I actually agree. I wouldnt expect the bill to use the term "bump stock" because they would have to define what it is anyway. That is what the bill tries to do. Saying a gun goes from a firing rate of zero to shooting as defense that this actually bans all semiauto guns (and why not just all guns in general, because even revolvers can fire faster with the addition of something like a trigger and a cylinder) sounds like a pretty dumb argument to me. But I agree with previous posts too that many gun laws are just poorly written.
See I would think the word "bump stock" would be in the bill. I actually get what the author is saying.
I actually agree. I wouldnt expect the bill to use the term "bump stock" because they would have to define what it is anyway. That is what the bill tries to do. Saying a gun goes from a firing rate of zero to shooting as defense that this actually bans all semiauto guns (and why not just all guns in general, because even revolvers can fire faster with the addition of something like a trigger and a cylinder) sounds like a pretty dumb argument to me. But I agree with previous posts too that many gun laws are just poorly written.
See I would think the word "bump stock" would be in the bill. I actually get what the author is saying.
I actually agree. I wouldnt expect the bill to use the term "bump stock" because they would have to define what it is anyway. That is what the bill tries to do. Saying a gun goes from a firing rate of zero to shooting as defense that this actually bans all semiauto guns (and why not just all guns in general, because even revolvers can fire faster with the addition of something like a trigger and a cylinder) sounds like a pretty dumb argument to me. But I agree with previous posts too that many gun laws are just poorly written.
See I would think the word "bump stock" would be in the bill. I actually get what the author is saying.
I get what the bill says.
I really don't see you too versed in gun accessories and terminology. Let s just hope the article I posted is wrong.
I actually agree. I wouldnt expect the bill to use the term "bump stock" because they would have to define what it is anyway. That is what the bill tries to do. Saying a gun goes from a firing rate of zero to shooting as defense that this actually bans all semiauto guns (and why not just all guns in general, because even revolvers can fire faster with the addition of something like a trigger and a cylinder) sounds like a pretty dumb argument to me. But I agree with previous posts too that many gun laws are just poorly written.
See I would think the word "bump stock" would be in the bill. I actually get what the author is saying.
No point in using the term "bump stock" in the bill because there's no legal definition of it. If it was used, people would just produce a similar product and say "well, it isn't a bump stock, so it's legal". Therefore, they have to define the actions of it, not just uses a colloquial name. Doesn't matter if you "get" what the author is saying; the law doesn't work on "gets".
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
I actually agree. I wouldnt expect the bill to use the term "bump stock" because they would have to define what it is anyway. That is what the bill tries to do. Saying a gun goes from a firing rate of zero to shooting as defense that this actually bans all semiauto guns (and why not just all guns in general, because even revolvers can fire faster with the addition of something like a trigger and a cylinder) sounds like a pretty dumb argument to me. But I agree with previous posts too that many gun laws are just poorly written.
See I would think the word "bump stock" would be in the bill. I actually get what the author is saying.
I get what the bill says.
I really don't see you too versed in gun accessories and terminology. Let s just hope the article I posted is wrong.
And I really don't see you too versed in the legislative process and the role of the judiciary in our democracy. Guess we're even?
I actually agree. I wouldnt expect the bill to use the term "bump stock" because they would have to define what it is anyway. That is what the bill tries to do. Saying a gun goes from a firing rate of zero to shooting as defense that this actually bans all semiauto guns (and why not just all guns in general, because even revolvers can fire faster with the addition of something like a trigger and a cylinder) sounds like a pretty dumb argument to me. But I agree with previous posts too that many gun laws are just poorly written.
See I would think the word "bump stock" would be in the bill. I actually get what the author is saying.
I get what the bill says.
I really don't see you too versed in gun accessories and terminology. Let s just hope the article I posted is wrong.
And I really don't see you too versed in the legislative process and the role of the judiciary in our democracy. Guess we're even?
I actually agree. I wouldnt expect the bill to use the term "bump stock" because they would have to define what it is anyway. That is what the bill tries to do. Saying a gun goes from a firing rate of zero to shooting as defense that this actually bans all semiauto guns (and why not just all guns in general, because even revolvers can fire faster with the addition of something like a trigger and a cylinder) sounds like a pretty dumb argument to me. But I agree with previous posts too that many gun laws are just poorly written.
See I would think the word "bump stock" would be in the bill. I actually get what the author is saying.
I get what the bill says.
I really don't see you too versed in gun accessories and terminology. Let s just hope the article I posted is wrong.
And I really don't see you too versed in the legislative process and the role of the judiciary in our democracy. Guess we're even?
Lol. Ok. Have a nice weekend.
You as well. I wish every day was the weekend. Work is for fools.
I actually agree. I wouldnt expect the bill to use the term "bump stock" because they would have to define what it is anyway. That is what the bill tries to do. Saying a gun goes from a firing rate of zero to shooting as defense that this actually bans all semiauto guns (and why not just all guns in general, because even revolvers can fire faster with the addition of something like a trigger and a cylinder) sounds like a pretty dumb argument to me. But I agree with previous posts too that many gun laws are just poorly written.
See I would think the word "bump stock" would be in the bill. I actually get what the author is saying.
I get what the bill says.
I really don't see you too versed in gun accessories and terminology. Let s just hope the article I posted is wrong.
And I really don't see you too versed in the legislative process and the role of the judiciary in our democracy. Guess we're even?
Lol. Ok. Have a nice weekend.
You as well. I wish every day was the weekend. Work is for fools.
hell yeah! next pj show we are at together we should get some beers and debate gun control and pj songs. hopefully we get some tour news soon!
I actually agree. I wouldnt expect the bill to use the term "bump stock" because they would have to define what it is anyway. That is what the bill tries to do. Saying a gun goes from a firing rate of zero to shooting as defense that this actually bans all semiauto guns (and why not just all guns in general, because even revolvers can fire faster with the addition of something like a trigger and a cylinder) sounds like a pretty dumb argument to me. But I agree with previous posts too that many gun laws are just poorly written.
See I would think the word "bump stock" would be in the bill. I actually get what the author is saying.
I get what the bill says.
I really don't see you too versed in gun accessories and terminology. Let s just hope the article I posted is wrong.
And I really don't see you too versed in the legislative process and the role of the judiciary in our democracy. Guess we're even?
Lol. Ok. Have a nice weekend.
You as well. I wish every day was the weekend. Work is for fools.
hell yeah! next pj show we are at together we should get some beers and debate gun control and pj songs. hopefully we get some tour news soon!
I actually agree. I wouldnt expect the bill to use the term "bump stock" because they would have to define what it is anyway. That is what the bill tries to do. Saying a gun goes from a firing rate of zero to shooting as defense that this actually bans all semiauto guns (and why not just all guns in general, because even revolvers can fire faster with the addition of something like a trigger and a cylinder) sounds like a pretty dumb argument to me. But I agree with previous posts too that many gun laws are just poorly written.
See I would think the word "bump stock" would be in the bill. I actually get what the author is saying.
I get what the bill says.
I really don't see you too versed in gun accessories and terminology. Let s just hope the article I posted is wrong.
And I really don't see you too versed in the legislative process and the role of the judiciary in our democracy. Guess we're even?
Lol. Ok. Have a nice weekend.
You as well. I wish every day was the weekend. Work is for fools.
hell yeah! next pj show we are at together we should get some beers and debate gun control and pj songs. hopefully we get some tour news soon!
If PJ could get their act together and perform three nights at the Gorge this summer... the time would be there to do exactly this!
If DMB passes on the Gorge labour day weekend next year... giddy up. Three nights. Let's do it.
I actually agree. I wouldnt expect the bill to use the term "bump stock" because they would have to define what it is anyway. That is what the bill tries to do. Saying a gun goes from a firing rate of zero to shooting as defense that this actually bans all semiauto guns (and why not just all guns in general, because even revolvers can fire faster with the addition of something like a trigger and a cylinder) sounds like a pretty dumb argument to me. But I agree with previous posts too that many gun laws are just poorly written.
See I would think the word "bump stock" would be in the bill. I actually get what the author is saying.
I get what the bill says.
I really don't see you too versed in gun accessories and terminology. Let s just hope the article I posted is wrong.
And I really don't see you too versed in the legislative process and the role of the judiciary in our democracy. Guess we're even?
Lol. Ok. Have a nice weekend.
You as well. I wish every day was the weekend. Work is for fools.
hell yeah! next pj show we are at together we should get some beers and debate gun control and pj songs. hopefully we get some tour news soon!
If PJ could get their act together and perform three nights at the Gorge this summer... the time would be there to do exactly this!
If DMB passes on the Gorge labour day weekend next year... giddy up. Three nights. Let's do it.
I m liking this idea! I d definitely fly out for a gorge show. Halifaxman, I assume you are from Halifax so correct me if I am wrong. And what's your first name? When dirty/del buys the first four rounds for everyone I don't want to scream out Halifax man lol
I actually agree. I wouldnt expect the bill to use the term "bump stock" because they would have to define what it is anyway. That is what the bill tries to do. Saying a gun goes from a firing rate of zero to shooting as defense that this actually bans all semiauto guns (and why not just all guns in general, because even revolvers can fire faster with the addition of something like a trigger and a cylinder) sounds like a pretty dumb argument to me. But I agree with previous posts too that many gun laws are just poorly written.
See I would think the word "bump stock" would be in the bill. I actually get what the author is saying.
I get what the bill says.
I really don't see you too versed in gun accessories and terminology. Let s just hope the article I posted is wrong.
And I really don't see you too versed in the legislative process and the role of the judiciary in our democracy. Guess we're even?
Lol. Ok. Have a nice weekend.
You as well. I wish every day was the weekend. Work is for fools.
hell yeah! next pj show we are at together we should get some beers and debate gun control and pj songs. hopefully we get some tour news soon!
If PJ could get their act together and perform three nights at the Gorge this summer... the time would be there to do exactly this!
If DMB passes on the Gorge labour day weekend next year... giddy up. Three nights. Let's do it.
I m liking this idea! I d definitely fly out for a gorge show. Halifaxman, I assume you are from Halifax so correct me if I am wrong. And what's your first name? When dirty/del buys the first four rounds for everyone I don't want to scream out Halifax man lol
I've been called worse. But yea, get a tour announcement, start planning and when our paths cross, beer summit. We'll solve all the world's problems.
Interesting and sad information that I read today:
Young children shoot themselves or each other with alarming frequency. On average, one child under the age of 12 dies every week from an accident involving a gun. Typically, the firearm belongs to an adult, who left his or her firearm unsecured and readily accessible. Yet only 14 states have laws that require adults to store their weapons in such a way that children cannot access them. The NRA is adamantly opposed to safe-storage bills, and lobbies extensively against them. Between 2012 and 2016, 11 states tried to create safe-storage laws, and none were successful.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
This, too, in response to those who somehow, bizarrely, claim that the Obama administration approved of "bump stocks":
ATF Official Who Evaluated the Bump Stock’s Legality Pushes Back Against Critics
When the first bump stock came across Rick Vasquez’s desk in 2010, he knew that his evaluation would take longer than usual.
As the senior technical expert for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, it was Vasquez’s job to help give opinions about whether new guns and gun products would be legal under federal law.
The bump stock, manufactured by a company called Slide Fire Solutions, did something novel: It used the recoil from firing a round from a semiautomatic rifle — as opposed to a spring or a crank — to make it fire at nearly the same rate as a machine gun.
The ATF defines a machine gun as any weapon that is capable of firing multiple rounds with the single pull of the trigger. Under federal law, machine guns are strictly regulated, and have been out of production in the United States since 1986.
The question before Vazquez and his team: Did a bump stock transform a rifle into a machine gun, making it illegal?
After months of testing the devices and studying the law, the ATF arrived at a decision. It ruled that the bump stock did not make a gun fully automatic, because the trigger of a rifle equipped with the device still had to be engaged every time the weapon fired.
“We could not find a way to classify it as a machine gun,” Vasquez said. He explained the decision in detail in a document he shared with The Trace.
Vasquez thought he’d long since left the decision behind him. Then, last Sunday, a dozen bump stocks were recovered in the Las Vegas hotel room from which a gunman carried out the worst mass shooting in modern American history.
In the wake of the massacre, which left 58 dead and hundreds injured, Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein introduced a bill that would ban bump stocks and other devices meant to simulate automatic fire. Soon after, Wayne LaPierre, the National Rifle Association’s executive vice president, said bump stocks should be subject to “additional regulations.” But unlike members of Congress, including some Republicans, LaPierre said the responsibility of regulating bump stocks fell squarely on the shoulders of the ATF.
“Despite the fact that the Obama administration approved the sale of bump fire stocks on at least two occasions, the National Rifle Association is calling on the [ATF] to immediately review whether these devices comply with federal law,” read a joint statement from Lapierre and Chris Cox, the gun group’s top lobbyist.
The White House counselor Kellyanne Conway also blamed “Obama’s ATF” for failing to make bump stocks illegal in a CNN interview, saying the agency “decided not to regulate the device.”
Vasquez says he found those comments galling.
“We did the right thing by the letter of the statutes,” he said. “There’s a tragedy that happened and nothing can change that. But to try to put the blame on us, it really irritates me.”
Vasquez, who was assistant chief of the ATF’s Firearms Technology Branch at the time, said the idea that the Obama administration was involved in the approval process doesn’t make any sense. For starters, he said, Obama advocated for more gun regulation, not less.
He insisted his team did what it always did: tested the product; consulted applicable laws, including the Gun Control Act of 1968 and the National Firearms Act; and wrote an evaluation. “It was a monumental job,” he said.
Vasquez said that agency higher-ups also weighed in, though he does not recall exactly who. In any case, he said, no one up the chain of command disagreed with his team’s initial ruling. The bump stock could not be classified as falling subject to federal law banning the sale of new machine guns.
Asked now whether federal law should be changed to explicitly ban the devices, Vasquez said, “it’s not my place to make that call.”
This, too, in response to those who somehow, bizarrely, claim that the Obama administration approved of "bump stocks":
ATF Official Who Evaluated the Bump Stock’s Legality Pushes Back Against Critics
When the first bump stock came across Rick Vasquez’s desk in 2010, he knew that his evaluation would take longer than usual.
As the senior technical expert for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, it was Vasquez’s job to help give opinions about whether new guns and gun products would be legal under federal law.
The bump stock, manufactured by a company called Slide Fire Solutions, did something novel: It used the recoil from firing a round from a semiautomatic rifle — as opposed to a spring or a crank — to make it fire at nearly the same rate as a machine gun.
The ATF defines a machine gun as any weapon that is capable of firing multiple rounds with the single pull of the trigger. Under federal law, machine guns are strictly regulated, and have been out of production in the United States since 1986.
The question before Vazquez and his team: Did a bump stock transform a rifle into a machine gun, making it illegal?
After months of testing the devices and studying the law, the ATF arrived at a decision. It ruled that the bump stock did not make a gun fully automatic, because the trigger of a rifle equipped with the device still had to be engaged every time the weapon fired.
“We could not find a way to classify it as a machine gun,” Vasquez said. He explained the decision in detail in a document he shared with The Trace.
Vasquez thought he’d long since left the decision behind him. Then, last Sunday, a dozen bump stocks were recovered in the Las Vegas hotel room from which a gunman carried out the worst mass shooting in modern American history.
In the wake of the massacre, which left 58 dead and hundreds injured, Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein introduced a bill that would ban bump stocks and other devices meant to simulate automatic fire. Soon after, Wayne LaPierre, the National Rifle Association’s executive vice president, said bump stocks should be subject to “additional regulations.” But unlike members of Congress, including some Republicans, LaPierre said the responsibility of regulating bump stocks fell squarely on the shoulders of the ATF.
“Despite the fact that the Obama administration approved the sale of bump fire stocks on at least two occasions, the National Rifle Association is calling on the [ATF] to immediately review whether these devices comply with federal law,” read a joint statement from Lapierre and Chris Cox, the gun group’s top lobbyist.
The White House counselor Kellyanne Conway also blamed “Obama’s ATF” for failing to make bump stocks illegal in a CNN interview, saying the agency “decided not to regulate the device.”
Vasquez says he found those comments galling.
“We did the right thing by the letter of the statutes,” he said. “There’s a tragedy that happened and nothing can change that. But to try to put the blame on us, it really irritates me.”
Vasquez, who was assistant chief of the ATF’s Firearms Technology Branch at the time, said the idea that the Obama administration was involved in the approval process doesn’t make any sense. For starters, he said, Obama advocated for more gun regulation, not less.
He insisted his team did what it always did: tested the product; consulted applicable laws, including the Gun Control Act of 1968 and the National Firearms Act; and wrote an evaluation. “It was a monumental job,” he said.
Vasquez said that agency higher-ups also weighed in, though he does not recall exactly who. In any case, he said, no one up the chain of command disagreed with his team’s initial ruling. The bump stock could not be classified as falling subject to federal law banning the sale of new machine guns.
Asked now whether federal law should be changed to explicitly ban the devices, Vasquez said, “it’s not my place to make that call.”
This, too, in response to those who somehow, bizarrely, claim that the Obama administration approved of "bump stocks":
ATF Official Who Evaluated the Bump Stock’s Legality Pushes Back Against Critics
When the first bump stock came across Rick Vasquez’s desk in 2010, he knew that his evaluation would take longer than usual.
As the senior technical expert for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, it was Vasquez’s job to help give opinions about whether new guns and gun products would be legal under federal law.
The bump stock, manufactured by a company called Slide Fire Solutions, did something novel: It used the recoil from firing a round from a semiautomatic rifle — as opposed to a spring or a crank — to make it fire at nearly the same rate as a machine gun.
The ATF defines a machine gun as any weapon that is capable of firing multiple rounds with the single pull of the trigger. Under federal law, machine guns are strictly regulated, and have been out of production in the United States since 1986.
The question before Vazquez and his team: Did a bump stock transform a rifle into a machine gun, making it illegal?
After months of testing the devices and studying the law, the ATF arrived at a decision. It ruled that the bump stock did not make a gun fully automatic, because the trigger of a rifle equipped with the device still had to be engaged every time the weapon fired.
“We could not find a way to classify it as a machine gun,” Vasquez said. He explained the decision in detail in a document he shared with The Trace.
Vasquez thought he’d long since left the decision behind him. Then, last Sunday, a dozen bump stocks were recovered in the Las Vegas hotel room from which a gunman carried out the worst mass shooting in modern American history.
In the wake of the massacre, which left 58 dead and hundreds injured, Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein introduced a bill that would ban bump stocks and other devices meant to simulate automatic fire. Soon after, Wayne LaPierre, the National Rifle Association’s executive vice president, said bump stocks should be subject to “additional regulations.” But unlike members of Congress, including some Republicans, LaPierre said the responsibility of regulating bump stocks fell squarely on the shoulders of the ATF.
“Despite the fact that the Obama administration approved the sale of bump fire stocks on at least two occasions, the National Rifle Association is calling on the [ATF] to immediately review whether these devices comply with federal law,” read a joint statement from Lapierre and Chris Cox, the gun group’s top lobbyist.
The White House counselor Kellyanne Conway also blamed “Obama’s ATF” for failing to make bump stocks illegal in a CNN interview, saying the agency “decided not to regulate the device.”
Vasquez says he found those comments galling.
“We did the right thing by the letter of the statutes,” he said. “There’s a tragedy that happened and nothing can change that. But to try to put the blame on us, it really irritates me.”
Vasquez, who was assistant chief of the ATF’s Firearms Technology Branch at the time, said the idea that the Obama administration was involved in the approval process doesn’t make any sense. For starters, he said, Obama advocated for more gun regulation, not less.
He insisted his team did what it always did: tested the product; consulted applicable laws, including the Gun Control Act of 1968 and the National Firearms Act; and wrote an evaluation. “It was a monumental job,” he said.
Vasquez said that agency higher-ups also weighed in, though he does not recall exactly who. In any case, he said, no one up the chain of command disagreed with his team’s initial ruling. The bump stock could not be classified as falling subject to federal law banning the sale of new machine guns.
Asked now whether federal law should be changed to explicitly ban the devices, Vasquez said, “it’s not my place to make that call.”
This is just ridiculous. @PJPOWER, @mace1229, @mcgruff10 any further thoughts on this being the ATFs issue to correct instead of a legislative bill that bans anything like a bump stock from ever being produced again? As we can see, letter of the current law allows loop holes like this to happen and then the finger gets pointed back like they let this slide past. Anyone with any knowledge of the gun lobby and NRA knows they they would have gone fucking ape shit if the ATF had tried to squash bump stock production based on the written language on the books. It would have been deemed they were abusing their power and conservatives would have called it the beginning of the slippery slope to other over arching policy and regulation.
If mandatory proper storage and elimination of accessories that increase rate of fire can't be agreed upon, then there will never be any changes.
But hey, the NRA cares about replacing your guns if they're stolen, which is why you can buy an insurance plan and pay an annual premium based on their value. Don't worry though, they don't require that you list a serial number for your firearms. Hell, if you like to have a glass of wine after firing off a few rounds, then guess what? The NRA has you covered with their wine club.
Round and round we go, who gets shot next nobody really gives a fuck but acts like they do.
I hate the blame game. Democrats blame republicans, republicans blame democrats. Who cares what the atf or Obama did or didn't do about bump stocks. Whether it be the ATF or congress, someone do something and create a law making bump stocks illegal with no grandfather clause.
I hate the blame game. Democrats blame republicans, republicans blame democrats. Who cares what the atf or Obama did or didn't do about bump stocks. Whether it be the ATF or congress, someone do something and create a law making bump stocks illegal with no grandfather clause.
there's a good chance that bump stocks will be made illegal. gun violence will continue at the same rate as it always has. The NRA gets two victories out of this.
This, too, in response to those who somehow, bizarrely, claim that the Obama administration approved of "bump stocks":
ATF Official Who Evaluated the Bump Stock’s Legality Pushes Back Against Critics
When the first bump stock came across Rick Vasquez’s desk in 2010, he knew that his evaluation would take longer than usual.
As the senior technical expert for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, it was Vasquez’s job to help give opinions about whether new guns and gun products would be legal under federal law.
The bump stock, manufactured by a company called Slide Fire Solutions, did something novel: It used the recoil from firing a round from a semiautomatic rifle — as opposed to a spring or a crank — to make it fire at nearly the same rate as a machine gun.
The ATF defines a machine gun as any weapon that is capable of firing multiple rounds with the single pull of the trigger. Under federal law, machine guns are strictly regulated, and have been out of production in the United States since 1986.
The question before Vazquez and his team: Did a bump stock transform a rifle into a machine gun, making it illegal?
After months of testing the devices and studying the law, the ATF arrived at a decision. It ruled that the bump stock did not make a gun fully automatic, because the trigger of a rifle equipped with the device still had to be engaged every time the weapon fired.
“We could not find a way to classify it as a machine gun,” Vasquez said. He explained the decision in detail in a document he shared with The Trace.
Vasquez thought he’d long since left the decision behind him. Then, last Sunday, a dozen bump stocks were recovered in the Las Vegas hotel room from which a gunman carried out the worst mass shooting in modern American history.
In the wake of the massacre, which left 58 dead and hundreds injured, Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein introduced a bill that would ban bump stocks and other devices meant to simulate automatic fire. Soon after, Wayne LaPierre, the National Rifle Association’s executive vice president, said bump stocks should be subject to “additional regulations.” But unlike members of Congress, including some Republicans, LaPierre said the responsibility of regulating bump stocks fell squarely on the shoulders of the ATF.
“Despite the fact that the Obama administration approved the sale of bump fire stocks on at least two occasions, the National Rifle Association is calling on the [ATF] to immediately review whether these devices comply with federal law,” read a joint statement from Lapierre and Chris Cox, the gun group’s top lobbyist.
The White House counselor Kellyanne Conway also blamed “Obama’s ATF” for failing to make bump stocks illegal in a CNN interview, saying the agency “decided not to regulate the device.”
Vasquez says he found those comments galling.
“We did the right thing by the letter of the statutes,” he said. “There’s a tragedy that happened and nothing can change that. But to try to put the blame on us, it really irritates me.”
Vasquez, who was assistant chief of the ATF’s Firearms Technology Branch at the time, said the idea that the Obama administration was involved in the approval process doesn’t make any sense. For starters, he said, Obama advocated for more gun regulation, not less.
He insisted his team did what it always did: tested the product; consulted applicable laws, including the Gun Control Act of 1968 and the National Firearms Act; and wrote an evaluation. “It was a monumental job,” he said.
Vasquez said that agency higher-ups also weighed in, though he does not recall exactly who. In any case, he said, no one up the chain of command disagreed with his team’s initial ruling. The bump stock could not be classified as falling subject to federal law banning the sale of new machine guns.
Asked now whether federal law should be changed to explicitly ban the devices, Vasquez said, “it’s not my place to make that call.”
This is just ridiculous. @PJPOWER, @mace1229, @mcgruff10 any further thoughts on this being the ATFs issue to correct instead of a legislative bill that bans anything like a bump stock from ever being produced again? As we can see, letter of the current law allows loop holes like this to happen and then the finger gets pointed back like they let this slide past. Anyone with any knowledge of the gun lobby and NRA knows they they would have gone fucking ape shit if the ATF had tried to squash bump stock production based on the written language on the books. It would have been deemed they were abusing their power and conservatives would have called it the beginning of the slippery slope to other over arching policy and regulation.
If mandatory proper storage and elimination of accessories that increase rate of fire can't be agreed upon, then there will never be any changes.
But hey, the NRA cares about replacing your guns if they're stolen, which is why you can buy an insurance plan and pay an annual premium based on their value. Don't worry though, they don't require that you list a serial number for your firearms. Hell, if you like to have a glass of wine after firing off a few rounds, then guess what? The NRA has you covered with their wine club.
Round and round we go, who gets shot next nobody really gives a fuck but acts like they do.
Nope, no further thoughts. Thanks for asking though.
According to Minnesota's court records, Olson has virtually no known criminal history: a single charge for driving without a seatbelt, in 2015, for which he was convicted.
yet another example of why gun regulation need to cover every gun, every citizen
WI 6/27/98 WI 10/8/00 MO 10/11/00 IL 4/23/03 MN 6/26/06 MN 6/27/06 WI 6/30/06 IL 8/5/07 IL 8/21/08 (EV) IL 8/22/08 (EV) IL 8/23/09 IL 8/24/09 IN 5/7/10 IL 6/28/11 (EV) IL 6/29/11 (EV) WI 9/3/11 WI 9/4/11 IL 7/19/13 NE 10/09/14 IL 10/17/14 MN 10/19/14 FL 4/11/16 IL 8/20/16 IL 8/22/16 IL 08/18/18 IL 08/20/18 IT 07/05/2020AT 07/07/2020
According to Minnesota's court records, Olson has virtually no known criminal history: a single charge for driving without a seatbelt, in 2015, for which he was convicted.
yet another example of why gun regulation need to cover every gun, every citizen
Everyone knows that studies, especially scientific studies, have a liberal bias.
man has wasted too much energy with science. one only needs to open his heart to Jesus for the truth. No research. no studies. no "theories". Just the word of God. Now beat that.
Everyone knows that studies, especially scientific studies, have a liberal bias.
man has wasted too much energy with science. one only needs to open his heart to Jesus for the truth. No research. no studies. no "theories". Just the word of God. Now beat that.
The word of god, Herr dRumpf, and anyone on breitbart
WI 6/27/98 WI 10/8/00 MO 10/11/00 IL 4/23/03 MN 6/26/06 MN 6/27/06 WI 6/30/06 IL 8/5/07 IL 8/21/08 (EV) IL 8/22/08 (EV) IL 8/23/09 IL 8/24/09 IN 5/7/10 IL 6/28/11 (EV) IL 6/29/11 (EV) WI 9/3/11 WI 9/4/11 IL 7/19/13 NE 10/09/14 IL 10/17/14 MN 10/19/14 FL 4/11/16 IL 8/20/16 IL 8/22/16 IL 08/18/18 IL 08/20/18 IT 07/05/2020AT 07/07/2020
I recall @HesCalledDyer saying about a week ago that his Maryland workplace was on lockdown because of a disgruntled employee (or something like that), so my first thoughts we of him. Good to see he's posting about baseball.
Still devastating for the those affected, though.
The good news is that Congress will continue to ignore the will of the American people who put them in office.
Comments
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
No point in using the term "bump stock" in the bill because there's no legal definition of it. If it was used, people would just produce a similar product and say "well, it isn't a bump stock, so it's legal". Therefore, they have to define the actions of it, not just uses a colloquial name. Doesn't matter if you "get" what the author is saying; the law doesn't work on "gets".
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
hopefully we get some tour news soon!
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
If PJ could get their act together and perform three nights at the Gorge this summer... the time would be there to do exactly this!
If DMB passes on the Gorge labour day weekend next year... giddy up. Three nights. Let's do it.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Young children shoot themselves or each other with alarming frequency. On average, one child under the age of 12 dies every week from an accident involving a gun. Typically, the firearm belongs to an adult, who left his or her firearm unsecured and readily accessible. Yet only 14 states have laws that require adults to store their weapons in such a way that children cannot access them. The NRA is adamantly opposed to safe-storage bills, and lobbies extensively against them. Between 2012 and 2016, 11 states tried to create safe-storage laws, and none were successful.
ATF Official Who Evaluated the Bump Stock’s Legality Pushes Back Against Critics
When the first bump stock came across Rick Vasquez’s desk in 2010, he knew that his evaluation would take longer than usual.
As the senior technical expert for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, it was Vasquez’s job to help give opinions about whether new guns and gun products would be legal under federal law.
The bump stock, manufactured by a company called Slide Fire Solutions, did something novel: It used the recoil from firing a round from a semiautomatic rifle — as opposed to a spring or a crank — to make it fire at nearly the same rate as a machine gun.
The ATF defines a machine gun as any weapon that is capable of firing multiple rounds with the single pull of the trigger. Under federal law, machine guns are strictly regulated, and have been out of production in the United States since 1986.
The question before Vazquez and his team: Did a bump stock transform a rifle into a machine gun, making it illegal?
After months of testing the devices and studying the law, the ATF arrived at a decision. It ruled that the bump stock did not make a gun fully automatic, because the trigger of a rifle equipped with the device still had to be engaged every time the weapon fired.
“We could not find a way to classify it as a machine gun,” Vasquez said. He explained the decision in detail in a document he shared with The Trace.
Slide Fire received a letter from the agency on June 7, 2010. A copy of the document remains on the company’s website.
Vasquez thought he’d long since left the decision behind him. Then, last Sunday, a dozen bump stocks were recovered in the Las Vegas hotel room from which a gunman carried out the worst mass shooting in modern American history.
In the wake of the massacre, which left 58 dead and hundreds injured, Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein introduced a bill that would ban bump stocks and other devices meant to simulate automatic fire. Soon after, Wayne LaPierre, the National Rifle Association’s executive vice president, said bump stocks should be subject to “additional regulations.” But unlike members of Congress, including some Republicans, LaPierre said the responsibility of regulating bump stocks fell squarely on the shoulders of the ATF.
“Despite the fact that the Obama administration approved the sale of bump fire stocks on at least two occasions, the National Rifle Association is calling on the [ATF] to immediately review whether these devices comply with federal law,” read a joint statement from Lapierre and Chris Cox, the gun group’s top lobbyist.
The ATF “needs to do its job,” LaPierre said later on Face the Nation.
The White House counselor Kellyanne Conway also blamed “Obama’s ATF” for failing to make bump stocks illegal in a CNN interview, saying the agency “decided not to regulate the device.”
Vasquez says he found those comments galling.
“We did the right thing by the letter of the statutes,” he said. “There’s a tragedy that happened and nothing can change that. But to try to put the blame on us, it really irritates me.”
Vasquez, who was assistant chief of the ATF’s Firearms Technology Branch at the time, said the idea that the Obama administration was involved in the approval process doesn’t make any sense. For starters, he said, Obama advocated for more gun regulation, not less.
He insisted his team did what it always did: tested the product; consulted applicable laws, including the Gun Control Act of 1968 and the National Firearms Act; and wrote an evaluation. “It was a monumental job,” he said.
Vasquez said that agency higher-ups also weighed in, though he does not recall exactly who. In any case, he said, no one up the chain of command disagreed with his team’s initial ruling. The bump stock could not be classified as falling subject to federal law banning the sale of new machine guns.
Asked now whether federal law should be changed to explicitly ban the devices, Vasquez said, “it’s not my place to make that call.”
–https://www.thetrace.org/rounds/atf-association-says-congress-not-agency-can-ban-bump-stocks/
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
If mandatory proper storage and elimination of accessories that increase rate of fire can't be agreed upon, then there will never be any changes.
But hey, the NRA cares about replacing your guns if they're stolen, which is why you can buy an insurance plan and pay an annual premium based on their value. Don't worry though, they don't require that you list a serial number for your firearms. Hell, if you like to have a glass of wine after firing off a few rounds, then guess what? The NRA has you covered with their wine club.
Round and round we go, who gets shot next nobody really gives a fuck but acts like they do.
Yep. Makes sense.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/16/health/waiting-period-firearms-study/index.html
Cheers,
HFD
http://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/10/16/do-tougher-background-check-laws-prevent-gun-crime-a-new-study-analyzes-the-question/
yet another example of why gun regulation need to cover every gun, every citizen
Still devastating for the those affected, though.
The good news is that Congress will continue to ignore the will of the American people who put them in office.