Pink elephant in the room...

[Michpatriot]

Well, nobody here's saying much about the possibility that our President has expressed ideas and opinions regarding suppressor ownership that could have lasting implications..those who have heard probably just don't want to talk about it, sickning subject, but just wondering what others are thinking right about now.

[BillSWPA]

Three thoughts:

1. He cannot ban suppressors without both houses of Congress being part of the process.

2. We know he has a tendency to shoot his mouth off prematurely, and may still be quite persuadable. The way to do that is to dispel the myth that they are silencers, and focus on the hearing protection advantage.

3. I have learned to judge by his actions rather than his words.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Drang]

4. Eric and Don Jr. are probably already beating him up. At least one of them hangs out at Sniper's Hide...

[Michpatriot]

I was thinking along the same lines, a local nfa type stocking gun shop employee was spouting off that he ( the president) could ban them just like bumpstocks..I thought it would be more involved and require legislative action myself..good to hear others say what I was feeling.

[0ddl0t]

just wondering what others are thinking right about now.

That it is perfectly consistent with his stop & frisk, "take the guns first" red flag laws, and "ban bumpstocks" mentality.

[pangloss]

If I remember correctly, he said that he wanted to look at banning suppressors, which is not the same as wanting to ban them. I would have said the same thing if I were him. After he looks into the matter, he'll likely conclude than banning suppressors is not a good option. It's all about appearance.

Sent from my moto e5 cruise using Tapatalk

[Totem Polar]

3. I have learned to judge by his actions rather than his words.




4. Eric and Don Jr. are probably already beating him up. At least one of them hangs out at Sniper's Hide...



If I remember correctly, he said that he wanted to look at banning suppressors, which is not the same as wanting to ban them. I would have said the same thing if I were him. After he looks into the matter, he'll likely conclude than banning suppressors is not a good option. It's all about appearance.


#truth (https://pistol-forum.com/usertag.php?do=list&action=hash&hash=truth)

[BehindBlueI's]

If I remember correctly, he said that he wanted to look at banning suppressors, which is not the same as wanting to ban them. I would have said the same thing if I were him. After he looks into the matter, he'll likely conclude than banning suppressors is not a good option. It's all about appearance.

Sent from my moto e5 cruise using Tapatalk

That's exactly what his apologists said about bumpstocks. It was some 4D chess game to actually save them. It wasn't. We lost them for zero gain, no "compromise", no deal from the greatest deal maker, just lost them.

Trump is a low information voter who has the biggest vote there is. He cares about the 2nd amendment as much as I care what pants I wear today. As long as his ass is covered, he's fine with whatever.

While I doubt any ban will occur, there's certainly been on movement on loosening existing regulations and that's even less likely now.

[BillSWPA]

That's exactly what his apologists said about bumpstocks. It was some 4D chess game to actually save them. It wasn't. We lost them for zero gain, no "compromise", no deal from the greatest deal maker, just lost them.

Trump is a low information voter who has the biggest vote there is. He cares about the 2nd amendment as much as I care what pants I wear today. As long as his ass is covered, he's fine with whatever.

While I doubt any ban will occur, there's certainly been on movement on loosening existing regulations and that's even less likely now.

Obama thought bump stocks should be legal. I wonder why?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BehindBlueI's]

Obama thought bump stocks should be legal. I wonder why?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thought they should be legal or thought they didn't violate current law, because that's a different concept.

http://www.slidefire.com/files/BATFE.pdf

As opposed to Trump's Tweet:



Obama Administration legalized bump stocks. BAD IDEA. As I promised, today the Department of Justice will issue the rule banning BUMP STOCKS with a mandated comment period. We will BAN all devices that turn legal weapons into illegal machine guns.

Obama's regulator recognized that a bump stock didn't create an illegal machine gun. Trump thinks they turn a gun into an "illegal machine gun", which they don't per the definition of one shot per one trigger pull.

[OlongJohnson]

Obama failed to get "_________ is what the party says it is" regulation completed, and got called out severely when he tried extra-procedural end runs on other issues. He did, however, significantly overhaul the NFA registration process via administrative fiat (through the legal process, albeit) and made it far less attractive, IMO.

Trump got "Automatic is what the party says it is" regulation completed via administrative fiat (through the legal process, albeit). I don't think that's a good precedent. I am not convinced that he couldn't seriously screw up suppressor regulation through some version of "_________ is what the party says it is."

[BillSWPA]

Thought they should be legal or thought they didn't violate current law, because that's a different concept.

http://www.slidefire.com/files/BATFE.pdf

As opposed to Trump's Tweet:



Obama's regulator recognized that a bump stock didn't create an illegal machine gun. Trump thinks they turn a gun into an "illegal machine gun", which they don't per the definition of one shot per one trigger pull.

So the same guy who gave us Fast & Furious, used regulatory agencies to bully banks into refusing to deal with the gun industry, and used the IRS to harass conservatives suddenly cared about the technicalities of the law enough to reverse the Bush administration re: bump stocks?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Glenn E. Meyer]

If one want to pay the price of entering the Coterie room, you would see the major discussion of this issue. It was the opinion of the NRA (debatable, depending on who tells the story), that Trump and the GOP would have adopted a sweeping assault everything ban after Las Vegas in throw of an unstoppable moral panic - until the NRA in a secret manor they won't discuss stopped it. The veracity of some details are under discussion from others in the know.

Thus, unless you know this story (which is found elsewhere - outside of p-f) you would trust nor praise Trump on gun issues. You need to break out of being a true believer of the leader who makes the trains run on time.

Judge him by his actions rather than his words is a moral cop-out. Desperate application of cognitive dissonance and selective information processing. A believer in the RKBA who can't come up with a coherent answer for semis other than entertainment fails the one-dimensional tic-tac-toe test.

[BehindBlueI's]

So the same guy who gave us Fast & Furious, used regulatory agencies to bully banks into refusing to deal with the gun industry, and used the IRS to harass conservatives suddenly cared about the technicalities of the law enough to reverse the Bush administration re: bump stocks?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So what's your theory? Did this even go to POTUS level in either previous administration before bump stocks were suddenly news?

[BillSWPA]

So what's your theory? Did this even go to POTUS level in either previous administration before bump stocks were suddenly news?

Regardless of whether this reached POTUS level, the decision was made by someone who worked for him and likely had that job because he shares the same agenda.

All kinds of things happened to hamper gun owners during Obama's administration. In addition to bullying banks to dump gun industry businesses as customers, under his administration NFA applications were handled very slowly at BATFE. His administration even want as far as to pass regulations that if a tritium vial broke during installation or removal, the entire piece into which it was installed had to be scrapped, despite the improbability of a gas contaminating a metal. When asked why he did not do more to ban guns, he answered that he was working "behind the scenes." There are only two exceptions within my knowledge.

One exception was Fast & Furious, which put thousands of guns into the hands of Mexican drug gangs. The prevailing theory seems to be that the intention was specifically to drive up gun crime statistics.

The other was permitting bump stocks.

Hmmmm . . . why would such an anti-gun administration put guns into the hands of Mexican drug gangs, and also legalize an accessory which is completely useless except to bubbas wasting ammo in the woods, and to a nutcase who wants to mow down a bunch of innocent people?

While I agree with your analysis of the law, I don't give B. Hussein enough credit to know or care about the law (see his recent speech in Brazil).

Could bump stocks have been legalized with the hope that something like Las Vegas would happen, creating public outcry for something to be done?

I cannot claim to know B. Hussein's motivations, but this is certainly a possibility.

[blues]

That's either too 4th dimensional chess for me to believe came out of that administration, or those were some nefarious mf'ers.
(And I've known a few in my 27 year federal career.)

[BehindBlueI's]

Could bump stocks have been legalized with the hope that something like Las Vegas would happen, creating public outcry for something to be done?


So that they could then...what? Ban bump stocks? If the argument is they needed bump stocks to go after other things I'd remind you that Sandy Hook was a thing, didn't require bump stock use, and was the biggest political threat. Nothing significant was done on "assault rifles" or semi-autos or magazine limits etc. at the federal level.

[BillSWPA]

So that they could then...what? Ban bump stocks? If the argument is they needed bump stocks to go after other things I'd remind you that Sandy Hook was a thing, didn't require bump stock use, and was the biggest political threat. Nothing significant was done on "assault rifles" or semi-autos or magazine limits etc. at the federal level.

I am absolutely amazed that nothing happened after Sandy Hook. Las Vegas impacted enough people so that, even being on the other side of the country, I know people who lost people in that shooting.

We see exactly what they are pushing for - far more than bump stocks. The specific laws they want often have nothing to do with the specific crisis they hope to use to create public outcry (Remember Rahm Emanual and never letting a crisis go to waste?). It is always the next set of "reasonable measures" that they think they can pass. They succeeded in getting some controls pushed through in Florida - the state that led the nation into nondiscriminatory concealed handgun licensing. Letting us have the bump stocks until something happened was giving up one of their pawns to position themselves to make a push for our queen.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I understand. They let us have guns so they can be used in horrors shows in order to ban the guns that they let us have.

Donald then makes statements to ban bump stocks and they do ban them along with statements about suppressors and entertaining assault rifles in order to DO WHAT?

I guess I'm not a 4D level chess player.

Planned by Obama in the womb in Kenya as his infant extremely stable genius was planning to fake a Hawaii birth certificate to run for president. He communicated this plan by telepathy?

Oh, for the days when the only thing the RKBA faced where 40 million Red Chinese on the Mexican border and the armored vehicles being seen in TX.

The gun world needs to stop embarrassing itself.

[BehindBlueI's]

I am absolutely amazed that nothing happened after Sandy Hook.

I'm not. Republicans needed to make gains, and that's when they "care" about gun owners. "Oppose Obama" might as well have been the entirety of their playbook.


Letting us have the bump stocks until something happened was giving up one of their pawns to position themselves to make a push for our queen.

Yeah, I'm not following that logic as there's been plenty of atrocity without bump stocks that were, or could have been, rallying cries. Sandy Hook wouldn't have been worse with a bump stock and Vegas wouldn't have been better without it.

[fly out]

I understand. They let us have guns so they can be used in horrors shows in order to ban the guns that they let us have.



Have you not, perhaps inadvertently, basically described Fast & Furious? I suppose you'd have to substitute "Mexicans" for "us" but...yeah, that's it.

[blues]

I think people miss just how stupid and obtuse the gov't is on a grand scale, and just how evil some of its minions are on a much smaller scale.

It's capable of great misdeeds and ill conceived stratagems but usually not on the grand master level.

(That's why they get caught.)

Just sayin'.

[HCM]

Well, nobody here's saying much about the possibility that our President has expressed ideas and opinions regarding suppressor ownership that could have lasting implications..those who have heard probably just don't want to talk about it, sickning subject, but just wondering what others are thinking right about now.

I’m thinking a lot of people are worrying about Trump’s comments because they are ignorant of things a high school civics student should know.

Unlike, say... bump stocks, Suppressors are already defined and regulated by statute, in this case the national firearms act. “Banning” suppressors would require action by Congress and Tumps track record for getting anything through Congress is terrible.

It’s almost like some guys put a bunch of checks and balances in place to keep Cheeto colored douchebags in check.

BTW Bumps stocks were not “banned” they were administratively re-classified as Machine Guns. It was the Hughes Amendment that banned the NFA registration of new machine guns, not Trump. If you get an SOT or the Hughes amendment is ever repealed you can register a bump stock as a machine gun under the NFA though why you would waste your time with something as stupid as a bump stock when you could have a real machine gun I don’t know.

Why is that distinction important ? Because the false premise that Trump “banned” bump stocks by fiat feeds the false premise that Trump can do the same with suppressors and leads to threads like this.

As for 4D chess and conspiracy theories, y’all have been watching too much Alex Jones.

[BillSWPA]

I understand. They let us have guns so they can be used in horrors shows in order to ban the guns that they let us have.

Donald then makes statements to ban bump stocks and they do ban them along with statements about suppressors and entertaining assault rifles in order to DO WHAT?

I guess I'm not a 4D level chess player.

Planned by Obama in the womb in Kenya as his infant extremely stable genius was planning to fake a Hawaii birth certificate to run for president. He communicated this plan by telepathy?

Oh, for the days when the only thing the RKBA faced where 40 million Red Chinese on the Mexican border and the armored vehicles being seen in TX.

The gun world needs to stop embarrassing itself.

I have no idea what Obama's birth certificate has to do with this, but what I find embarrassing is when gun owners decide to judge someone's second amendment credentials by where they stand on a device such as a bump stock when no one can make a rational argument that it has a legitimate use.

[Sigfan26]

I have no idea what Obama's birth certificate has to do with this, but what I find embarrassing is when gun owners decide to judge someone's second amendment credentials by where they stand on a device such as a bump stock when no one can make a rational argument that it has a legitimate use.
I don’t care where Obama’s birth certificate is any more than I care to see DJT’s tax returns. Where is the legitimate use clause? I can’t find it...



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BillSWPA]

I don’t care where Obama’s birth certificate is any more than I care to see DJT’s tax returns. Where is the legitimate use clause? I can’t find it...



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I have written ad nauseum about this in other threads and have neither the time nor inclination to repeat that here.

[Sigfan26]

I have written ad nauseum about this in other threads and have neither the time nor inclination to repeat that here.

Your too lazy to copy and paste, I’m too lazy to search. So, it’s just a wash?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[WOLFIE]

The Hearing Protection Act was voluntarily withdrawn because some asshole decided to kill people in Las Vegas. The fact he used a bump stock is relevant to the HPA being withdrawn. Due to his terrible actions, there was not a chance of the HPA being passed. All this does not mean there was a conspiracy to use bump stocks against gun rights. Since the introduction of bump stocks, I have decided to stay away from bump stocks and the arm brace. I would rather spend time and energy on the HPA being passed. I think arm braces will do nothing positive for gun owners or gun rights.

[Bucky]

I have no idea what Obama's birth certificate has to do with this, but what I find embarrassing is when gun owners decide to judge someone's second amendment credentials by where they stand on a device such as a bump stock when no one can make a rational argument that it has a legitimate use.


I don’t care where Obama’s birth certificate is any more than I care to see DJT’s tax returns. Where is the legitimate use clause? I can’t find it...


True, there is no “legitimate use” clause, sure. However, in my opinion and observation, things like bump stocks and “arm braces” were meant to subvert the intent of an existing law. After much criminal activity with full auto weapons, they became much more strongly regulated. What is a bump stock? A device to simulate full auto without technically being full auto. A bit of a gray area, sure. Look at arm braces. A much less gray area here, and clearly a way to subvert the SBR laws.

As for “silencers”, they’re already highly regulated. Maybe we can play the “arm brace” game, and come up with a different looking device to reduce firearm noise and say it’s not a silencer, it’s a muffler. (Maybe we can even get Midas to sponsor it.) ;)

[Bart Carter]

True, there is no “legitimate use” clause, sure. However, in my opinion and observation, things like bump stocks and “arm braces” were meant to subvert the intent of an existing law...

And existing law was meant to subvert the second amendment.

[Bucky]

And existing law was meant to subvert the second amendment.

No argument there.