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.
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
Any legal information I may post is general information, and is not legal advice. Such information may or may not apply to your specific situation. I am not your attorney unless an attorney-client relationship is separately and privately established.
4. Eric and Don Jr. are probably already beating him up. At least one of them hangs out at Sniper's Hide...
Recovering Gun Store Commando. My Blog: The Clue Meter
“It doesn’t matter what the problem is, the solution is always for us to give the government more money and power, while we eat less meat.”
Glenn Reynolds
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.
That it is perfectly consistent with his stop & frisk, "take the guns first" red flag laws, and "ban bumpstocks" mentality.Originally Posted by Michpatriot
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
#truth
”But in the end all of these ideas just manufacture new criminals when the problem isn't a lack of criminals.” -JRB
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.
Sorta around sometimes for some of your shitty mod needs.
Obama thought bump stocks should be legal. I wonder why?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Any legal information I may post is general information, and is not legal advice. Such information may or may not apply to your specific situation. I am not your attorney unless an attorney-client relationship is separately and privately established.
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.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.
Sorta around sometimes for some of your shitty mod needs.
Reply With Quote