https://www.aol.com/article/news/20...onald-trumps-ban-on-gun-bump-stocks/23678081/A federal judge gave the Trump administration the go-ahead on Monday to ban "bump stocks" - rapid-fire gun attachments used in the deadliest mass shooting in modern U.S. history - in a defeat for firearms rights advocates.
Opponents had sought a preliminary injunction saying the government did not have the legal authority to enforce the ban.
"None of the plaintiffs' challenges merit preliminary injunctive relief," Washington-based District Judge Dabney Friedrich wrote in a 64-page ruling.
When the rule takes effect as scheduled on March 26, bump stock owners will have to turn in or destroy the attachments, which allow semi-automatic weapons to fire like machine guns with a single pull of the trigger.
President Donald Trump had pledged to ban the devices soon after a gunman used them to shoot and kill 58 people at a country music festival in Las Vegas in October 2017.
LDSman, assault rifles are automatic weapons, they fire dozens of rounds at once.
No, "assault rifle" is a professional term for this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle
It does not shoot one round at a time, it shoots them at a rate of dozens per second, and does not require the trigger be pulled for each shot. And a "bump stock" ensures that it can do such for a long time and mow down far more targets. THAT is what makes a bum stock more dangerous.
Why should how easy it is to make be a factor in the legality of the device? It still makes dangerous objects more dangerous for the soul purpose of making them more destructive. There's no need for hobbyists to be using them.
The administration probably doesn't have the legal authority to do this. Under federal law, a machine gun is defined as "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." But a gun equipped with a bump stock is still able only to fire just one round per trigger pull. "Instead of squeezing the trigger, the shooter holds his trigger finger steady while pushing the barrel forward with his other hand, thereby firing a round," Reason's Jacob Sullum explains. "The recoil repositions the trigger, and continuing to exert forward pressure on the barrel makes the rifle fire repeatedly."
As Reason's Christian Britschgi explained in March, this is probably why the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) has said multiple times that federal restrictions on machine guns do not cover bump stocks. The Obama administration affirmed the legality of bump stocks on three different occasions: once in 2010, again in 2012, and once more in 2013.
As Sen. Diane Feinstein (D–Calif.) said in a February statement: The ATF "currently lacks authority under the law to ban bump stocks."
In addition to being legally questionable, a bump stock ban probably wouldn't do very much. No mass shooters before or after Las Vegas have used bump stocks to carry out their massacres. Even in Las Vegas, the death toll wasn't necessarily higher because the shooter used one.
Maybe this will explain it:
https://lifehacker.com/what-is-a-bump-stock-and-why-is-it-so-dangerous-1819180018
. Agree to disagree. Moving on.I think we'll have to agree to disagree on the whole "making guns more dangerous" thing, although for the sake of accuracy I will amend my statement to "potentially make already dangerous weapons more dangerous".
There's no need to use a bump stock on the range though, it's not a necessity in any way, there's no real reason to be bothered by a ban of them.
LDS Man, that was uncalled for.
No, LDS, I called YOUR comment uncalled for.
Dude, you liked his comment. See attachment.