[ARCHIVED THREAD] - When the ATF does not categorize bump stocks as machine guns will you all apologize to the NRA? (Page 1 of 7)
Posted: 1/24/2018 5:39:22 PM EDT
|
So many people here were triggered by the NRA's comment and it is sad that people were not able to look past their own feelings to see political strategy for what it really was. Anyone that posts TLDR just proves a later point I make. Yes this is long but it is worth the read if you want to be informed.
Since many people here seem to think the NRA sold us down the river without a fight and are pissed at the NRA, I will explain that while it might seem that way on the surface it was actually a great political move. First, before the NRA made their statement many Republicans were calling for a complete ban on bump stocks and Paul Ryan said he was open to passing a ban. Things are pretty serious with the Speaker of the House is saying he will move legislation. One Republican in the House drafted legislation and had 10 Republican co-sponsors and 10 Democrat co-sponsors sign on before he even filed the bill. Anyone who follows the legislative process here knows that a submitted bill, with a lot of co-sponsors, and approval from the Speaker is a bill that has very strong potential of being passed. That was reality before the NRA ever made a comment. So the claim "the NRA created this" is nonsense. The Republicans were in a rush to sell us down the river. Then on the media front, I don't think it was even 12 hours after the shooting that Hillary Clinton said "We must fight the NRA and pass more gun control". In typical liberal anti-gun fashion they blame the NRA and make them bad guy in order to rally their base. Everyone should recognize that "let's ban bump stocks" does not elicit the same emotional response as "Fight the NRA". Democrats work off emotion. The MSM picked it up, Hollywood picked it up, and all the Democrats picked up that slogan to "fight the NRA and demand more gun control". As soon as the NRA made their ambiguous statement several major changes happened. The first was the constant news stories about another legislator drafting ban legislation or signing on to ban legislation practically stopped. Paul Ryan never said another word about favoring any legislation. I have never seen legislators immediately shut up on issue like that. The abrupt stop told me that some political avenue was in the works, as is the case with every major issue. What politicians talk about behind closed doors is not what politicians talk about to the media. The media silence denoted a change in the agenda. The second was the idiots in the MSM started running headlines "NRA calls for bump stock ban" which is 100% inaccurate was the MSM is known for. Then some outlets started to correct their statement and ran headlines "NRA favors regulating bump stock" which again is not an accurate statement as the NRA never said the word "bump stock" in their statement. The idiots in the media had no idea what bump stocks were or how they worked. They most certainly had no understanding of what the NRA statement meant. But it was actually a good thing that the idiots in the media were running those headlines. Why? Because it helped bring about the third item, changes the idiot anti-gunners had to make To see how dumb the media is look at this graphic that USA Today create and another one that someone in the AP created. 
 The third item is the idiot anti-gunners. Remember Hillary's rallying cry "Let's fight the NRA and demand more gun control". The liberals always blame every shooting on the NRA and the NRA is the villian they all need to rally against and fight. Just like every good story has a protagonist and antagonist. Hillary is our antagonist. Anything she stands for we rally together and fight. To the anti-gunners the NRA is antagonist that they rally together for and fight. But wait, the MSM is saying "the NRA favors more regulations for bump stocks". Now the idiot anti-gunners are confused. They can't say "Fight the NRA" because they think the NRA is now on their side. The NRA's intentionally ambiguous statement disrupted the anti-gunners to the extent that news articles were written about it and the anti-gunners admitted they had to change tactics because they could no longer demonize the NRA. Without an antagonist the anti-gunners movement lost steam and they had to redirect but where? There are only two places to go ask Congress to pass legislation based on emotion and asking the ATF to review bump stocks. So with one short sentence the NRA was able to get Congress to hit the pause button on any legislation, disrupted the MSM and anti-gunner narrative, had the MSM running interference by causing confusion as to the meaning of the NRA's statement, it disrupted the anti-gunners movement, and it stopped the constant public attacks on the NRA (at least by those who favor gun control). The only people attacking the NRA and complaining that point some of the gun owners. A single sentence by the NRA caused all of those major changes. That is pretty impressive. Let us look at the NRA's official statement. It is an ambiguous statement to be sure, made that way intentionally for political reasons. "The NRA believes that devices designed to allow semi-automatic rifles to function like fully-automatic rifles should be subject to additional regulations." Did the NRA say any of the following "bump stock devices", "new devices", "rapid fire devices", "these devices", "recently used devices", "devices from a mass shooting", or any other phrase that would suggest they were referencing a specific item? NOPE. They simple said "devices designed to allow semi-automatic rifles to FUNCTION like". The word FUNCTION is very important and it was not used by mistake. The NFA 26 U.S.C 5845(b) defines machinegun 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." The one and only technical requirement for an item to be a machinegun is does it fire more than one shot by a single FUNCTION of the trigger. That is the only definition. Does a bump stock change how the trigger FUNCTIONS on a semi-auto? NO. That is why the NRA used that very specific word in their ambiguous statement. If the NRA wanted bump stocks to be regulated under the NFA, the NRA would have directly said "bump stocks should be regulated under the NFA". They did not say that but many here had a knee jerk emotional reaction and decided on their own that the NRA's comment is exactly what the MSM was saying. Suddenly the MSM was 100% trust worthy.  The anti's appealed to Congress, which for some reason stopped pushing a ban, so they moved on the ATF as the last resort to push gun control. The Democrats in Congress also pressured the ATF to review bump stocks and urged them to categorized them as machine guns. The NRA also said it is on the ATF to review the device...knowing full well exactly what I described about that the bump stocks do not change function and the ATF could do nothing about it. Since Congress was demanding a formal review by the ATF the ATF started a review of bump stocks by announcing their intent to create a proposed rule change. Let me break that last sentence down as reading every single word is important, those who don't read every word tend to post stuff like TLDR and look like idiots, it tells everyone they actually are not an informed voter, and they do not contribute anything of value to any thread. But back to the sentence. The ATF is required to make a formal review by request of Congress. That review has 4 parts, which all are required for any type of change to happen. The review can be stopped at any of the steps. The ATF "announced their intent", meaning someday they might do the next thing which is "create a proposed rule". Meaning no rule has been created yet. No policy change or reclassification has been written up. That's right. There is no re-classification going on at the moment, there is no ban, there is no rule change, there is absolutely NOTHING of substance happening at this time. The ATF is simply notifying people that they are looking into a possible change. The first step of that change is gathering input from those who would be affected by the change. That is where we are at now with the Open For Public Comments. Step 2 is they have to go through all of the comments and created a very detailed proposed rulemaking document. That will take time. It also has to be very specific to the scenario, the goal, the expected outcome of the goal, the cost of implementing the regulation, the cost the regulation would have on the community, manufactures, and the public, a write up of how they justify all the costs to implement the goal as well as showing that it is a cost effective approach, they have describe the authority which they are using to make the ruling...etc. It is political red tape that stretches on for miles. Failing to do so results in the rule getting rejected by the courts or Congress smacking it down. Step 3 is another public comment period. This is when organization like the NRA gets their members involved, once the actual rule and tactic has been finalized by the ATF. Until then you really can't fight the process because the ATF is required to complete the process. All that people can do is leave comments answer technical questions that the ATF is seeking or challenging the ATF to justify the action before it starts. At Step 3 is when a very long and detailed ruled will be released. Then we tear into it and fight back on specifics. My believe is that at Step 2 the ATF decides they do not have the authority to regulate bump stocks as machinesguns and that their hands are tied due to the wording of the NFA law. Step 4 is where they publish the new rule, there is a minimum 30 day period during which multiple lawsuits will be filed against the ATF and the rule; if the action some how makes it to this step. So to Summarize/In Conclusion/TLDR When it looked very possible that the Republicans had the votes to push a complete ban on bump stocks, when the anti's were using the NRA as the antagonist to motivate their base, and when the MSM was attacking the NRA daily, the NRA issued a single sentence that brought about a pause in the legislation, disrupted the anti-gunners movement, cause confusion as to the actual meaning, forced the anti-gunners to stop attacking them and change their tactics, and stopped the MSM attacks. It also pissed off a bunch of people here. The defining word in that sentence was FUNCTION which is the same word and only technical requirement for something to be a machinegun, more than one shot per trigger FUNCTION. Knowing the ATF could could not regulate bump stocks as a machinegun without completely ignoring a very specific law and the ATFs own prior approval; the NRA asked the ATF to review it as well. The ATF would have reviewed it anyway because the public and Congress demanded they do so. Currently is there no proposed rule that would classify bump stocks as a machinegun. There is just a notice that the ATF is looking into starting the process of creating a rule, which again they are required to do because Congress asked and that is part of the official government process. That is why the NRA's statement does not bother me and I see it as a great political move. Stop legislation, confuse the opponent, redirect it to an agency whose hands are tied and can't do anything about it. That is 100% what I believe the NRA's strategy was when they issued their ambiguous statement. The ATF cannot regulate bump stocks without over stepping their authority. |
|
Why do you keep saying there is no possible change, that nothing is going to happen?
The ATF already reviewed bump stocks years ago and said they were okay. Why would they go through this process if they didn't have a different outcome in mind? That makes zero sense frim any standpoint. Especially from a government agency that has zero qualms about invalidating prior rulings and banning certain parts by fiat. Again, why would they do this if there was no change in the outcome? That just invites a huge backlash and negative attention against the ATF. |
|
Quoted:
I think it'll stop at step 2. They dont want to reimburse all those people who own them nor do they want the lawsuits from the companies that produce them. |
|
Quoted:
Why do you keep saying there is no possible change, that nothing is going to happen? The ATF already reviewed bump stocks years ago and said they were okay. Why would they go through this process if they didn't have a different outcome in mind? That makes zero sense frim any standpoint. Especially from a government agency that has zero qualms about invalidating prior rulings and banning certain parts by fiat. Again, why would they do this if there was no change in the outcome? That just invites a huge backlash and negative attention against the ATF. The public and members of Congress demanded the ATF conduct a formal review to see if bump stocks are machine guns. A formal review is the rulemaking process which has very specific steps and strict standards that much be followed. The first step is to engage those who be affected by the proposed change and gather information. No rule has been written at this point and that is where we are that. Step 2 is publishing the proposed change. I do not expect that to happen. The third step is another public comment oppertunity, this time on the specific rule change they propose. General summary of the process. https://www.thebalance.com/steps-in-the-federal-rulemaking-process-1669507 An 11 page outline of the process. https://www.federalregister.gov/uploads/2011/01/the_rulemaking_process.pdf |
| The man that made the original ruling is no longer there, and he is saying to be worried, This time, according to news from a week or so ago, AG Sessions is pressing for a different outcome. If it were to be the same as originally, ATF would have already passed it to Congress. |
|
Quoted:
No. The ATF already ruled on bump stocks under Obama. NRA should have used that ruling instead of asking them to look at it again. Leave it alone. That is part of politics, playing the political game. You and I can yell at the public, legislators, ATF..etc because we don't have to work with them...the NRA does. GOA likes to yell. Feel free to join them. |
|
Quoted:
I just want to remind everyone here that if you're not a member of the NRA, you dont have the right to comment. |
|
Quoted:
Didn't read the whole thing did you...because I answer why. Short answer: Congress demanded it. The public and members of Congress demanded the ATF conduct a formal review to see if bump stocks are machine guns. A formal review is the rulemaking process which has very specific steps and strict standards that much be followed. The first step is to engage those who be affected by the proposed change and gather information. No rule has been written at this point and that is where we are that. Step 2 is publishing the proposed change. I do not expect that to happen. The third step is another public comment oppertunity, this time on the specific rule change they propose. General summary of the process. https://www.thebalance.com/steps-in-the-federal-rulemaking-process-1669507 An 11 page outline of the process. https://www.federalregister.gov/uploads/2011/01/the_rulemaking_process.pdf Oh, you think ATF is going to relent to that pressure and go through the motions only to come back and say "Yup, we got it right the last time we looked at this issue! No-change." That's a possibility. That is not a certainty. The great news is, if that happens, you get to claim you were right (when you had no Earthly idea what would happen) and, if you are wrong, you can blame ATF for doing what they have done in the past. You will excuse me if that doesn't make me feel all warm and fuzzy. 
|
| 25 republican votes to get a ban bill passed and 10 were already co-sponsors so that means 15 fresh R votes and we'd be fighting it in the Senate. I understand the frustration but I also believe that 15 R votes were completely possible so soon after Vegas. It's possible that the ATF will overstep but an ATF ruling is easier to repeal or replace than a law IMO. |
|
Quoted:
The man that made the original ruling is no longer there, and he is saying to be worried, This time, according to news from a week or so ago, AG Sessions is pressing for a different outcome. If it were to be the same as originally, ATF would have already passed it to Congress. AG Sessions would have to use his authority under the GCA 68 to enact a 90 day amnesty for all NFA items. That would be the biggest win ever. |
|
Quoted:
I think it'll stop at step 2. They dont want to reimburse all those people who own them nor do they want the lawsuits from the companies that produce them. There is an official thread for leaving comments before the rule is written. That closes at midnight tomorrow. https://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/2072210_OFFICIAL-ATF-REDEFINING-MACHINE-GUNS-FIREMISSION-THREAD-WE-ARE-GETTING-SLAMMED-BY-THE-ANTIS.html Here is a direct link to the site for posting an official comment. https://www.regulations.gov/comment?D=ATF-2018-0001-0001 |
|
Quoted:
TLDR but fuck the nra Fuck them for this. Won't ever join again until that fudd fuck LaPiere is removed from all influence in the NRA, and all of the fudds are either removed from the board, or die off. At least they showed their true colors as an organization that really doesn't care all that much about the 2A if those parts are "scary". |
|
Quoted:
If the ATF declares bumpstocks and/or binary triggers to be machinegun conversion devices, will you admit the NRA was wrong? If the NRA states "bump stocks should be regulated as machine guns, then I will admit I'm wrong and publicly apologize to everyone here." If the ATF declares bump stocks as conversion devices, all the lawsuits fail, all the Congressional actions against the ATF fail, and we are stuck with that permanent regulation; then I will admit the NRA's political strategy failed. As I said Congress demanded the review, this review was going to happen no matter what the NRA did or didn't say. |
|
In this thread OP tries to convince us that the NRA was playing chess not checkers and we just don't understand what verbal ninjas the NRA are.
Life member and constantly donating to the NRA-ILA. Fuck how they acted after Las Vegas. Shall not be infringed except for********************************************** 3000 things that popped up and someone got emotional over. |
|
Quoted:
Nope, NRA really mishandled this, IMHO. I don't care if a bunch of RINO's had called for a ban, their job (NRA) is to protect the 2A at all cost. In case you haven't noticed the GOPe runs both the House and Senate. They were ready to move on the ban, which the NRA stopped. Meaning the NRA did their job. Confusing the anti-gunners, is their job. Defending themselves from the MSM, is their job. Redirecting emotional knee jerk reactions on gun control into a direction where nothing will happen, that is their job. The last one is what they did by saying the ATF should review it. It bought time and the ATF can't do anything unless they over step their authority. Which if the ATF over steps their authority the NRA will be right there fighting against it like they always have. The NRA is doing exactly what they are supposed to be doing. |
|
Quoted:
The cost of the action is one thing that the ATF has to describe in their proposed rulemaking. That is also one thing that people should be pointing out when they leave comments for the ATF before they even write the rule. Ask them how they will pay for the cost of collecting all the devices, how they will compensate the owners, how much they will compensate the owners, how much staff would be required to log all the devices and track them down, how many businesses will close and employees lose their jobs...etc. Mention that in addition to asking them how that huge pricetag is justified by the outcome which is banning a firearm support, as all the other rapid fire devices are still allowed and people can still bump fire. There is an official thread for leaving comments before the rule is written. That closes at midnight tomorrow. https://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/2072210_OFFICIAL-ATF-REDEFINING-MACHINE-GUNS-FIREMISSION-THREAD-WE-ARE-GETTING-SLAMMED-BY-THE-ANTIS.html Here is a direct link to the site for posting an official comment. https://www.regulations.gov/comment?D=ATF-2018-0001-0001 Some of us, knowing that, are, at best, far less nonchalant about this than you are and, at worst, scared shitless. Some would call that a clue. |
|
You said "when." Don't you mean "if" or do you know something we don't?
What will the NRA say when a shooting is done with an AR15 pistol with a brace that was sneaked into a venue in a backpack? Will they say that AR pistol braces need to be reviewed again by ATF? How many NRA members own bumpstocks? How many are anti-AR15 or "assault weapon?" What possible sporting purpose does a bumpstock or an AR15 pistol have? A lot of NRA executives need the NRA for their 6 and 7 figure salaries. The NRA needs gun laws and the occasional scare to keep the money flowing. |
|
Quoted:
Then some outlets started to correct their statement and ran headlines "NRA favors regulating bump stock" which again is not an accurate statement as the NRA never said the word "bump stock" in their statement. In Las Vegas, reports indicate that certain devices were used to modify the firearms involved. 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 Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) to immediately review whether these devices comply with federal law. NRA statement The NRA tried so hard to distance itself from bump stocks — by name — that it blamed the Obama administration for legalizing them. That is the epitome of a gun rights organization throwing the device under a bus. Rather than some 4D chess move, this incident reeks of the NRA caving to political pressure and trying to distance itself from a gun accessory (and legal technicality) that a lot of Fudds didn’t want to fight for. Now, whether that was a smart move in the grand scheme of things is debatable. There are such things as pyrrhic victories, which can hurt an organizaton’s long term interests. But, again, trying to defuse a tense political statement by willingly sacrificing a lamb to distract the wolves is not a masterful stroke of political genius. It’s practical politics. Bump stocks survived this temporary onslaught despite the NRA’s statement. |
|
Quoted:
In this thread OP tries to convince us that the NRA was playing chess not checkers and we just don't understand what verbal ninjas the NRA are. Life member and constantly donating to the NRA-ILA. Fuck how they acted after Las Vegas. Shall not be infringed except for********************************************** 3000 things that popped up and someone got emotional over. But to answer my question. Will you admit the NRA had a good strategy when the ATF throws in the towel and does not regulate bump stocks? |
|
Quoted:
I just want to remind everyone here that if you're not a member of the NRA, you dont have the right to comment. |
|
My answer to OP's question is "no". I answer that because their initial response felt like they just wanted to give up the ship before the fighting ever even started. Even if all the NRA did was to have remained silent on the issue, I wouldn't have had such a negative reaction to them.
For now, I am maintaining my membership, but it is close....VERY close. I am on the fence, and teetering quite badly. Maintaining my membership at least allows me to vote in NRA elections. |
|
Quoted:
Some of us know how administrative law is made. Some of us here have dealt with in up close and personally. Some of us, knowing that, are, at best, far less nonchalant about this than you are and, at worst, scared shitless. Some would call that a clue. Quoted:
Quoted:
The cost of the action is one thing that the ATF has to describe in their proposed rulemaking. That is also one thing that people should be pointing out when they leave comments for the ATF before they even write the rule. Ask them how they will pay for the cost of collecting all the devices, how they will compensate the owners, how much they will compensate the owners, how much staff would be required to log all the devices and track them down, how many businesses will close and employees lose their jobs...etc. Mention that in addition to asking them how that huge pricetag is justified by the outcome which is banning a firearm support, as all the other rapid fire devices are still allowed and people can still bump fire. There is an official thread for leaving comments before the rule is written. That closes at midnight tomorrow. https://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/2072210_OFFICIAL-ATF-REDEFINING-MACHINE-GUNS-FIREMISSION-THREAD-WE-ARE-GETTING-SLAMMED-BY-THE-ANTIS.html Here is a direct link to the site for posting an official comment. https://www.regulations.gov/comment?D=ATF-2018-0001-0001 Some of us, knowing that, are, at best, far less nonchalant about this than you are and, at worst, scared shitless. Some would call that a clue. Why be scared by something that doesn't exist yet? Obviously I'm still paying attention to it, taking action, engaging people on it, and posting threads on it. Check back once the actual proposed rule is drafted, if one is even drafted. |