Suppressors Trump looking into ban on suppressors

I wonder if they will become as valuable as transferable machine guns? Anyone want a $10,000 suppressor?

I doubt much will happen with suppressors. I do see this as a step backwards on getting them taken off the NFA though.

Piers Morgan is a huge enemy of U.S. citizens, though most don’t realize it. He is so much against personal freedom and for socialism and the nanny global state, that it sickens me to even see him anymore.

Maybe I should tell you what I really think.

Trump likes to be popular. Lots of us have said for years that he is not very conservative in his own ideology. He just does what makes him popular with his base and right now he thinks that is 'being reasonable' with gun control.

Trump can't ban suppressor anymore than he can get rid of the Affordable Care Act.... we remember how that went down. It's law and he will need a law to ban them.....at least as long as this is still America.

His full quote was not quite what the media is reporting...

Well he sure as heck didn't say that he supports them.

bumpstocks were protected by the law too.... still are in fact.
guess its ok now for the president to do what ever the f he wants since its our guy in there. That couldn't possibly ever change...

MK20 said:

bumpstocks were protected by the law too.... still are in fact.
guess its ok now for the president to do what ever the f he wants since its our guy in there. That couldn't possibly ever change...

Click to expand...

Bump Stocks were permissible under a "letter" now they are under NFA. Suppressors....living under the NFA since 1934.

There is still a threat to suppressors, it just ain't the same.

Just my luck, this ? goes down just a few months into my wait on the first can!

Sierra770 said:

Bump Stocks were permissible under a "letter" now they are under NFA. Suppressors....living under the NFA since 1934.

There is still a threat to suppressors, it just ain't the same.

Click to expand...

If bump stocks are NFA (that is, if they now fit the definition of a machine gun) then it's not much of a leap to make every semi-auto in existence NFA.

Tx_Aggie said:

If bump stocks are NFA (that is, if they now fit the definition of a machine gun) then it's not much of a leap to make every semi-auto in existence NFA.

That executive order is dangerous BS and pretty much opens the door for a defacto federal ban on semi-autos.

Click to expand...

We are gonna disagree on that. My view is that making every semi-auto NFA would be a leap based on legal definitions. The Bump Stock was an easy enough fit into that already established legal definition as a machine gun. BS...I know. The thing was hanging on by an approval letter and the bump stock to a average person sounds like a machine gun and requires one pull of the trigger (yes, I know its actually activating the trigger each time), it was only a matter of time before that thing made its way to the NFA.

Luckily the legal definition game works in our favor, too. Ye old pistol brace is a good example......but she too is hanging on by an approval letter.

It is not an 'approval' letter. It is a letter stating that in fact these previously unregulated devices do not fit into the legal definition of an NFA firearm. By your logic, every gun that is not on the NFA is not there because it has been 'approved' for us average folk to own. What happened to a charter of negative liberties?

The govt does not have the authority to decide what is 'approved' or not based on a letter. If they want to restrict something they have to pass a law. If said thing is not specifically restricted in a law, then it is the right of the people to own it.
Now they don't follow this principle always, but this is how it is supposed to be, and is why Trump's bump stock ban is unconstitutional. He does not have the power under the law to say that something that is materially not a machine gun is now magically a machine gun. Additionally, the argument could be made that the bumpstock EO is an ex-post facto law and therefore is unconstitutional in another way. No president should be allowed to magically say, "Oh, I don't like that. You no longer have any legal right to own that." At least when Obama did it with healthcare he did it through Congress. Trump just waved his hand like King George III and said, give up your rights peasants. No matter how much we like him, we need to say that he has no authority to do this.

The letter (opinion/whatever) initially said that it didn't meet the definition of a machine gun, now it does. Machine Guns are NFA. I don't like it, I don't agree with it, I spend my own treasure to fight it, but that is where we are with bump stocks.

MK20 said:

By your logic, every gun that is not on the NFA is not there because it has been 'approved' for us average folk to own.

Click to expand...

No, not at all. We are talking about weapons covered under NFA/GCA weapons. I don't like the NFA and I don't like regulations, but as it stands we have to oppose these restrictive laws the best way we can while dealing with the legal realities of something currently having restrictions. (by we, I mean me. I don't presume to advise anyone on how to interact with the legal system)

Quote from the NFA

Machinegun. 26 U.S.C. § 5845(b) For the purposes of the National Firearms Act the term Machinegun means: Any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.

Bumpstocks manifestly do not meet this standard.
Still want to say that those letters are correct or that the chief executive should have the authority to randomly overrule law and thus seize mass amounts of private property without compensation or recourse?

BTW, I think bumpstocks are the stupidest things to come on the market for a long time. They are useless, but you should still be allowed to own them.

MK20 said:

Still want to say that those letters are correct or that the chief executive should have the authority to randomly overrule law and thus seize mass amounts of private property without compensation or recourse?

Click to expand...

Couple things:
I do not think that those letters are correct. Not entirely sure how you got that from my musings above. I think the BATFE used that legal definition to accomplish their goal of banning them and there are several organizations fighting that (organizations and law firms I support with my cash). The point I was attempting to make was that for the time being they accomplished their goals by fitting wedging the Bumpstock into the NFA Machine Gun Category. I suspect that eventually the Govt. will lose that fight for the reasons you quoted above. However, (and my writing this doesn't mean I approve) it will not stop a Federal Prosecutor from charging someone with the crime.

The single function of the trigger, which I acknowledged earlier, is a stretch and on that the govt will lose.

I disagreed (and still stand by it) that the Govt, through EO/Rule Change etc could classifying Semi Autos as NFA.

Only Congress should be making laws for the people. E.O. should only apply to Executive Agencies.

Ah. Got your position now.
Hope you are right.

MK20 said:

Ah. Got your position now.
Hope you are right.

Click to expand...

Man, I stay in a perpetual "Hope I am Right" Status. If you look at all the legal wrench time guys are putting in on the bump stock issue, I believe we could eventually prevail. The issues is as you stated above....most gun owners think bump stocks are muy estupido and thus that fight generates very little vigor in our community. I think an attempted suppressor ban would get people fired up.

Yeah. I know my senator was the guy who introduced the HPA a while ago. If that ever becomes law someday I am buying a lathe and a bunch of SS bar and tube stock.