Trump urges ban on 'bump stocks,' other gun modifiers
President Trump on Tuesday directed Attorney General Jeff Sessions to craft new regulations to ban gun modifiers including the “bump stock” used in the Las Vegas massacre, amid bipartisan calls to strengthen gun restrictions in the wake of recent shooting rampages.
During an event at the White House, the president announced he signed a memo ordering the regulations on “bump stocks” and told Sessions he wants new federal guidelines finalized “very soon.”
“Although the Obama administration repeatedly concluded that particular bump stock type devices were lawful to purchase and possess, I sought further clarification of the law restricting fully automatic machineguns,” Trump wrote in the memo.
During Tuesday’s press briefing, the White House said the president opposes the “bump stock” rifle modifier, which make semi-automatic firearms fire faster.
“I can tell you the president supports not having the use of bump stocks and that we expect further action on that in the coming days,” White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders said Tuesday.
“My understanding is that review has been completed and movement will take place on that shortly,” Sanders said.
In the wake of last week’s school shooting in Parkland, Fla., that killed 17 people, Sanders said Trump plans to host parents, teachers and students on Wednesday to discuss “efforts to ensure safety at our schools.” Among those attending will be people from the Parkland community, and those affected by the past Sandy Hook and Columbine school shootings, the White House added.
Liberals have renewed calls for new gun control measures after last week’s shooting. Trump, who was backed by the NRA during the 2016 election, has expressed support for the Second Amendment and has said he’s against reflexive gun control measures that wouldn’t make a difference.
Sanders said the White House hasn’t “closed the door on any front” and suggested the president would back improving the federal background check system.
“The president has expressed his support for efforts to improve the federal background system and in the coming days we will continue to explore ways to ensure the safety and security of our schools,” she said.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/02/20/trump-urges-ban-on-bump-stocks-other-gun-modifiers.html
Tags
Who is online
405 visitors
The article doesn't say what "other modifiers" are. I assume they are the trigger group modifications that do the same thing.
Doesn't matter, as long as any of this has to go through congress there is exactly zero chance it happens.
Actually, this doesn't have to go through Congress. Bump stocks are an after-market addition to the AR and AK. And based on what they do to the weapon (simulate full auto), the addition requires ATF approval. Or an ATF Ruling. The previous ruling by the ATF was that they were legal and did not change the designation of the firearm to a Class III/ Title II or NFA weapon. All the ATF has to do is change their ruling.
And to give you some background on that, the ATF in 2012 ruled that Pistol Stabilizing Braces, used for AR Pistols, did not constitute a "stock", and therefor did not change the classification of an AR pistol into a Short Barreled Rifle, which is a Title II weapon. A short barreled rifle is defined as any rifle with a barrel length less than 16". Since the AR Pistol has a short barrel, it cannot be configured to shoot from the shoulder. However, the buffer tube is bulky, and at times can become painful when shooting the pistol with one hand. So a Stabilizing Brace was designed to attach to the buffer tube, and then secured to the forearm of the shooter.
In 2015, the ATF learned that people were trying to modify the brace so that the weapon could be fired from the shoulder. This puts the weapon in the short barreled rifle catagory, and the ATF changed their ruling on the brace.
After much public outcry, the ATF re-issued their ruling in March of 2017, allowing the brace as a pistol brace as designed, but warned that any "modifications" to the brace to allow shoulder firing changed the designation of the firearm and required Tittle II compliance.
So changing their ruling on the Bump Stock can be done without Congressional approval, since they have already been vested with that authority by the various Firearms Acts throughout our history.
Got ya, thanks for the info!
Unfortunately one does not need a bump stock in order for a weapon like the AR-15 to be extremely lethal.
Here's the thing. Both this, and changing the age to purchase an AR or AK are solutions that could have an impact on these mass/spree killings. Getting rid of bump stocks may not have stopped the Las Vegas shooter, but it more than likely would have saved many deaths. Same with the age limit. If we change the age to buy an AR or AK to 21 (precedent is set on this with pistols) we may have prevented the FL high school shooting.
I agree Uncle, but the DOJ has said that they believe that this has to go through congress...
Left hand, right hand in the government.
I agree. I'm pretty sure BATF can outlaw the bump stock without Congress. But perhaps Congress needs to act on the age restriction.
All good questions. Perhaps a Grandfather clause for 3 years?
I would imagine they would do the age restriction like they did the boating laws here. At my age I do not have to have a boating licence yet anyone after the law was enacted will have to do so. Or more like drinking laws. When I was young and they changed the law to 21, I remember being pissed off as my brother was 18 at the time and still kept his legal status, while I had to wait until 21.
I wonder if congress says no to these things, will it have an impact on midterms.
Congress doesn't have to act on this. Best thing for mid-terms for both parties is to let the ATF handle this.
That is kind of what I was thinking. They can all say something was done without any of them doing a thing. They can all keep their hands clean, so to speak, and let any outcry fall on trump.
The cowards way out, the preferred method of congress these days.
Trump is banning guns?? Why, he's turned out to be nothing but a gun grabber!! We all know how this works, first it's bump stocks, then AR 15's, and pretty soon... TRUMP SENDS IN THE BLACK HELICOPTERS TO CONFISCATE EVERYONE'S GUNS!! PRESIDENT TRUMP IS COMING FOR OUR GUNS, LOCK AND LOOOOOAAAADDD!!! AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!
There's more.
Seriously though I have to give Trump credit here. There is a public outcry and support for gun control has hit a new high. President Trump is actually responding to the people like a real president should. Way to go being a responsible president, Donald, how does it feel?
You know this is just some PR work to take the heat off temporarily. This will go nowhere. He makes promises just so he can break them.
Troll somewhere else Atheist. The Administration is taking real steps here that many on the Gun Rights side support.
I trust Trump to make some changes that will make it more difficult for events like Las Vegas or Florida to be as deadly as they turned out to be while still protecting basic 2nd amendment rights.
It won't last. He is just telling people what they want to hear just as he did during the election.
I don't know about that, Paula. I could be wrong, but I think bump stocks really will get banned. Banning assault weapons is probably a bridge too far though, for the Gunited States of Gunerica!
More info:
“That process began in December and just a few moments ago I signed a memorandum directing the Attorney General to propose regulations to ban all devices that turn legal weapons into machine guns,” Trump said Tuesday.
“I expect that these critical regulations will be finalized, Jeff, very soon.”
White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said the president doesn't support the use of bump stocks and the White House expects further action in the coming days.
“He ordered the Department of Justice and the ATF to review the regulation of bump stocks,” she said. “My understanding is that review has been completed and movement will take place on that shortly. But the president, when it comes to that, is committed to ensuring those devices ... The president doesn't support the use of those accessories.”
The announcement from Trump comes as the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) has yet to decide whether it will create new restrictions for the attachment that enables a semiautomatic rifle to fire at a faster rate.
ATF put out a notice of proposed rulemaking in December announcing its plan to interpret the statutory definition of “machinegun” in the National Firearms Act of 1934 and Gun Control Act of 1968 to clarify whether certain devices, commonly known as “bump fire” stocks, fall within that definition.
ATF, however, said it has to gather input from the public and industry first. Since then the agency has received more than 36,000 comments on the issue. Most of the responses were in opposition to any new rules on their sale or use.
In the memo to Sessions Tuesday, Trump ordered the Department of Justice to “dedicate all available resources to complete the review of the comments received, and, as expeditiously as possible, to propose for notice and comment a rule banning all devices that turn legal weapons into machineguns.”
“Although I desire swift and decisive action, I remain committed to the rule of law and to the procedures the law prescribes,” he wrote.
“Doing this the right way will ensure that the resulting regulation is workable and effective and leaves no loopholes for criminals to exploit. I would ask that you keep me regularly apprised of your progress.”
Ian Prior, a spokesman for the Department of Justice, which oversees ATF, said the agency understands this is a priority for the president and has acted quickly to move through the rule-making process.
"We look forward to the results of that process as soon as it is duly completed." he said in a statement.
The announcement comes as lawmakers on Capitol Hill are trying to decide what to do to curb gun violence.
Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) called Trump’s move a “small, but vital step."
“Sign after sign this week that we've hit a fulcrum point in this debate where politicians are, for the first time, scared on the political consequences of inaction on guns. Small, but vital step in the history of our movement,” he commented on Twitter.
Susan Dudley, a former Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) administrator who is now director of the GW Regulatory Studies Center at George Washington University, said Trump is likely within his authority in ordering Sessions to issue the rules.
“As long as ATF has statutory authority, the president can direct the attorney general to issue regulations, but they would have to go through notice and comment,” she said.
But not everyone is convinced ATF can regulate the device without an act of Congress.
“If ATF tries to ban these devices after admitting repeatedly that it lacks the authority to do so, that process could be tied up in court for years, and that would mean bump stocks would continue to be sold,” Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said in a statement Tuesday.
“Legislation is the only answer.”
The bill Feinstein introduced with two dozen other Democrats in November calls for a ban on assault weapon and high-capacity ammunition magazines in addition to bump stocks.
The National Rifle Association has said bump stocks should be subject to additional regulation but has opposed legislation to ban the device.
In a statement Tuesday, the gun lobby said it cannot comment until an actual rule is published with specifics it can review.
“The NRA’s stance on this issue has not changed,” NRA Spokeswoman Jennifer Baker said.
“Fully-automatic weapons have been heavily regulated since the 1930’s, but banning semi-automatic firearms and accessories has been shown time and again to not prevent criminal activity and simply punishes the law-abiding for the criminal acts of others."
Sorry, the idea that the "gun lobby" will now claim they made concessions because they agreed to ban bumpstocks is not going to cut it. Before the Las Vegas shooting most non gun people had never heard of "bumpstocks". They have not been a factor in mass shootings that I know of.
Same for raising the age to buy assault weapons to 21. It is a good idea of course, but not sufficient as an "answer" to the mass shootings issue.
The gun people want to make truly minor concessions and then say, "we gave you this and you still want more?" . It is a con game.
The "gun people" realize that semi automatic rifles have been around since 1885... There were no kids going into schools and lighting them up back in 1885, or 1955 for that matter...
These shootings are the result of the progressive movements effects on our culture.
When did the NRA and gun manufacturers become part of the "progressive movement?" This craze to have the most modern killing machines in everybody's armory has only become a thing since the NRA fully transformed itself from basically a gun safety, hunting and responsibility organization to the extreme rightwing lobbying arm of the gun manufacturers. It has succeeded in using a laundry list of imaginary "threats" to America, thus feeding the paranoia of the extreme rightwing. Not coincidentally, this changed followed shortly after the passage of civil rights acts of the 1960s. Stoking white fears of blacks and other minorities actually getting protection from racism and racial violence was going after the low-hanging fruit. It's worked amazingly well ever since.
You're absolutely correct John. Because we've given in too many times and the anti-gun movement is never satisfied.
It's like a pie. Cut it in half. That's what the anti-gunners want. So we say okay. Then they come back and say, cut it in half again. Then they want half again, Until pretty soon, there's no pie left but crumbs.
Sorry, but we wont give in to your full attempt at restricting our rights.
When has this ever happened? Please do tell of the growing list of banned guns that were once legal but were "taken away" by the scary liberals. We once had an assault weapons ban after the Brady bill, but that bill sunset and wasn't reauthorized. While we had it no one added hand guns or hunting rifles to the list of banned weapons, no one tried to cut the gun "pie" in half again. No, the bans were eventually lifted. During Obamas two terms he only passed two gun laws that both expanded gun rights, not the supposed "gun grab" that conservatives were screaming about that they just knew the supposed gay Muslim radicalized in a Christian church, born in Kenya black President was going to do to them.
I hear a lot of whining and complaining from the gun crowd about their gun rights being taken away, but the fact is I've only seen gun rights expanded for the last two decades. Where are all these people being denied gun ownership? Where are all those people who've had their guns taken away? It's bitch, bitch, bitch, whine, whine, whine all day from gun advocates but all they have are unfulfilled fantasies of pretending to have their gun pried out of their imaginary cold dead hands, which no one is trying to do.
The comment was about ALL gun laws, not just banned guns.
As for listing...this is my opinion. do your own fucking research. I don't have time to list the more than 300 laws on gun control.
States have acted on their own to impose their own gun restrictions, the federal government hasn't passed any major gun legislation in decades. Under Bush there were a few federal gun laws enacted like the banning of guns on trains, but during the Obama administration they got rid of that gun ban and opened up national parks to concealed weapon permit carriers. I am unable to find any other sorts of federal gun bans like the Brady bill since it was passed back in 1993. I can only assume the list of 300 you have are all State laws. Weren't conservatives the ones who supported States rights? Do you object to States making their own rules in regards to guns as long as it doesn't violate the constitution? As Scalia ruled, the 2nd amendment isn't unlimited so States have every right to determine what they consider "dangerous and unusual" weapons. As long as they aren't banning all gun sales, they aren't violating the constitution.
Personally, I believe the 2nd amendment pertains to and protects all Americans right to own militia weapons of that time. That means no one can be denied the right to own a single shot muzzle loaded musket which a practiced militia man could fire at a rate of 3 shots a minute. Beyond that, it's the right of the States to determine what guns are allowed for civilian use, what guns are defined as "unusual and dangerous". The other thing the 2nd amendment does is give the federal government the right to register those guns as it states "a well regulated militia". We need universal background checks, a federal gun registry and limits on magazine capacity and certain assault style weapons. None of that violated the constitution and could actually prevent future tragedies. Will those common sense laws end all mass shootings? Of course not, but it could possibly prevent many of them, and isn't preventing even one new mass murder worth it? What does it really cost us? Americans will still be able to buy guns for hunting and home protection, they'll be better served if the lunatic down the street is prevented.
Well, fortunately for the rest of us, SCOTUS has decided otherwise.
Guess what, American psychos, you’re just going to have to wait until you are old enough to buy beer if you want to legally buy a mass murder gun. That’s the kind of change that we can all pretend to be substantive, and make us feel warm, fuzzy, and safe.
God but I do love the irony and hypocrisy of the left. Here are TWO measures that the President has put forth, REAL measures that will have a REAL effect. And yet, out of all the libs who have commented here, only one has acknowledged it as a positive step.
Whatever that level might be in your mind it doesn't even come close to the rightwing version.
This is why supporters of the Second Ammendment resist draconian gun control. If the right agrees to any compromises, the left immediately lashes out. The gun grabbers are more interested in partisan politics than any actual gun control.
What "compromises?" Not to shoot up schools on Sundays?
Exactly. While the bright light of mass shooting reality is shining upon them, gun nuts are desperate to appear as if they are willing to compromise so they offer up the most worthless of measures. That way they can later say "see, gun legislation doesn't work."
Excellent job illustrating my point.
Trump and the 'bump stocks'? What Ever.
Of more importance, Wayne LaPierre is NOT a speaker at the CPAC thing which is important because (he) is ALWAYS a speaker at the CPAC thing.
I suspect the CPAC'ers are trying to figure out a way to shield the money. Putin can school them on that.
A bit of a song from Slim Dusty. The unofficial Australian National Anthem.
Sang this song many a time having a mide and playing two up.
Morning Kavika....Miss Slim Dusty..was a true Aussie bushie and gentleman....
Evening Shona...I loved Slim and saw him a few times in person..
BTW, have you ever been to the Bridgetown Blues Festival? My daughter was one of the original organizers of it and my granddaughter was a blues singers with some of the blues bands in Aussie.
Morning..Sorry...No I haven't..Bridgetown is about 3,500 kms away from me and I have never been to Western Australia..On my list of things to do one day...
I think that you'd love WA... Perth is one of the most beautiful cities I've ever seen. and down the coast to Augusta etc is just beautiful country...
Yes we are very fortunate here with the flora, fauna and the land....Just a pity we don't respect and care for it it as much as we should...Not met anyone yet who disliked Perth, other than the distance to get to it.
When you visit WA here are 7 things that you should see while your there.
Rottnest Island was one of my favorites.
Well I must depart..it is 1.30am here Thursday morning so we are already into your tomorrow..Have a great day for yesterday....