The Down Range Forum
Member Section => Down Range Cafe => Topic started by: billt on October 31, 2017, 08:08:39 AM
-
http://www.alloutdoor.com/2017/10/24/bump-stock-ban-dead-water/?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_content=2017-10-31&utm_campaign=Weekly+Newsletter
Much like everything else the liberals jump on the bandwagon about, the wheels quickly manage to fall off.
-
Not overly surprising news. I know the following statement is not the reason for the stall, but in a logical setting it should be the reason:. There was/is support for BATFE to review their position on this device. This is the proper way to view this type of device. If a product has been examined and reviewed and determined to fall within the scope of legal devices, it is wrong to pass narrow knee-jerk legislation in emotional haste.
-
Did the NRA ever call for the banning of the Bump Stock? All I saw was the suggestion that the BATF should review it's findings about it's legality. But I may have missed a later position by the NRA.
If they did not, then perhaps the NRA's suggestion was made knowing the BATF would not likely be able to reverse a determination that follows the laws and specifications in place.
Also, the NRA suggestion "trumped" any of the Antis using the NRA as the bad guy.....as has been seen, their supports tend to get emotional about Who is doing something rather than What they are doing...like they support legislation they are told is Bernie's but oppose it when they find it is Trump's...
-
If you read the original, and the follow up, they called only for the internal review with the expectation the legality would stand based on the way it was allowed.
-
The fact of the matter is the "Bump Stock" was originally approved under an Obama led ATF. It is highly unlikely that a Trump led ATF would turn around and reverse that approval. It would be politically disastrous for Trump, who sold himself as a crusader and protector of all things Second Amendment related.
-
A couple of weeks ago I knew from other articles online that it was all over. At that time it looked like all the republicans and some democrats were unwilling to put their name on pro-ban legislation. They had maybe twice as many against it as for it or something along those lines.