‘Bump Stock’ Lawsuit Makes Unique Points to Seek Injunction against Ban

How many times does this piece of firearms history have to be declared “legal”? (Photo: David Codrea)

U.S.A. – -(Ammoland.com)- A lawsuit was filed Thursday in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia seeking injunctive relief from the Trump administration’s redefinition the legal term “machinegun” and its resulting ban on “’bump fire’ stocks, slidefire devices, and devices with certain similar characteristics.” The action was filed by attorneys Stephen Stamboulieh and Alan Beck on behalf of plaintiffs Owen Monroe, Scott Heuman and this correspondent.

The complaint asks the court, among other things, to:

 “Issue an injunction requiring Defendants to rescind the Final Rule [and] Issue an injunction prohibiting Defendants and anyone acting in concert with them from taking any action inconsistent with the rescission of the Final Rule…”

Filing in the District was “a good choice since most of the attack is over the Administrative Procedure Act, and in the DDC they know that and take it seriously,” attorney and author David T. Hardy notes on his Of Arms and the Law Blog. Hardy summarizes other points raised in the complaint:

Interesting points on a quick read: para 16, ATF has ruled at least ten times that a bumpstock is not an MG. Para 19-20, the rule making says bumpstocks were used in the Las Vegas killings, yet FBI has refused a FOIA request for just that data. Para 22, FBI refused to let ATF examine the guns that were used to see what their firing mechanisms were like. Para 55 & 84 ff. challenges the status of the Acting Attorney General who signed the rule.

As far-fetched as some may say the question of bump stock use is (as opposed to attachment on guns that may or may not have been modified), it is the government that has fueled such speculation. ATF stated in an official report that “on scene personnel were not allowed to physically examine the interior of the weapons for machinegun fire-control components or known machinegun conversion devices such as Drop-In Auto Sears, Lightning Link, etc.” Since then there has been no Report of Technical Examination, and rather than address that, the Final Rule attempts to deflect by essentially saying it doesn’t matter.

It hardly seems out of line to know for sure. The public also deserves to know why FBI has refused to answer a Freedom of information Act request and claims it has no way of knowing how many “bump stocks” have been used elsewhere in violent crimes.

As for Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker not having authority to sign the rule, this column shared that question posed by attorney Stamboulieh on December 9.  Curiously, almost two weeks later, The Washington Post reported that was a serious concern among “senior Justice Department officials.”

One other factor makes this complaint unique, and that involves a “bump stock” I own that started life as an Akins Accelerator. Here’s what Congressional Research Service had to say in its report:

“On December 13, 2006 … ATF … reclassified bump-fire systems like the Akins Accelerator as a machinegun, because it was equipped with a ‘coiled spring’ and initiated automatic fire with a single trigger pull,” the report states. “In an unpublished decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit upheld ATF's decision.” Conversely, “Other manufacturers submitted modified ‘bump-fire’ or ‘slide-fire’ stocks that did not include a ‘coiled spring’ or similar mechanisms to the ATF for classification,” the report notes. “From the ATF rulings discussed above, it appears that bump-fire stocks with ‘coiled springs’ and that initiate automatic fire with a single trigger pull are regulated as firearms under the NFA; however, modified stocks without any ‘automatically functioning mechanical parts or springs’ are not similarly regulated.”

The guy in this old poster needs an “ATF/ Firearms and Ammunition Technology Division” badge.

The stock I obtained, signed by inventor Bill Akins and still in its original packaging, was initially approved as “legal,” then was deemed “illegal,” subsequently returned for rework to remove the spring and once more deemed “legal.”  Now it is supposedly illegal again and if I don’t obey the order to rid myself of my twice-confirmed “legal” property, I’ll be branded a felon and subject to life and freedom-destroying punishments. For the record, I have no intention of using it and don’t even own the type of rifle it is made for. I own it, among other reasons, because I consider it a piece of firearms history, because it pleases me to own it, because the gun-grabbers don’t want me to, and because it is my right.

It will be interesting to see what happens next, especially considering three other lawsuits have been filed:

You can read our complaint below:


Notice of Electronic Filing The following transaction was entered on 12/28/2018 at 9:41 AM EDT and filed on 12/28/2018 Case Name:CODREA et al v. WHITAKER et al Case Number:1:18-cv-03086-RC Filer: … Case Assigned to Judge Rudolph Contreras.

As a matter of necessary disclosure, I have written about or joined with attorney Stephen Stamboulieh in other ventures included in this link.

About David Codrea:David Codrea

David Codrea is the winner of multiple journalist awards for investigating / defending the RKBA and a long-time gun owner rights advocate who defiantly challenges the folly of citizen disarmament.

He blogs at “The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance,” is a regular featured contributor to Firearms News, and posts on Twitter: @dcodrea and Facebook.

  • 104 thoughts on “‘Bump Stock’ Lawsuit Makes Unique Points to Seek Injunction against Ban

    1. Perhaps words can be spread to help the petition process at the link below:

      I don’t care about the bump stock, as I never used one and not want one. BUT, this is the first domino to fall, and I want to keep it from falling for the same reason that I would let people I disagree to speak under 1A. If one is prevented from speaking, then many can be prevented from speaking.

      Thanks. God Bless!

    2. @ Revelator Another problem with twisting our founding documents are the immigrants that come here, get into politics and try to do things as was done in their homeland. In many cases they know nothing about our Constitution and could care less about it. How to correct this short of making it illegal for anyone who is not a natural born citizen to be able to hold office is a problem. I think a lot of our problems with the way this country is turning is the hoards of people that come here for a better life but after they are here they tend to try and change this country into what they left rather than become part of this nation. I think that is the definition of insanity.

      1. @Tomcat.

        I actually posed a question to a friend who has many liberal views, and he and I debate back and forth anytime we see each other.

        The actual issue is over Illegal vs Legal immigration as far as the constitution goes. He tried bringing up the subject of open borders. Here is what I proposed to him.

        I asked if he wanted open borders, and if he was willing to agree to some things to be able to have that. He said Possibly, and asked what he would need to offer. Here is the list I gave him.

        1. Anyone who Crosses the border is only eligible for a legal residency and work permit, they cannot have any path to citizenship and it must be hard written into the law.
        2. They must pay full taxes on what they earn.
        3. They are never allowed to vote, locally or Federally, or hold elected office.
        4. They may not collect any form of Taxpayer subsidized assistance the Government has at anytime for any reason.
        5. If they commit Crimes or their actions cause the death of a citizen they are punishable under the law, but regardless of punishment and whatever the sentence is they are permanently banned from re-entry and deported.
        6. The only way to become a citizen is to go back to their home country and apply for a separate permanent visa Starting two years after returning home, then completing the process to become a citizen.
        7. No more anchor babies. Babies born here to non citizens are citizens of their parents home country, and only children under 16 are eligible for citizenship along with their parents if their parents come legally from outside the country. 16 and older must apply on their own the same as their parents. No chain migration of family permitted.

        I asked him again if he would be willing to offer that to get open borders, he shook his head no and that killed the debate on the issue because I told him without those protections for the rights of citizens to take priority in their own country open borders is an attack on the people. He’s smart enough that he knows each of those points has its own argument that can destroy any debate to anything someone might bring up against it and at the end we parted with it being something he wants but knows will not happen in this country for at least a very very long time.

        I have made arguments quite often over the last decade about the issue of immigration, and everyone wants to create shortcuts to get what they want. The only way to fix this is to go back to the Constitutional Standard that was present at the start of our country, and that Natural Born Citizenship is granted at birth through parental lineage and is not tied to the patch of dirt you were popped out at, and Only Congress has the ability to confer Natural status to individuals on a case by case basis through a vote. Some will undoubtedly ask about “What about slavery in the 19th century?”, and the difference is they were forced here. The people crossing illegally now are choosing to come here, which is also the reason the deaths of their children at the border is their fault for endangering their child.

        It’s a simple fix, but nobody wants simple because it doesn’t give them what they personally want to control.

        1. Revelator -Really like your point of view and the way you bring it across and break it down in plain English for us unformed ,Don’t be so hard on the old guys they’re all scared inside ,they know war isn’t pretty – and we’re not sure if we can still “stand and deliver “-no matter how you dress it up ,,It will probably be a civil atrocity of biblical proportions-1776

          1. @GregTorchia

            The Trouble is, using Oldmariine as an example, the old guys are coming from a different period in time with a different perspective. They lived through it so it isn’t always as easy to go back and recognize the mistakes that were made historically. On top of that, what they lived through was much tougher in many ways though we think back to them as the good old times. In all honesty, I have no doubts my generation will be much the same.

            When it comes to Oldmariine, he’s one of the old school. The Marines today are very different from what they were when he and my father were in the corps. The old school guys were tougher and meaner coming out of boot camp because it was an entirely different level of treatment back then that isn’t tolerated today. That is a lot of pride and ego to try and break through to reach someone and explain something too that they don’t necessarily want to recognize in the first place.

            The reason I am harder on them is one part respect, one part that they should know better, and one part that they could be so much more than they currently are. My own family describes me to others as having all the subtlety of a sledgehammer in my discussions. I don’t think the old guys themselves are scared of whats coming. I think they are just not wanting to admit that their actions were part of what led us here. It’s a shame really, because we do need them to be strong and principled so they can teach the idiots who are currently growing up and being fed a trailer load of BS from day one. They cannot do that though when they set aside principle and push their own opinions.

        2. Revelator -Really like your point of view and the way you bring it across and break it down in plain English for us uninformed ,Don’t be so hard on the old guys they’re all scared inside ,they know war isn’t pretty – and we’re not sure if we can still “stand and deliver “-no matter how you dress it up ,,It will probably be a civil atrocity of biblical proportions-1776

      1. @Oldmariine

        This is in answer to both of your posts.

        A bumpstock is not a stand alone device. It is an accessory. The entire reason for the ban is that it can be attached to a firearm and helps someone pull a trigger much faster by using the natural reset of the trigger sear. It does not change the function of the firearm, but at the same time it is not a stand alone device because in order for it to do what it was designed for it must be attached to a firearm. Trying to correlate that to clothing(Robes) is nonsense, or are you implying that congress or more importantly an agency which has no authority under the constitution to pass any thing with the affect of law and repercussions cound suddenly forbid anyone from possessing or making pants?(An example being kilts only from now on) That is utter nonsense.

        The Ban itself is a violation of the Constitution for the above stated Reason. An entity under the Executive branch at direction of the President has usurped Article 1 Section 1 of the Constitution. All Laws must come from Congress. If anything has the effect or penal enforcement of a law, it must come from Congress. Period, no ifs, ands, or buts.

        Further, Since you have brought up the idea, lets explore your notion of The Second Amendment only covering parts of a firearm that make it able to fire, and that you feel accessories do not qualify for protection.

        By use of your viewpoint, that means that Muzzle devices such as compensators, flash hiders, and muzzle brakes may also be banned since they don’t affect your ability to fire the gun through interaction. Adjustable Stocks and pistol grips can be banned since they are not necessary for you to be able to activate the trigger and fire a firearm. Detachable Magazines or even internal magazines may be banned because they are not necessary for the firearm to be fired with a single round in the chamber. Barrel Length or Minimum overall length requirements would also apply.

        What you have just argued for is that features and accessories are not part of firearms ownership, and as long as the government doesn’t ban single shot weapons, I.E. a firearm that can be shot with a round in the chamber and one trigger pull, then any type of ban would be constitutional as long as it doesn’t restrict a single shot firearm.

        Even if we ignored the fact that this is a violation of Article 1 Section 1, do you now understand why the argument you are making is wrong? The second amendment was intended to protect Firearms, and everything related to them. That includes weapons on par with the Military. At the founding of this nation, We the People were the military and it was written that way so that the government could not suppress us by restricting us to inferior weapons. That is why the 2nd Amendment states that there is ZERO ROOM FOR INFRINGEMENT, and that includes arms of any type.

        The problem here is that you are trying to come up with a reason to justify your opinion. The reason why I called you out for attacking others over their statements was because you claimed to support the 2nd Amendment and your military oath. If you want a bumpstock ban, you have a right to say so, but if you do you cant say you support and defend the 2nd amendment because you are only arguing for what you want it to be, not what it actually says in the constitution and it also means you have forsaken your oath. That oath was to defend the Constitution, not based on what you want it to be, but as it was written.

        I judged you based on your actions, as you stated your actions will affect how you live. Your actions are what defined you, and why I called you out. Do you understand why now? This is not about your viewpoint or opinion, other than what you said did not match your actions.

    3. Oldmarine
      thoughts on a Bump Stock Ban
      Bump Stock Technical
      they are a plactic attachment to another device
      Gunsmiths do not recognize them as a gun or a part of a gun.
      They are a standalone device like and extension cord or a plow to a tractor.
      Judges wear a black robe which is an attachment to the position in court.
      A ban really has no effect on the constitution but can confuse emotional responses who feel is part of a gun. It does effect the human action required in firing a gun “IF attached.” Remenber that NOTHING physical happens (other than acts of nature ) without the use of hands. I can see a Lawyer having real fun with this.

      There can be a ban on this apparatus simply because it is NOT part of a gun. Any laywer can easly prove it by asking a jury if the clothes they wear is part of them or an attachment to them. Bumpstocks and clothes both serve the same purpose, to look better, to empress or excite.

      The Constutition would be hard to change any portion there of simply because Constitutional changes require thiry eight (38) States have to agree in order for that to happpen. Opinions can’t change that. Blaming someone for what is happening does absolut;y no good but can make a person feel effective. The Constitution does pretty well on its own because of those who bravely gave their lives while others slept. There is really only one way to protect the Constutition, that is to offer your life to the service of your country. There are many oppertunities for patrioats to do that. They include the Military, Law Enforcement at all levels, Firefighters, and EMT personel. Two proffesions I admire the most are Firfighters because they fight a powerful force of natue and emergency medical personel because they fight death.

      Use your 1st amendment rights and say how you feel about any situation but realize that words effect feeling and thinking but it is only actions that really effect humans lives. Laws are the words we live by but actions affect how we live.

      1. Some aren’t because of their views on the president. Just be careful you don’t get attacked if it looks like you have run afoul of them(already saw it happen).

        In any case, keep linking the petition if you can, and not just here. I’ve told family and friends about it, and even engaged some vets I met in a store the other day with a conversation about it after I shook their hands to thank them. Love some of the random talks you can have when you take the time to give to a stranger.

        1. @Oldmariine

          Was just going off what was asked of me by a Marine I knew in person. This was explained to you before, including how he said refer to it as “Hell Week” so the idiots who don’t understand what the Cruciable is and don’t know any better can go “Oh, I get it.”

          You chose to make it personal on the last article. You engaged in hypocrisy, and you directly lied.

          Lets try this. You stated that all the anti Second amendment bills and laws were being started and pushed by “oath breakers”. Now, you repeatedly attacked everyone and everything that had any criticism for Donald Trump and the Bumpstock ban on that last article. Donald Trump took an oath when he took office. That oath was to uphold and defend the constitution. He was the one to stated his desire for, and then tasked the DOJ with creating the bumpstock ban, in other words violating the Second Amendment.

          That makes him an oath breaker by your own definition does it not?

          1. He was the one to stated his desire for, and then tasked the DOJ with creating the bumpstock ban, in other words violating the Second Amendment.

            got a specific cite for that claim? My understanding, from some pretty credible sources, turns things out a bit differenly.

            AND how do you KNOW he’s anti-Second Article, or perhaps instead deliberatley planting the seeds for a blowup of the whole thing by NOT putting this before COngress as it is required by law to have done. but instead having petty exec department drones “make law” (they are not allowed to) and the temp head pooh bah for DoJ illegally signing the thing? G
            otta remember, Trump plays his hand close to his chest.. and NO ONE knows that he’s drawn till the call is in.. which it ain’t in yet.
            COULD he have tossed the Bloomies a bone with this thing, playing them for the fools they certainly are, knowing it will all blow up in their faces when the lawsuits roll in, as they now certainly are doing…….
            Like someone famous i show businss used to say “it ain’t over till the Fat Lady sings”…… and right now I can’t even SEE a Fat Lady let alone hear anyone fitting that descriptioin sINGING.

            Or, like Yoigi Berra used to say “it ain’t ovah till its ovah”. It ain’t ovah yet, Boys…..

          2. @Tionico

            You are still letting your emotions get the better of you. You really need to think before you comment. So to answer your question, what if I can show you with the words from Donald Trumps own mouth? I made that statement fully ready to cite that claim.

            An Article along with embedded video.
            Or, just the video itself from the article

            For ease of reference, his comment starts at the 3:10 minute Mark and goes roughly to the 3:45 minute mark.

            Out of his own mouth. “I signed a memorandum directing the DOJ to create a Ban on any Device turning a legal weapon into a Machine gun”. It came from him directly. This was back in February of 2018, almost a full year ago.

            Now let me ask you, do you have any proof or citation that he is planting seeds to “Blow this up”? I’d love to see these so called credible sources of yours. I’d also love to ask what happens if this doesn’t blow up, if this infringement stands thanks to a politically active Judicial branch which believes it has authority to rewrite or “Reinterpret” the law(unconstitutionally seizing the powers of Article 1 Section 1 as you just noted the executive branch cannot do)? I have tried to warn you in the past that your faith in judicial appointee’s is flawed, that they are men with opinions and desires just like you and will turn on the constitution. I tried to warn you not to give them that type of authority through your arguments.

            Now, as far as your anger and irritation towards me are concerned. Do I really have to treat you like a child? Yes, in all likelihood I am younger than you being 32. I understand that you, like oldmariine, being older means that the idea somebody younger who has not been around as long could out argue or possibly be more knowledgeable would be difficult to accept because that is human nature Add in to that you have also said you are a teacher, and that means coming from Academia, particularly history, it compounds it because you’re automatically going to think of yourself as more thoroughly educated and consider me an upstart.

            What this is doing is causing you to lash out, looking for any “Gotcha” moment you can try and find in the hopes of discrediting me. Why? Because I out argued you or triggered your conscience to where you felt I made you look publicly inferior? If you can’t get passed your own ego and opinion this is going to be a very long cascade of embarrassing moments for you. Each time you have tried this so far You have gone silent when I return the question to you, then you wait for a new “Gotcha” to try and jump on because you can’t respond to my reply. What good is it doing you? The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

            I’m going to be perfectly honest with you. You could be much better than you are right now if you would just get out of your own way. The reason I say that is because I want you to be much better. Its why I complimented you on your other comment on the previous article because it was so well told from a historical perspective. That is needed now. But, you discredit and do damage to yourself when you go off into these areas based on your opinion because inside its just “How you want it to be because it needs to be that way!” Quite honestly, I don’t care if you hate me or if you want to continue this little temper tantrum of yours. It’s ok to make mistakes, but its how you respond after that matters It is your choice, and I’m not here for a popularity contest. I’m here to try and refine and strengthen those that I can, those who may be misinformed or just have not considered every single piece of evidence to prepare them to help be a defense against what is coming, to be strong enough to stand firm.

            If you want to have a contest to see who is the most constitutional by all means, I’m ready at anytime and I’m even willing to make it a bet where my stake is that I will shut up on here for the next two months straight. If you lose however, or can’t answer constitutionally you have to post a public comment on a current article humbling yourself and stating that you will try to be better in the future since you’ve made mistakes. It’s your reputation on the line as far as the pseudonym “Tionico” goes and yes I know you could just create a new name and pretend it never happened, but if you do you’ll know you lied to yourself.

      2. We need to get Ted Cruz nominated to replace Trump for the 2020 election. If Trump is on the ticket, we are gonna have a Democrat for president. Traitor Trump has lost his pro gun base and they will not be voting in 2020. I can’t vote for a president, that orders gun control and confiscation. Had he been truthful and said he was going to do this crap, I would not have voted for him in 2016. Trump basically traded a 2nd term for a piece of plastic.

        1. Not bad idea…EXCEPT here we are wanting to make the Constitution our ruleboook, right?

          Well, minor wrinkle with Cruz: NOT ELIGIBLE. Yes, he had his hat in the ring before, illegally..

          Born in Canada of American mother and Cuban father. No “foreign birth of American citizen” paper filed.

          Natural Borh Citizen MUST have all three of these things:

          Born IN the USA *US embasies, military bases, etc, can provide exceptions….. possibly)

          Born of a woman who is a US Citizen at the time of the birth

          Born of a man who is a US Citizen at the time of the birth.

          HOW can we toot our horns about our right to arms based on the Constitution,then give a pass on basing a candidate for president on a different part of that same document?

          Sorry guys…. NONE of us can, with a shred of integrity, support Cruz as a candidate for president.

          Supreme COurt justic,e Ambassador, Cabinet head., Senator (he’s a good one and we need him with us) state representative… but NOT president or vice president.
          Can’t happen

          1. @ Tionico That is what I was thinking when I read the post favoring Cruz. He is a Constitutionalist but his birth makes him ineligible as Pres. or V.P. If he would have won the candidacy the left would have totally destroyed him and the GOP. Not even mentioning Obama.

            1. @Tomcat

              Please reference the forthcoming comment I just posted directly to Tionico and yourself. Unfortunately we have a lot of work to do restoring the constitution and its original intent. I have tried to lay out some history and examples for you as a means of helping clear up the questions you may have. The Subject of birthright citizenship has been one of the most twisted and contorted since the beginning of our nation.

          2. @Tionico and Tomcat

            Unless you go back and look at what the Constitution says, what was said when it was written, and the understanding of original intent in 1789-91. Keep in mind this is prior to the 14th amendment passed in 1868 which suddenly included terminology of borders. At the time of the American Revolution one of the most prominently read books in the colonies was William Blackstone’s treatise on law. This is something which would have affected their thinking. Here is what he had to say regarding citizenship.

            “Allegiance, both express and implied, is however distinguished by the law into two sorts or species, the one natural, the other local; the former being also perpetual, the latter temporary. Natural allegiance is such as is due from all men born within the king’s dominions immediately upon their birth. For, immediately upon their birth, they are under the king’s protection; at a time too, when (during their infancy) they are incapable of protecting themselves. Natural allegiance is therefore a debt of gratitude; which cannot be forfeited, cancelled, or altered, by any change of time, place, or circumstance, nor by any thing but the united concurrence of the legislature. ”

            At the time of the Constitution Natural Citizenship was left in two states, one being inherited by your parents and the second was conferment by congress. The most famous case for the latter of this from that time was Marie-Joseph Paul Yves Roch Gilbert du Motier, otherwise known as the Marquis De Lafayette. If Raphael Cruz was here legally in residence in any capacity, married an American woman, had been travelling outside the Country at the time Ted was born, he is still an American Citizen, naturally by birth. Furthermore Court cases were tried in the 1800’s which held that Citizens born abroad to American Citizens are Natural born. But what about Ted’s father, who was only a legal resident before being in Canada for work?

            In 1790 Congress established the means by which natural born Citizenship was to be handled and they had thought of that very issue.

            “The Naturalization Act of 1790 provided that~ “the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States . . . .”

            The determining factor at the time was legal residency prior to a birth, and that one parent is enough to confer natural born status in a marriage given these circumstances even if the birth takes place out of country.

            Now, you will find a lot of people, especially on the left arguing the position of Vattel as opposed to Blackstone. They do this first to ignore the history and original intent of the Constitution prior to John Adams’ screwing around and creating chaos. Add into that mix the Civil War and the 14th Amendment which has been used wrongly to confer citizenship to those who are not qualified(The writer of the law specifically stated Anchor babies would not be allowed, Legal Residency still was required) and we have the mess we are in today.

            A personal message to Tionico,

            Don’t let your emotions get the better of you. I have told you before that I am a Constitutionalist with an originalist view, and have maintained for over two years that we have been off the rails of the Constitution since shortly after the Bill of Rights was passed. Consistency. This is not the “Aha! Gotcha” moment you want it to be.

            As someone who claims to be a teacher of History, you should know better.

            1. @ Rev. I understand what you are saying, however, in the political climate that exists I am sure there would be challenge after challenge from the anti Constitutionalists. That would tie hands behind the back just as is being done now with the Trump investigation. The constant fighting really benefits every citizen of this country.

            2. @Tomcat.

              I understand that completely. It is what I have been trying to convey to Tionico now whenever he and I have gotten into it for the last 6 months.

              Unfortunately, there are people who will twist and turn the constitution and weaken it by doing so. And when you add into that getting people to put aside opinions and engage with facts even when it is a result they don’t care for is next to impossible, the odds in our favor are not good and those opinions just weaken our argument against the Anti Constitutionalists.

              But there are those of us who still try.

            3. You are being silly and haughty beyoind belief. Emoutioins are NOT a part of my position, not one whjit. Get over that idea.

              From the reading I’ve done on the matter, which was extensive back when the kinyun was seeking, and later landed, his faux position as president. baacks up my claim that NATURAL BORN CITIZEN requires one to be born whithin the US< with certain exceptions, of TWO parents who were citizens of the US AT THE TIME OF THE BIRTH. Extraconstitutional contmmporaneous writingg I studied during that season made it plain that the INTENT of those who wrote that requirement wanted to avoid any possibiliy, as much as possible, of "mixed blood" in a candidata for the cheif executive office. and his immediate replacement should he not complete his term. Since its been a few years now, I do not remember all the cites for those pieces of history, nor do I care to spend the time re-finding them. The positioni I came to in that season is also held by quite a number of respected constitutoinal scholars I read, as well. Some of those guys were contemporaries of the Framers, others are currengly lving and writing. The owevwhelming consensus I found at that point in our history (that of the kinyun) was that he FAILED the requirements for Natural Born Citizen status on two of the three requirements. Foreign birth, British Subject pappy. Mama's citizenship quesitonable, though probable… had to do with her time in the British Colony that later became Kenya.

              Since that time I have opposed ANY candidate for that office that does not meet the three point test.

              If things are as you say, then WHY did no court ever have the courage to hear any of the many court actioins brought on the matter and dismiss or find against plaintiffs ON THE BASES OF FACT AND LAW? NOT one case was ever allowed to proceed beyond a knee-jerk "lack of standing" determination. NEVER approached any of them on the merits of the cases, and they were many and varied/ ANY of those courts could have taken it up and establsihed a cleear precedent.
              By the bye, leave the 14th Article of Ammendment out of this topic…. that does not change the clealry stated quailfication standard found in the original Constitution.

              So WHERE have I "twisted th Constitution" this time? You never showed where I supposedl twisted it earlier , either. Jou just decide, repeat it a few times, and I let you go running off into the distance spluttering "twist twist twist". Not a definitive conclusion.

              By the bye, answer this question: WHO was Margaret Gatge, and what was HER connexion, if any, with our war for independence? And WHAT might that part of that history have to do with the kinyun, Cruz, Rubio, et al and their tossing their hats in the ring for the Big Guy's Chair?

              I do not

            4. @Tionico
              Oh, silly is it? Then you should love this.

              Ok, first of all, Lets look at Obama since you brought him up.

              Have you ever gone back and looked at the files? Barry Senior was in the country legally, and in Hawaii at the time, if he truly is Barrack Obama’s Father. here is the Catch though. Obama’s mother, Miss Dunham, at the time she claimed to be married to Obama Sr, Obama Sr already had a wife and Kids back in Africa. In addition to that, in the months or pregnancy leading up to his birth, miss Dunham who please correct me if I am wrong was 17 when she got pregnant. There are also many questions thanks to INS Records from that time

              BHO I’s visa expired Aug. 8, 1961 (Barack Junior was born Aug. 4, 1961). Of the questions the INS had at the time was Obama Sr never having legally divorced his first wife from Kenya, who he later went back to live with. On top of that, adding to the Sham Marriage claim are two points. One is the thought that Ann Dunham was living separately from Obama Sr in an entirely separate state while pregnant and had travelled to Hawaii to give birth, and second that Obama Sr in the meantime had several other women he was involved with at the time and the idea of yet a third wife was raised. Indeed, when he got back to Kenya he had a “third wife” that lived with him and his first wife. Barrack Obama Sr was a bigamist whose “Marriage” to Ann Dunham was never legal, meaning that she would be counted as the soul legal parent and single mother, making Barrack a full Citizen by birth.

              Much of the Confusion comes in because Barrack Obama is a Habitual liar. It was his own biography in an early print which referred to the “Kenyan” claim that Hillary picked up on.

              Again, For someone who is supposed to be a history teacher you are doing a remarkedly horrendous job. You are relying on a consensus of opinion written articles as the basis for your claim? “Consensus, Word meaning when 51 idiots vote to agree over 49 intelligent people, the consensus of 100 people is that the idiots are right………”

              Think before you speak. In regards to your emotions and anger at me, see the comment I penned to your other response above questioning my citation of Donald Trump. That’s twice in one day.

      3. @Joe

        I might still be able to vote for Cruz. He was my primary candidate of choice in 2016, though his subsequent cave in and a few other issues now give me a slight pause. Would still have to hold him accountable if he got the ticket, but I don’t believe he would violate the constitution the way Donald Trump has. That however is just my opinion, so take it with a few grains of salt.

    4. i kinda figured all along the reason trump,nra and others didnt come out real strong against this is they new if it wasnt done thru congress it would never hold up in the courts. to truly make bumpstocks illegal they would have to make bouncing the gun/trigger against your finger illegal. as long as you can steady your hand you can use the trigger gaurd to let your finger slide back and forth as gun bounces. so many ways to accomplish and fine tune and maybe improve on bumpstocks

        1. Not a pass but if he had come out and fought against bumpstock bans it could have been a real rallying point for the antis . They could have tried to get Congress to act and pass an actual law instead of this decision that won’t survive legal challenges. Who knows how many rinos would have caved and who knows what else could have been added to the law. This way all their time was wasted on a decision and now they don’t have as much public support to try to force Congress to do anything.

    5. By design this ‘ban’ will end up in the courts. Pres. Trump and Wayne are not stupid, Congress could have acted and made things a lot worse.
      Place schematic drawings of full and semi AR side by side with parts list, you do not have to be an engineer or firearms expert to notice parts are missing from the Semi Auto Ar.

      Agree with earlier post that a one armed man can not use the bump stock.

      Next, read the Abstract for US Patent # US8127658B1, to use it requires the trigger be pushed each time a round is fired.

      A method for rapidly firing a semi-automatic firing unit (22) having a trigger (24), a receiver (21) and a barrel (23). The firing unit (22) is placed in a handle (20) so as to enable only reciprocating linear movement along a constrained linear path (P). The user grasps the handle (20) and places their trigger finger (74) firmly on a finger rest (70). In use, the user generates a forward activation force (200) that urges the firing unit (22) forwardly so that the trigger (24) collides with the stabilized finger (74), stimulating the first round of ammunition in the receiver (21). A recoil force (202) from the discharging ammunition pushes the firing unit (22) rearwardly so that the trigger (24) separates from the stabilized finger (74). The intensity of the forward activation force (200) can be varied by the user on-the-fly to proportionally change the firing tempo.

      1. Trump has made many anti-gun comments in the past.
        Trump supports “Taking the guns first and giving due process later” in the form of red-flag laws.

        If you are correct and think the Almighty Gun Lovin’ Trump did this only to fail you couldn’t be more wrong.
        Trump does not like to lose.

        He has put into the hands of liberal courts the power to decimate the Second Amendment.
        If this is upheld in the liberal court system and future president can simply instruct his Justice Dept and ATF to ban magazines, red dots, single point slings or whatever because of this action by Trump that way too many people are willing to give him a pass for or to make excuses for.

        Trump never has been a “gun guy”, that anyone thinks otherwise just shows their ignorance for who he is.

        1. No illusions about the President or anyone else. I, for one, most definitely do NOT support this overreach by the ATF on his watch. But I’m not one to decide that my support for any president is based on one issue. There is too much at stake overall. I’ll gladly hammer him over this while praising him for fighting China with tariffs, fighting the dems on most everything, and closing down the Syria adventure before it becomes yet another quagmire.

          1. “…fighting China with tariffs…”
            Who pays a tariff, the seller or the buyer? A: the buyer.
            That is: Trump is taxing U.S.citizens in the name of “fighting China”.
            A tariff amounts to drinking poison in hopes it will kill your enemy. A more stupid action is hard to imagine.

            1. Hit the nail on the head with that one Frank.

              Don’t worry, they probably aren’t too familiar with how Tariffs create windfalls, or even what that is either.

    6. The FBI really scares the crap out of me
      They have always abused there power since there creation. The government created the organized crime syndicates because of the volstead act. Then they responded by creating a federal police agency. They have been abusing their power since there creation. They are a secret state police organized like the Gestapo. They always get who they want by hook or crook or fire. They can not be trusted ever. Never talk to them period. You know that there is a reason no one was allowed to examine those weapons.

      1. The big difference between the FBI and the Gestapo, is that the Gestapo acrtually tried to solve crimes! But the similarity is so apparent, since the Gestapo and the FBI are politically motivated and controlled by Party Ideology.

    7. Well done, Sir. And I think Mr. Stamboulieh is the perfect lawyer type to help this one. Having watched and read his work in the past I’ve observed he is a very insightful sort, able to look at the whole bear, see past and around all the fur, fat, muscle, KNOW where the jugular vein is, and go for that.

      Seems he’s got about three jugulars in his sights in this one. If ANY ONE of those points carries with the judge, we stand a high likeliood of getting an injunction in place. I find it very signficant that it has been Mr. Stamboulieh pressing via FOIA demands, for some of the documentation of the Las Vegas false flag event. I’ve smelled a whole horde of rats on that “incident” since the first videos were made public…. cell phone recordings made during the event by attendees, that managed to get published before FBI or whoever began confiscating every phone they could find, wiping the memory clean before they returned them.

      THIS fact, I believe, makes it mandatory that anyone onscene and recording such events hide, then deny possession of, any such devices until they can download the material to some secure storage device. The tactics by US Gummit before, during, after that incident are strongly reminscent of KGB. or SS.
      By the bye, I love your “stated reasons” for wanting to keep that bit of black plastic stuff in the box with the red tag on it. We are NOT the residents of Boston and surrounds back in the mid01770’s, subject to search, seizure, invasion, etc on the whim of anyone in a red coat with a few brass trinkets attached thereto. Seems too many gummit hooh hahs think we are, or ought to be…… time they get proven wrong, preferably in some ways that are painful to them long term.

      1. Oldmarine >>> Tionico
        That’s OK sir I don’t know who ” The Revelator ” is, Never heard of her.
        1st amendments rights, keep up your good comments.
        Semper Fi

        1. @Oldmariine.

          Yeah, referring to a guy as a she, and feigning ignorance. Par for the course with you, but if you still want to try throwing insults around I guess that must be normal for senility at 82.

          On a side note, yes, this comment from Tionico was on point.

    8. Quote: “I know that this is not removal of the second but it all the same has to start somewhere does it not.” It started a long time ago with the first unconstitutional infringement of the constitutionally unfettered right to keep and bear arms. When the first special tax was levied and the first restriction applied. Bump stocks are just a continuation.

      1. I agree with that I should have worded that comment a little different. You are correct sir it started way back when then first anti gun mind mentioned it in a personal argument, back when a school kid was against it because a family membered had been killed even thou it may or may not of been a crime directed towards them, and with the first tax or restriction they ever even thought about placing on arms. You are correct it start way before now and way before the AWB of the 90s I mentioned and we will always most likely have to stand and defend the 2A and the Constitution as a whole. Even so I fear the day they have brain washed enough to make it happen anyways. I pray that if and when it happens that there will still be enough patriotic constitutional Americans left willing and able to stand against the tyranny that they push in our schools, media and all other outlets they may choose.

    9. It takes three actions for a bump fire stock to function.
      1. The trigger must be pulled.
      2. The gun must recoil.
      3. The shooter must push the gun forward with their support hand to pull the trigger for the second and each subsequent shot.

      I have a Ruger AR556 with a very effective muzzle brake added. I do not perceive any recoil. I don’t have teh money to buy a bumpfire stock to experiment, but I doubt the setup would function with the effective muzzle break.

      Years ago the TV show THE FUGITIVE starring David Jansen, he was looking for the one armed man who murdered his wife. A one armed man could not use a bump stock.

      Banning the stocks via an administrative rule by ATF exceeds the authority and transgresses on Congressional POWERS

      RIP HR 38, bring it back from the dead and add public areas of post offices.

      1. Just out of curiosity from a Gun guy, what brake are you using?

        I’ve got an Epsilon VG6 on my rifle currently, but may be building a pistol AR if funds allow(Single homeowner syndrome). If there is a more effective option I’d love to check it out should I get the chance.

          1. @Jim Macklin

            Thanks man. Nice three slanted baffles with top porting. No wonder. That thing is pretty much a tank brake

            I was able to get my VG6 for about $56 shipped to me a while back. When they came out normal price was between $80 to 100, so I nabbed one when I could.

            1. @Jim Macklin

              Hey, no need for apologies man. Get deals where ever you can get them.

              I did a lot of research on rifle brakes prior to deciding on the Epsilon, and I just checked last night too. MSRP is still up around $86 on them, so finding them for the AR 15 is going to be in the $70 range depending on where you look. The Ak Variant I saw going for just shy of $50. In any case, I still got a heck of a deal compared to full price on mine. Glad you got yours at such a steal.

    10. I do not understand how they get that a “Bump Stock” is a machine, As far as I know the only moving part(s)
      are a SPRING. And if a SPRING makes it a machine gun then there are a LOT of “Machine Pens” out there!

      1. Only the original “bump stock” had a spring and was ruled against prompting the removal of the spring. It has been many years since that time and none of the others had one. That is the point, it takes the person holding the gun pushing forward on the gun to allow the bump stock to work as advertised. You take a real machinegun and pull the trigger and it will fire until you release the trigger. It requires no other action on the shooters part. Not so with a bump stock.

    11. I’m an NRA member and staunch defender of the 2nd Amendment, in fact, I believe the 2nd Amendment is your license to carry concealed or openly in every state and that all state laws restricting one’s right to carry should be ruled unconstitutional. Every legal citizen in the U.S. has the right to self-defend or protect others from harm. I draw the line however, when it comes to machine guns, bump stocks (that turn semi-autos into machine guns), bazookas, grenades, tanks, jet fighters and bombers and/or other military grade mass casualty weapons. Those who think ‘we the people’ should possess such weapons are truly not helping the argument for the pro-gun side.

      1. Sorry, but you are a fudd. They will not stop with bump stocks which DONT turn semi autos in machine guns. Anti-Gunners want all guns banned and will do so one piece at a time.

      2. @Ranger Gus

        The 2nd Amendment applies to individual arms. I love when people try to lump in Tanks(Which are legal to own surprisingly, just like cars) jets, and even “Oh my goodness nukes and cruise missles!”

        Whether you agree that machine guns are covered or not, that is your opinion. The Second Amendment states no infringements however, so your opinion is meaningless. It also means you are not a supporter of the constitution. You either Support it or you don’t, and you are going to have to pick between supporting your opinion and supporting the Constitution. I don’t care about what you say, I judge you based on what you do. Actions not words.. You don’t get to decide what is acceptable for others based on what you are ok with.

        1. I’ll second that revelation! It just goes to show that with time and repetition anyone even those who believe in the 2A can be sidetracked into marxist/socialist “Group Think”. The NRA, NSSF etc. have been very much a part of that type of reasoning amongst those with that pervasive thought.

            1. Mine are Branded! Guaranteed to be brassier bigger and saltier even after +10k licks. Like the Clackers from the 70’s.

            2. @Nottinghill

              I’m not sure Ranger Gus intended to make the “Weapons of War” argument that the left tries to routinely.

              If it was inadvertent no harm no foul. If it was intentional, then let him admit it. I’m willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. My hope is that it was inadvertent and he knows better now.

              There are a few here though who defended his original comment or those like them, and therefore are defending the position the left takes and argues even as they claim to be constitutionalists. They have argued against the constitution in the past however in favor of personal opinion, so this is nothing new or surprising.

        2. Oldmarine >>> Ranger Gus
          Don’t pay any attention to what’s her name ” The Revelator ” She doesn’t understand anyone’s opinion but hers.
          She means well but sees only one opinion…. hers . and gives any other pinons hell. Semper Fi

          1. @Oldmariine.

            Still mad that I caught you in a lie huh Oldmariine.

            It’s not about opinions. Evidence proves fact, facts show truth. The fact that you are still trying to push opinions instead of actually making your words match your actions, and you do so with lame attacks meant to destroy the messenger.

            For those curious, Oldmariine is upset because he was attacking anyone and everyone who was criticizing Donald Trump for pushing the bump stock ban. His own words were “I would rather have all bumpstocks melted down than lose the 2nd” in addition to added comments about how horrible bumpstocks are.

            He was defending the President and the Ban from criticism and I called him on it. In the process he threw a temper tantrum because he made himself look like an unhinged hypocrite. Sadly, it appears that paw paw’s diaper has yet to be changed.

            1. Knock it off, Revelator.
              I read OldMarine’s writings, and yes he typed those words you cite, but he also typed a whole lot more that put it all ino context.

              You are carrying on like a bored old woman with a grudge tucked under the tatty old shawl she has on her shoulders, rambling the neighbourhood and tattling.

              Dontchya think the rest of us are big enough, if we even care, to READ Old Marine’s (and your) words and figure it out? Curl that gnarly old pointy finger back up into your claw and leave it be. There have been plenty of other things said on this thread that aren’t straightarrow true. WHY keep nattering on at Old Marine? You are making me wonder if maybe you’re not one of them paid trolls, stirring the pot just for fun and profit. You don’t know Trump’s ful dataset on this, nor his thinking. One thing I’ve noticed about that guy is he’s cagey as a wiley old gator. He also plays his hand VERY close to his chest. YOU certainly are not privy to his inner thoughts…. else you’d not have time to be nattering on at Old Marine on here.

              And no, I’m not sticking up for Old Marine as much as I’m speaking to you.

            2. @Tionico

              Thank you for speaking directly to me. However, the comment about “paid trolls” only weakens your argument. I believe in consistency. Make your actions match your words. If you stand for the constitution, then show me by your actions. If your words match, then we have no problem. If they don’t I call people on it. Should we ask if your comment here is part of a grudge since you chose not to answer my question to you when we last spoke on that other article? Like I said, make your actions match your words.

              Oldmariine chose to bring this here. The context of which you speak was an attempt to turn the situation around and he did so by trying to lie and then turn it into a physical show. He refused to answer that he said those quotes initially and even went so far as to accuse me of stating those quotes as a lie(In essence denying he said them). If he really is a big boy like you say then he can take the criticism. You want to talk about grudges? I bear no grudge here, but what does it say that an 82 year old man will take his feelings from a previous article and bring it here?

              As for inner thoughts, it doesn’t take a genius to learn to read people mentally, especially the more emotional they get. You, Oldmariine, and Ranger Gus put a lot into your emotions and opinions. That’s the reason why these arguments don’t turn out well for you, and ultimately why you get snippy trying to shut me up.

        3. The Second Amendment was adopted because the Constitution did not adequately protect the ability of the people’s ability to form an unorganized militia when a force was needed to depose a tyrant.
          The word “keep” means the people have the right to keep possession of the arms and munitions under their control and in locations that are safe from government confiscation.
          Just one of the lessons learned on April 19, 1775.
          The Constitution of 1788 provided that the Congress had the power to organize and arm the militia. Patrick Henry, George Mason and others recognized that tyrant or a budding tyrant would not approve of a militia that would depose and imprison a tyrant. A Bill of Rights was demanded and ratification of te Constitution was predicated on the Bill of Rights.
          “Arms” is simpler and more complex since everything from a saber to a 10 pound cannon and the support equipment and ammunition are all defined as “arms.” The first Congress passed laws that defined what “well regulated” meant. The first militia act specified bore sizes or caliber, quantity of ammunition, knives, blankets, gun powder, flints and other gear that is needed by each person in the militia. The Congress updated the Militia Acts as technology advanced.
          In 1939 the teh Supreme Court stated that the only thing they were sure about was that “when summoned the men were expected to appear bearing their private arms of a type in current military service..” [MILLER 1939]
          The Court did not limit arms to individual weapons since wealthy people were expected to supply some crew served arms as had been common and customary since 1775.
          Militia arms can be almost anything but are that could be supplied with ammunition that was in the normal supply chain is ideal.
          Since creation of the National Guard because the militia cannot be deployed outside the USA and the Spanish-American War showed that weakness. The government sold at very low prices, military weapons such as the 1873 rifled musket in caliber 45/70 and later 30 caliber rifles such as the 1903 and 1917.
          Today in a vain attempt to sound “friendly” the SAAMI wants to call the AR pattern rifle a Modern Sporting Rifle. or MSR.
          Militia Standard Rifle is Constitutionally more correct.
          Self-defense and defense of property from loss be it bears and wolves or outlaw humans fall more into the Ninth and Tenth Amendments and are just as well protected. Many states have passed state constitutional amendments to protect hunting, property and general laws dealing with Use of Force.

          1. I think the 2 recent court decisions (supreme court on atleast one I’m pretty sure) that ruled stunguns and nunchucks are protected under the 2nd amendment should help overturn all gun bans at the federal and state level. If those 2 items are protected how can any firearm not be? There is a challenge buy GOA I believe to recognize the plain wording of the 2nd amendment and it has a good chance of being successful based on nunchucks and stunguns being successful.

            1. We can only hope Repo. I don’t trust the Judicial branch any more than the other two, but we might get lucky here.

              If not, I will not be complying.

            2. I sure hope so as well revelator. I’m so sick of riding the highs and lows in this fight. I’ve always wondered why no one ever challenged the plain wording of the text. I suppose it could be it’s a huge risk, all or nothing possibly in the decision. I do think these few other victories of other types of weapons most don’t realise are protected by the 2nd could really help the plain wording argument. It makes the most sense when you look at the facts and if successful I think it would have to turn over all bans,restrictions,and regulations both federal and state. It is a huge risk though because like I said it could be all or nothing.

          2. The Bill of rights was actually a compromise made to ensure passage of the Constitution in 1789.

            After its adoption there were plenty of Federalists who wanted to ignore this promise and just leave things as they were. If memory serves correct, Alexander Hamilton who was one of the staunchest opponents of a Bill of Rights was also one of the men responsible for keeping the promise after 1789, giving us the amendments added and ratified in 1791. The Anti Federalists won that argument.

            1. It wasn’t so much as a compromise but a condition. The Compromise was the anti-slavery compromise that counted slaves as 3/5 of a person. This was so the population used to determine the number of Congressmen in each state would not shift total power to the slave holing south.
              We have a similar problem now in California and Texas with illegal invaders shifting political power.
              Once the weaknesses in the 1788 Constitution were pointed out passage of a Bill of Rights ceased to be a point of contention.

      1. It is down right despicable to look at low number of signers to the petition. I remember when the ‘Nat’l Reciprocity Act’ was introduced every Jack and Joe was on it. What even those who live in ‘May Issue’ states to to support them fully of which the majority did… but to those ‘So-called’ 2A supporters that have the MSM frame of mind on bumpstock accessories I say, NUTS!

        1. I signed the petition and also sent it off to multiple others, including those who have Bump Stocks. Guess what? None of them signed it. How many folks in the US bought Bump Stocks and they will not even sign the petition? I don’t own a Bump Stock, so the banning or otherwise of this device does not affect me and my desires. Yet, I signed and they will not, as they believe the Government will get their names and go after them. How many of these folks, who bought these devices have even called their representatives/the NRA/the GOA or etc? I heard that upwards of 600,000 were purchased. It really is and should be in their court. But if even they won’t fight for their rights, where does that leave us? Next the AR 15/AK 47 series of Firearms. How many of those owners, I believe over 25 plus millions, will fight for their rights? So much for the fight, it appears folks would rather just hunker down and read survival books.

        2. Nottinghill, I signed it as soon as I saw the first post about it on this site. I don’t own a bump stock, but this is about more than just bump stocks. If they can get approved, they can ban anything firearm-related.

    12. A little off topic…..Im not big on commenting but I am a NRA member and i constantly am getting requests from them for donations. But where is the NRA in all of this “nonsense “? I hate to say but my membership renewal is coming up and i think i may just save it and send to the GOA..

    13. We have never seen an infringement constructed in this fashion. The rule requires owners to destroy or surrender an item that is not serialized. No doubt the sellers kept records to satisfy IRS reporting. The BATFE could seize those records to establish a list of buyers.
      At any rate the owners should then keep the scraps of plastic for the rest of their lives just in case a knock on the door comes. If they chose to surrender their scraps of plastic at the nearest BATFE office in hopes of preventing the knock on the door by being taken off the list, they can spend the rest of their lives wondering if being taken off that list put them on another list.
      This can be expanded to the entire populace. Since “swatting” is already happening and “Red Flag Laws” are growing in popularity- any person could be accused of having a hidden Bumpstock.
      Any person in the middle of the night could get that thrill of trying to explain that they do not possess this item and do not have something hidden as federal agents start taking their home apart.
      A brain washed populace willing to inform on fellow citizens, a disappearing right of due process, squads of overzealous agents ready to shoot mothers holding babies, burning buildings and occupants.
      Everything a growing police state needs.

    14. According to the Constitution; ‘EX POST FACTO’ laws are UNCONSTITUTIONAL! Therefore, according to the Constitution, they CANNOT BE ENFORCED!
      The communistic politicians in Maryland have shown their hand against LAW ABIDING American CITIZENS. They have deemed “bump stocks” are unnecessary and must be banned from ownership.

        1. @David

          If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it’s a ……….

          If you have a bumpstock and this goes into effect, do you think they will just give you a fine for violating a regulation, or will they haul you into court and prosecute you for having criminally violated a law, and punish you under the law by taking away your rights?

          Looking forward to hearing your answer.

    15. Any time the BATFE is given any more authority or makes any kind of decision on their own (Administrative law, which is unconstitutional, but has the “authority” of law) it is a BAD thing. Supposedly there are no absolutes, but in the case of the BATFE, if they are involved in any way, shape or form, it is ABSOLUTELY a bad thing. They are the joke of law enforcement across the nation, the bottom of the LEO barrel and the last bastion of “cop wanna-bes” who can’t qualify for Mall security or school crossing guards.

      1. In light of the information Mr. Codrea has given us here, I have to disagree with your assessment of the ATF, at least in this particular case. It is quite clear that the bump-stock ban is NOT the ATF’s real opinion, but rather that they were ordered to come up with it. I’m an unashamed Trump supporter, but the Constitution, the impartial application of laws and the truth come first. I hope the DC Courts will see the ban for what it is – a combination of knee-jerk reaction and a “see, we did something!” moment at the expense of law-abiding gun owners.

      2. Back in the 1970s and 80s ATF would answer questions about what the 68 GCA allowed. Some agents lied to callers and got the name and address of the person. Then they would arrest the person for doing what they had been told was legal.
        This was proven during Senate hearings and the 1986 FOPA was the result. Hughes [D – NJ 2] added the machine gun ban on new manufacture and registration. That’s is why a 1928 Thompson that cost 10 ounces of gold in 1934, cost 25-30 thousand dollars today for the same gun. It is why a WWII M3 greasegun that cost the government $15 in 1943 now cost more than a new Cadillac.

      1. Oldmarine >>>> Andy
        My sentiments completely. I too am Old ( 82) with 21 months in Vietnam. and I am a collector of unusual guns. I feel the same way, Don’t mess with an old man because he’s near the end of his life and has nothing to loose. ” come and take it” Is a good response to someone who is really trying robbing you. Our eye sight may not be the best but a scope helps us settling the score. I appreciate your bravery and your resolve to stand for your rights both natural and civil. Semper Fi

    16. I am 72 years old, have had three heart operations, stage 4 cancer, been stabbed, etc. and if the ATF thinks for one moment that I will not “STAND AND FIGHT” they had better come heavy. Over 35 members of my family have been in every conflict from WWI to the present and this country is NOT what we fought for. MOLON LABE !!

      1. Pretty funny young communist/Democrats think that us old guys are done /you better save your Dixie cups and pack a tractor trailer full of lunches -because the south is going to rise again/I just hope I live to see the day that the constitution is loved by all members of our free society/EMP when it Happens / and it will happen according to all experts we’ll find out who has true grit and who the pantywaist keyboard commando’s are/1776 on steriods

    17. please don’t get me wrong , but at 60yrs old I feel like we the people should not have to be coerced/fear mongered into the constant effort of endless supporting/funding any political party/organization to retain our god given/constitutional rights , the decline of America has been/is a disgraceful/painful thing to witness/endure , remember there is nothing more dangerous than old people who have nothing left to lose , better to die with honor than live in disgrace , god bless America and god save the republic , I pray we shall meet again on the other side god willing

      1. @ Old Marine, Andy, Greg and Phil you guys really hit the nail on the head. I am 76 and I have seen so many changes to this country that it doesn’t even appear the same as when I was growing up. I spent my time in the military, as well and I believed the Oath then and I believe it now. Who the hell do these liberal gun grabbers think they are, oh yea they were elected and think they are doing what the citizens want done. Let me rephrase that from citizen to subjects.

    18. Why was there not a grandfather clause included and if they reclassified weapons with Bumpfire type devices as “Machineguns” why not provide a option to provide one time registration fee waved tax stamp?

      1. I read that an official response to that question was bump stocks could not be issued a tax stamp, free or otherwise. This is due to the ‘Hughes Ammendment’ in the ’86 gun control act. ‘Hughes States no new full auto weapons, made after May of ’86, may be issued a transferable tax stamp. This is the reason they cited for no path for regulated ownership of bump stocks under the draconian ruling. By the way, the also indicated t that ‘Hughes’ is the reason no more Amnstaies will ever occur. There were three allowed under the 1968 VAC, the first one was in effect until Dec. 1st 1968. The following two were to be open-ended for an implementation time. That will never happen now.

      2. Because they are classifying these as machineguns. They were manufactured after May 1986. Therefore, they are outright banned for civilian possession per FOPA of ’86 (another compromise brought to us by the NRA).

        1. I’m almost 73 years old and have been studying history, laws and law-making almost 60 years.
          FOPA GCA 1986 was an important fix to years of abuse by ATF.. Once it was almost a sure thing to pass, and for no apparent reason, a Democrat from NJ Congressman and as I recall an NRA Director banned new machineguns. The actual number of machineguns eligible more than doubled.
          But it is most certainly unconstitutional.
          Further the bump stock regulation exceeds the authority of the ATF and infringes teb powers of the Congress. It will go to the Supreme Court and everything, 1934 NFA, 1968 & 1986 GCA may well be part of the mix.
          The NRA is far from perfect. There is only one comma in the Second Amendment. The NRA became a “gun lobby” when forced to do so because in 1968 they were not a lobby, just an expert witness. The ILA was created as a lobby so the NRA could focus on issues of competition hunting, safety training and law enforcement training. It was IRS rules that forced the formal lobby on the NRA.
          The NRA has limited funds. They can help with elections but they are limited by many things.
          Billionaire Bloomberg can out spend the NRA and the attacks on the NRA, often by people who are not voting members of the NRA or even plain annual members. But every bit of conflicting opinion about the NRA serves to empower Bloomberg, schumer and pelosi.
          The gun owner who carries a gun legally using years of experience with The Lone Ranger, Magnum P.I., HILL STREET BLUES and opposing EVERY GUN LAW screaming “It’s my right” and putting out megabytes of posts where it is obvious they can’t or don’t bother to tell the difference between there, their, they’re or other words. They say that laws are hard to understand and that is true when you’re illiterate.

          1. Oldmarine >>> Jim Macklin
            An even better post than the last one. Good analysis and a good conclusion
            Let me put to you tactics to address this problem of illogical attacks on the Constitutions. What do you believe is the best method to counter these attacks?

            Based on opinions.
            Takes many signatures.
            Is a Sometimes effective, 50-50 chance.
            Can Cost some Money to support.
            Can take real convincing for people to sign up.
            Signers opinions vary a lot.
            Against a action and not an individual.

            Law Suite:)))))))))))
            Civil Court requiring a Jury.
            Jury must be convinced and agree with the Constitution.
            Requires Lawyer willing to fight.
            Requires sufficient funds for completion.
            Can take a very long time, sometimes years.
            Can be against an individual, group or organization.
            Uses opinions like petitions.

            Federal Criminal Charges:)))))))))))
            Costs charging person nothing but MUST be correct.
            Filed with Federal Criminal Justice Dept.
            No money required. Government against individual or group.
            Job of the District Attorney to prove and prosecute.
            Proof must be proven with documents, statements and video.
            Quicker and more positive than petition and law suite.
            Uses existing legal laws.

            Which of these would you think is the most effective?
            Semper Fi

    19. Sir, you left out the link to the Complaint your attorney filed. I would very much like to read it.

      This case will not ultimately address the 2nd Amendment because it doesn’t have to. Under the laws governing administrative rules, the rule making process cannot be used to change a statutory definition. The agencies have some wide discretion in interpreting laws, but when there is a fixed, clear definition of something in a statute (as there is in the case of defining “machine gun”), the rule making process can’t be used to change or expand the definition. It will take a statute to make bump stocks illegal. I would prefer that the bump stock not be the vehicle to seek pro-2nd amendment precedents because bump stocks are so fraught with emotion that the courts will do backflips to ban them, and that will result in language in the decisions that will necessarily give rise to stronger arguments that almost any accessory can be banned, i.e. optics, lasers, flashlights, extended magazines, and bipods.

      1. @Thomas Steinke, “… the laws governing administrative rules…” is the Administrative Procedures Act. And yes, I concur with your analysis. I am guessing that this whole bump stock issue was planned so that the BATFE or the court would end up holding the bag. Just my guess.

    20. i wonder if these lawsuits are successful at the federal level what effect that will have on the states that banned bumpstocks with no grace period and no compensation for taking private property.

      1. Good point Repo. It’s these so-called ‘judges’ that seem to hold the key.
        A good web site is………… jail4judges.org
        It’s certainly where a large majority of them belong.

      2. Probably none. Remember only abortion and queer marriage became legal nationally because SCOTUS said so. Second Amendment which is part of the Supreme Law of the Land is only recognized partially and only where the government has been forced to.

    21. I agree whole heartedly especially with the closing statement of becoming a felon if not submitting to their rules. I disagree with it and what it eventually will lead to. The lack of education of topics such as this in a country such as American where our entire existence is hinged on the 2A. I am a firm believing that with out the 2nd then the rest want exeist before long. I know that this is not removal of the second but it all the same has to start somewhere does it not. What’s next if this is allowed where will they stop. I am old enough to have lived during and member the 1994 assault weapons ban but not to the point of having to destroy or turn in ordeal. If I remember correctly there was a grandfather clause. That’s a little different even thou I still don’t agree with it.

    Leave a Comment 104 Comments