Department of Justice Submits Notice of Proposed Regulation Banning Bump Stocks

[Mitch10mm]

Doom and Gloom. Some people are so filled with doom and gloom.

[Democrat Gun Owner]

Let me get this straight...

After Sandy Hook with Obama in the White House guns and ammo disappeared for months because people rushed to stock up as they all knew gun grabbers were coming, but nothing happened (except gun right expansion into national parks).

After Stoneman Douglas with a Republican Congress and President, there are bump stock ban Justice Dept regulations, bills to expand background checks, expansion of “temporary gun confiscations”, expansion of court ordered mental health (is this to create more prohibited persons?), etc. etc. etc.

You all may hate him for social issues and stances, but on guns, let’s see how history treats the Obama/Trump comparison.

Didn’t Obama ban green tip ammo as armor piercing?? Oh, never mind.

If all this shit passes, I never want to be derided because I'm a Democrat Gun Owner. Maybe we need a Democrat in the White House so Republicans can be ok with being against proposed gun control measures on the basis of their being the idea of a Democrat. Let's see if Mitch and Paul get on board because it’s now a Republican idea.

[Lexington]

Let me get this straight...

After Sandy Hook with Obama in the White House guns and ammo disappeared for months because people rushed to stock up as they all knew gun grabbers were coming, but nothing happened (except gun right expansion into national parks).

After Stoneman Douglas with a Republican Congress and President, there are bump stock ban Justice Dept regulations, bills to expand background checks, expansion of “temporary gun confiscations”, expansion of court ordered mental health (is this to create more prohibited persons?), etc. etc. etc.

You all may hate him for social issues and stances, but on guns, let’s see how history treats the Obama/Trump comparison.

Didn’t Obama ban green tip ammo as armor piercing?? Oh, never mind.

If all this shit passes, I never want to be derided because I'm a Democrat Gun Owner. Maybe we need a Democrat in the White House so Republicans can be ok with being against proposed gun control measures on the basis of their being the idea of a Democrat. Let's see if Mitch and Paul get on board because it’s now a Republican idea.

So, you do admit that a real part of the problem is the fact that Democrats rush to politicize every one of these shootings in an effort to ban any and all semi-automatic firearms, right?

[Democrat Gun Owner]

So, you do admit that a real part of the problem is the fact that Democrats rush to politicize every one of these shootings in an effort to ban any and all semi-automatic firearms, right?

And yet, shit is happening because REPUBLICAN CONTROLLED WHITE HOUSE AND CONGRESS are rushing to walk the line between politicizing Parkland and not pissing off the NRA.

Democrats need the gun/2nd Amendment boogie man to gin up their base...it would be political suicide for them to actually pass anything. They had veto proof majorities in the first two Obama years, and did nothing. It isn’t a priority for them.

The same is true for Republicans and various social programs and abortion. If they actually do away with either, they lose an election cycle issue to gin up the base.

[Mitch10mm]

And I've heard Democrats defending the Second because of Trumps proposals. Keep in mind the Rs ate every bit against Trump as the democrats. I see little happening involving gun control because of this

[Williamsmith]

I see a better opportunity for antigunners if they exploit the “mental health” aspect and stay away from “bans”. They could effectively choke off the flow of all classes of firearms instead of trying to chip away at it. All they need is to control the medical, psychiatric and government social service agencies. (Which they already largely do) A simple application of prohibition based on the prescription your are taking without grandfathering current users would achieve much of their goal. Followed by court ordered psychiatric evaluations resulting in diagnosis of prohibiting mental disease. A temporary confiscation of weapons without due process which would always turn into a permanent confiscation after a cursory hearing before a judge hearing the testimony of a government psychiatrist.

The mechanics of this are so close to happening it can make your head swim. There are two versions of the fix NICS bill sitting in Congress. One has already been passed by the House attached to the Conceal Carryy Reciprocity bill. The other is sitting in the senate and hasn’t been acted on at all. Either one could find itself attached to the Stop School Violence Act Of 2018.

There is no way Concealed Carrying Reciprocity is going anywhere so the Fix NICS bill might get separated and attached to the Stop School Violence Act. Or the bill that is sitting unattached could be simply slapped onto the Stop Bill. Either way, it’s possible that the expansion of prohibitions based on mental health adjudications and expanded government agency reporting of private health records will become law soon. Which will create exponential errors in reporting and prohibiting otherwise qualified people from purchasing guns.

[c45man]

I see a better opportunity for antigunners if they exploit the “mental health” aspect and stay away from “bans”. They could effectively choke off the flow of all classes of firearms instead of trying to chip away at it. All they need is to control the medical, psychiatric and government social service agencies. (Which they already largely do) A simple application of prohibition based on the prescription your are taking without grandfathering current users would achieve much of their goal. Followed by court ordered psychiatric evaluations resulting in diagnosis of prohibiting mental disease. A temporary confiscation of weapons without due process which would always turn into a permanent confiscation after a cursory hearing before a judge hearing the testimony of a government psychiatrist.

The mechanics of this are so close to happening it can make your head swim. There are two versions of the fix NICS bill sitting in Congress. One has already been passed by the House attached to the Conceal Carryy Reciprocity bill. The other is sitting in the senate and hasn’t been acted on at all. Either one could find itself attached to the Stop School Violence Act Of 2018.

There is no way Concealed Carrying Reciprocity is going anywhere so the Fix NICS bill might get separated and attached to the Stop School Violence Act. Or the bill that is sitting unattached could be simply slapped onto the Stop Bill. Either way, it’s possible that the expansion of prohibitions based on mental health adjudications and expanded government agency reporting of private health records will become law soon. Which will create exponential errors in reporting and prohibiting otherwise qualified people from purchasing guns.

They cant paint with too wide of a brush regarding prohibitions for certain mental illnesses where there is no history of violence. Mental Health Organizations, which are no friend of firearm ownership, are quick to do whatever in protecting the records of mental health patients that have showed no signs in being a danger to themselves or others and have not been adjudicated as mentally deficient. Otherwise, anyone that has taken medication or has been in therapy or treatment for depression, hyper activity, or even alcoholism can be prohibited. What the politicians are proposing sounds great to their perspective, but as soon as a classification of a particular mental illness that is commonplace prohibits one from owning a firearm, there will be adjustments made that are politically expedient. The percentage of politicians that are in a treatment for one mental condition or another, is about as high as the general populace.

Whatever the case, whatever is passed will face a mountain of legal challenges that may not have anything to do with the second amendment.

[Williamsmith]

They cant paint with too wide of a brush regarding prohibitions for certain mental illnesses where there is no history of violence. Mental Health Organizations, which are no friend of firearm ownership, are quick to do whatever in protecting the records of mental health patients that have showed no signs in being a danger to themselves or others and have not been adjudicated as mentally deficient. Otherwise, anyone that has taken medication or has been in therapy or treatment for depression, hyper activity, or even alcoholism can be prohibited. What the politicians are proposing sounds great to their perspective, but as soon as a classification of a particular mental illness that is commonplace prohibits one from owning a firearm, there will be adjustments made that are politically expedient. The percentage of politicians that are in a treatment for one mental condition or another, is about as high as the general populace.

Whatever the case, whatever is passed will face a mountain of legal challenges that may not have anything to do with the second amendment.

Perhaps the DUI prohibitions permit a window into the future of prohibitions based on “medicated status”. Or the prohibition as a result of possessing a permit for medical marijuana? What do either of these to conditions have to do with a “history of violence”? Where were the mountain of legal challenges when these prohibitions were enacted?

[God's Country]

Trump, Sessions, and the NRA can eat a big bag of dicks.
Fuck them all!

[Extinquisher357]

YUP!!! I agree!