Connect with us

Guns and Crime

Bump fire stocks: A new definition of bureaucratic overreach

Published

on

Bump fire stocks A new definition of bureaucratic overreach

One would think that with the Right virtually controlling all levers of government, gun grabber demands to chip away at our common sense civil rights would be met with admonitions that they go play in the traffic. But alas, RINOs being RINOs they knuckled under to these demands and passed off this issue to unelected bureaucrats and the intended consequences of the slippery slope.

In the case of “Bump Fire” Stocks the bureaucracy that ostensibly handles Moonshine, Cigarettes and Firearms is going to hand down a ruling from on high to the great unwashed as to how our civil rights are once again going to be restricted as punishment for the actions of a lunatic.

In order to make this ruling the ATF bureaucracy is going to have to change the very definition of a machine gun from the function of the trigger to the arbitrarily vague rate of fire standard:

The Department of Justice anticipates issuing a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) that would interpret the statutory definition of “machinegun” in the National Firearms Act of 1934 and Gun Control Act of 1968 to clarify whether certain devices, commonly known as “bump fire” stocks, fall within that definition.

[One may submit comments on the proposed rulemaking by identifying the docket number: 2017R-22 ]

Their proposed ruling references the definition of a machinegun as:

The NFA defines “machinegun” as any weapon which: “shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.” The term also includes “the frame or receiver of any such weapon, any part designed and intended solely and exclusively, or combination of parts designed and intended, for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun, and any combination of parts from which a machinegun can be assembled if such parts are in the possession or under the control of a person.” 26 U.S.C. 5845(b).

Please note the phrase “by a single function of the trigger.” Anyone familiar with the issue of “Bump Fire” Stocks or those common place items that can perform the same function – Belt Loops, string, rubber bands and fingers – should realise that these items operate a firearm by multiple trigger pulls. Thus on the face of it, this proposed ruling contradicts itself. In order to make it work, this specific functional definition would have to be altered to something undefined, opening the door to regulating all semi-automatic firearms as “Machine Guns”. As several commentators have stated, it is a very dangerous precedent and bureaucratic overreach arbitrarily changing the technical meaning of the phrase “Machine gun” from that of the easily defined functioning of a trigger to that of an undefined rate of fire.

Just as the Socialist-Left loves to use undefined surrogates in place of actual civil rights such as the terms “Hate-Speech” or “Assault Weapon”, changing the definition of a “machinegun” from that of the function of a trigger to the vague and arbitrary metric of rate of fire is a slippery slope gun grabbers would love to exploit. As Nancy Pelosi expressed it a few months ago: “They’re going to say, ‘You give them bump stock, it’s going to be a slippery slope.’ I certainly hope so.”

The Takeaway

A true machine gun has an internal mechanism to allow sustained fire with one pull of the trigger. To redefine mechanisms using repeated trigger pulls such as “Bump Fire” Stocks and anything else designed “to increase the firearm’s cyclic firing rate to mimic nearly continuous automatic fire”, could easily see this applied to ban any and all semi-automatic firearms.

Facebook Comments
Advertisement
2 Comments

2 Comments

  1. Rich

    January 10, 2018 at 12:16 pm

    To enact ANY gun control law is to give in to the erroneous notion that an inanimate object is the source of evil and that we must allow government to exercise dominion over our liberties in the name of protecting us from that inanimate object—whatever it is. The entire presupposition is fatally flawed. How anyone who claims to believe in liberty and the fundamental right of self-defense can swallow this illogic defies common sense.
    Plus, the ever compromising National Rifle Association (NRA) is providing Trump all of the cover he needs to affix his signature to another gun control bill by coming out in support of legislation banning “bump stocks.” Check the record, folks, and you will discover that virtually every gun control bill on the books—going back to the 1920’s—was put there with the approbation of the NRA. Like almost every national special interest group, the NRA exists more for the benefit of the special interest group than it does for the benefit of the cause it claims to represent.
    http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/Articles/tabid/109/ID/3664/They-Are-Coming-For-Our-Guns.aspx

  2. Pingback: Bump fire stocks: A new definition of bureaucratic overreach – #Logic Wins

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Conspiracy Theory

What does San Francisco Mayor London Breed have to hide about Jeff Adachi’s death?

Published

on

What does San Francisco Mayor London Breed have to hide about

San Francisco politicians would be in an absolute uproar if the Trump administration ordered the suspension of an unambiguous liberty for the sake of expediency. They would declare a Constitutional crisis was underway and would demand the rights of their citizens be upheld while those who violated them should be held accountable. But when the rights of a citizen are trampled on to benefit their corrupt politicians, they stand by the trampling and pretend like nothing foul is afoot.

Such is the story of journalist Bryan Carmody. His 1st Amendment rights were disregarded so blatantly and so frivolously that it’s obvious there’s a major cover up underway that is protecting very powerful people in the progressive mecca of San Francisco. Following Public Defender Jeff Adachi’s death, a leaked police report was released by Carmody, prompting the San Francisco Police to illegally attempt to force him to reveal his source. He is protected by the Freedom of the Press from divulging his source, but strong-arm techniques reminiscent of the actions of third-world dictators doesn’t seem to be making a dent in the official stories from San Francisco politicians, most notably Mayor London Breed.

San Francisco’s mayor shows the country what a real attack on the free press looks like

Carmody claims he was restrained in handcuffs for nearly six hours as the authorities ransacked his home, seizing “laptops, phones and hard drives — including all the images and documents he had archived from his 29-year career as a reporter and cameraman,” the report adds.

Law enforcement officials have neither denied nor contradicted the freelancer’s version of events. The San Francisco Police Department has not yet returned Carmody’s equipment. The raid, which was approved by two trial court judges, also included agents from the FBI.

And all because Carmody refused to give up a confidential source, as is his right. The mayor sees it differently, though, and she is digging in.

The Mayor took the unconstitutional route from the start and hasn’t looked back.

“San Francisco Police Department is in the process of conducting an investigation into how confidential information was released within the Department. As part of this investigation, the Department went through the appropriate legal process to request a search warrant, which was approved by two judges,” her office said in a statement last week.

Even now, as the pressure mounts from news outlets across the country for the far-left political machine of San Francisco to denounce the attack on the press, one that is so much more direct and heinous than anything President Trump has done, they continue to focus on the legality of the search warrants (even though they clearly were not legal by any stretch of the imagination) and the imperative of finding out who leaked the memos, something that no average San Francisco resident could ever actually care about if they’re being honest.

Instead of defending the Constitution and the rights of their citizens, they’re redirecting.

Their unabashed willingness to continue forward despite all the bad press they’re getting can easily lead someone to one conclusion: There’s something really bad surrounding Adechi’s death that has San Francisco Democrats terrified. There’s a cover up happening right before our eyes, one that has politicians, police, and judges involved and unwavering in their willingness to discard the 1st Amendment altogether.

Whatever has London Breed and her cronies spooked about Adechi’s death, it has to be huge. Otherwise, they wouldn’t be pressing so adamantly against the Constitution of the United States in the broad daylight of public condemnation.

Facebook Comments
Continue Reading

Guns and Crime

Two separate illegal aliens with child sexual crime felony convictions caught crossing the border again

Published

on

Two separate illegal aliens with child sexual crime felony convictions caught crossing the border ag

Thursday was another busy day for border patrol agents. It wasn’t just their standard apprehension and processing of thousands of migrants crossing the border to claim asylum. A handful of convicted criminals were caught trying to secretly cross into the United States, into two child sex offenders.

A 45-year-old Mexican national who had a prior felony conviction for “lewd and lascivious acts with a child under 14” in California was captured earlier in the day. Then, a 26-year-old El Salvadoran national who had a prior felony conviction for “child molestation in the first degree” and an active felony warrant for “molestation of a minor” in Washington state was captured with another El Salvadoran national.

Both had been previously deported.

Opinion

Give me one excuse for this. Anyone. Can a single Democrat pushing their doctrine of open borders explain how it’s a good idea to keep border patrol undermanned and under-resourced, block the wall at every turn, and keep laws so weak that of course child rapists want to make their way to a sanctuary city near you.

These aren’t isolated cases.

Every day, we hear of new criminal illegal aliens, previously deported, who are crossing over again to commit heinous crimes like these two child rapists. Why? Because they know leftists will protect, enable, and encourage them.

This is a sickness. No, I’m not talking about the obvious sickness of vile men who find pre-teen children to ruin their lives for the sake of their own sexual kicks. I’m talking about the people on the left who willfully turn a blind eye to the sick crimes of animals like these two.

The saddest part about the left’s embrace of criminal illegal aliens like these two child raping animals is that they will take more offense to me calling them “animals” than to the vile crimes these men committed against children.

Quote

“Democrats have controlled the House for nearly 5 months. Besides supporting infanticide, illegal immigrants, and whining about President Trump, can anyone tell me what they have accomplished?” – Ryan Fournier

Final Thoughts

Border patrol is stretched thin by the migrant crisis, which makes it difficult to apprehend these child sexual predators crossing the border. If they caught two by chance on the same night, how many child molesters are crossing unabated?

Facebook Comments
Continue Reading

Guns and Crime

Thomas Massie exposes the many problems with Red Flag Gun Laws

Published

on

Thomas Massie exposes the many problems with Red Flag Gun Laws

Representative Thomas Massie (R-KY) has been a staunch proponent of the 2nd Amendment throughout his career in Washington DC. This makes him an opponent to Red Flag Gun Laws which are spreading across the states. Colorado recently passed their version, bringing the total up to 15.

As we’ve documented numerous times, Red Flag Gun Laws are a direct attack on the 2nd and 4th Amendments. Depending on the version of the law, citizens can have their firearms forcibly removed from them by law enforcement when a judge decrees they may be a threat to themselves or others based on requests by people who know the victim. It’s important to understand that these laws are not based on anyone committing a crime. They are based on a feeling that someone may commit a crime.

It’s like the movie Minority Report, only without psychics. Gun owners’ liberties can be encroached based on the government’s “future crimes division.”

In this video, Massey gets to the heart of the matter by talking to Colorado Weld County Sheriff Steve Reams and Dr. John R. Lott of Crime Prevention Research Center. This is an important video for #2A proponents across the nation.

Facebook Comments
Continue Reading

Facebook

Trending