11:10 pm

jordanmills wrote:
Sat Dec 08, 2018 10:58 pm
The Annoyed Man wrote:
Tue Dec 04, 2018 4:40 pm
I’ve heard rumors that GOA is going to try and litigate this. I wish them luck, but I’m not hopeful.
And that's an example of why i give money to the GOA and not the NRA.
Understood. And ... I want to be sure people understand that I’m NOT trying to slam the NRA. They have done some great work over the years, and if not for them, perhaps we’d have lost ALL of our gun rights years ago. I’m an endowment life member. I’ve donated money. I generally support the organization. I absolutely WOULD understand if they decided to remain neutral in this fight....it’s NOT one they can expect anything but loss of political capital or financial capital for getting involved one way or the other. But I am VERY perplexed about why they have chosen to take a proactive position for banning bumpstocks, instead of simply saying “not my monkeys, not my circus”, and declining to get involved. And that disappoints me. But I am NOT going to bash them. On the balance, NRA has done FAR more good for gun rights than many appreciate. I just wish they had not thrown their name behind this inane plan to ban the stocks.
Give me Liberty, or I'll get up and get it myself.—Hookalakah Meshobbab
I don't carry because of the odds, I carry because of the stakes.—The Annoyed Boy


Scott Farkus
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 372
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 7:18 pm
Location: Austin

Re: BATFE: Bump-Stock-Type Devices: Notice of proposed rulemaking

#86

Post by Scott Farkus » Sat Dec 08, 2018 11:39 pm

The Annoyed Man wrote:
Sat Dec 08, 2018 11:10 pm
Understood. And ... I want to be sure people understand that I’m NOT trying to slam the NRA. They have done some great work over the years, and if not for them, perhaps we’d have lost ALL of our gun rights years ago. I’m an endowment life member. I’ve donated money. I generally support the organization. I absolutely WOULD understand if they decided to remain neutral in this fight....it’s NOT one they can expect anything but loss of political capital or financial capital for getting involved one way or the other. But I am VERY perplexed about why they have chosen to take a proactive position for banning bumpstocks, instead of simply saying “not my monkeys, not my circus”, and declining to get involved. And that disappoints me. But I am NOT going to bash them. On the balance, NRA has done FAR more good for gun rights than many appreciate. I just wish they had not thrown their name behind this inane plan to ban the stocks.
Same, and I understand where you're coming from. It a lose-lose to defend these stupid things, but I wonder why they didn't take some stance along the lines of reclassifying them under the NFA umbrella?

Now, you've got "our guy", Trump, doing something administratively that even Obama didn't think he had the legal authority to do. It's going to set a horrible precedent if it stands.

User avatar

bblhd672
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 8
Posts: 4140
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2016 10:43 am
Location: TX

Re: BATFE: Bump-Stock-Type Devices: Notice of proposed rulemaking

#87

Post by bblhd672 » Sun Dec 09, 2018 9:33 am

Scott Farkus wrote:
Sat Dec 08, 2018 11:39 pm
Now, you've got "our guy", Trump, doing something administratively that even Obama didn't think he had the legal authority to do. It's going to set a horrible precedent if it stands.
This may cost Trump votes in 2020, not necessarily votes that go to his opponents but aren’t cast at all.

User avatar

tbrown
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 1593
Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2011 4:47 pm

Re: BATFE: Bump-Stock-Type Devices: Notice of proposed rulemaking

#88

Post by tbrown » Sun Dec 09, 2018 5:44 pm

bblhd672 wrote:
Sun Dec 09, 2018 9:33 am
Scott Farkus wrote:
Sat Dec 08, 2018 11:39 pm
Now, you've got "our guy", Trump, doing something administratively that even Obama didn't think he had the legal authority to do. It's going to set a horrible precedent if it stands.
This may cost Trump votes in 2020, not necessarily votes that go to his opponents but aren’t cast at all.
There's usually somebody worth voting for, although they often don't belong to the Janus party.
sent to you from my safe space in the hill country

User avatar

bigtek
Banned
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 381
Joined: Sat Oct 15, 2016 9:48 am

Re: BATFE: Bump-Stock-Type Devices: Notice of proposed rulemaking

#89

Post by bigtek » Mon Dec 10, 2018 2:51 pm

bblhd672 wrote:
Sun Dec 09, 2018 9:33 am
Scott Farkus wrote:
Sat Dec 08, 2018 11:39 pm
Now, you've got "our guy", Trump, doing something administratively that even Obama didn't think he had the legal authority to do. It's going to set a horrible precedent if it stands.
This may cost Trump votes in 2020, not necessarily votes that go to his opponents but aren’t cast at all.
It already cost him mine. I will vote in 2020 but I won't vote for Trump no matter who else is on the ballot.
Deck the halls with nitroglycerin
Fa la la la la la la la la!
Strike a match and see who's missin'
Fa la la la la la la la la!

User avatar

Charles L. Cotton
Site Admin
Posts in topic: 6
Posts: 17236
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 9:31 pm
Location: Friendswood, TX
Contact:

Re: BATFE: Bump-Stock-Type Devices: Notice of proposed rulemaking

#90

Post by Charles L. Cotton » Mon Dec 10, 2018 4:13 pm

bblhd672 wrote:
Sun Dec 09, 2018 9:33 am
Scott Farkus wrote:
Sat Dec 08, 2018 11:39 pm
Now, you've got "our guy", Trump, doing something administratively that even Obama didn't think he had the legal authority to do. It's going to set a horrible precedent if it stands.
This may cost Trump votes in 2020, not necessarily votes that go to his opponents but aren’t cast at all.
You're right, it will cost him 3 or 4 votes. Again, pick your battles.

Chas.
Image

Locked

Return to “Federal”