6
6
0
First thing that comes to mind after reading this is that the GOP don't want to go on voting record for anything that might offend the NRA and gun activists. Second, putting the onus on ATF through regulatory means shifts any anger towards the ATF and DoJ; plus it could easily be reversed later on while any Congressional legislation...not so much. Third, Wreck-It Ryan is calling it a loophole created by Obama Administration as opposed to a problem of enduring gun regulation that has very little restrictions on weapon accessories.
Passing the buck on issues is cowardly.
Passing the buck on issues is cowardly.
Ryan urges ATF to fix 'bump stock' gun loophole
Posted from thehill.com
Gun Control
Republicans
ATF
Posted 7 y ago
Responses: 7
5
5
0
Sorry but this is all talk. There will be no change. Give it another week and we'll forget all about this horrific act.
(5)
(0)
LTC Thomas Tennant
Oh you are a cynic....but I also feel that the Dems and lame steam media need something other than Russia to obsess about.
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
MAJ James Woods As I read this article, I also open a survey in today's mail from the Republican National Committee.
This GOP survey asks me where I rank "Reduce Federal regulation" in a listing of a dozen GOP goals/objectives.
The current GOP National Platform clearly states "Over-Regulation is the quiet tyranny of the "Nanny State".
Hence: Speaker Ryan's call for regulation to fix a so-called 'bump stock' loophole seems...contrary to the GOP's overall intent to reduce federal regulation.
But still -- whether by regulation or by revised and/or clarifying public law (which may well require an implementing regulation), it sounds clear that a vast majority of Americans can agree that "bump stock" devices and other similar devices which enhance a weapon's rate of fire well beyond an individual's trigger twitch capabilities, de facto a machinegun/automatic weapon in its effect and capabilities, should not be sold to the general public.
I agree with Mark Kelly: the goal here is to save people's lives, and to prevent future mass shootings utilizing these devices.
If the ATF can quickly rectify this situation on its own, by reversing a previous ruling, and that reversed ruling will withstand legal challenges from "bump stock" manufacturers, then so be it. The disadvantage to this course of action is there are no open Congressional hearings and curtailed mechanisms for public debate and comment.
This GOP survey asks me where I rank "Reduce Federal regulation" in a listing of a dozen GOP goals/objectives.
The current GOP National Platform clearly states "Over-Regulation is the quiet tyranny of the "Nanny State".
Hence: Speaker Ryan's call for regulation to fix a so-called 'bump stock' loophole seems...contrary to the GOP's overall intent to reduce federal regulation.
But still -- whether by regulation or by revised and/or clarifying public law (which may well require an implementing regulation), it sounds clear that a vast majority of Americans can agree that "bump stock" devices and other similar devices which enhance a weapon's rate of fire well beyond an individual's trigger twitch capabilities, de facto a machinegun/automatic weapon in its effect and capabilities, should not be sold to the general public.
I agree with Mark Kelly: the goal here is to save people's lives, and to prevent future mass shootings utilizing these devices.
If the ATF can quickly rectify this situation on its own, by reversing a previous ruling, and that reversed ruling will withstand legal challenges from "bump stock" manufacturers, then so be it. The disadvantage to this course of action is there are no open Congressional hearings and curtailed mechanisms for public debate and comment.
(3)
(0)
MAJ James Woods
Unfortunately, just like all other agency ruling like EPA and DoJ, those regulations can change at the whim of the individual in charge of those agencies and without the public's knowledge. And if the agency lead has the support of the White House, that's when we need Congress to enact change if an agency refuses to address the issue. If you ever look at some of the other legislation that passes through Congress on a weekly basis, we'd laugh at the ridiculous stuff they discuss and the waste of paper.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
Damn right, I'll be furious if they pass that crappy bill, the ATF fixing their idiotic regulation is the correct method to fix this particular loophole. Their definition of a device that accelerates rate of fire is way too vague especially when so many Democrats are calling for an outright gun ban and confiscation. Last thing I want is the ATF prescribing what constitutes an acceleration to a fire arm, in a year or two there will be a minimum trigger pull spec, or a ban on anything that can fire more than one round every ten seconds. I do not trust my government with this at all. The 2nd Amendment doesn't give me the right to bear arms it prevents the government from doing what the Democrats want to do.
(2)
(0)
SFC Thomas Butler
"Last thing I want is the ATF prescribing what constitutes an acceleration to a fire arm..." Right, because what does the ATF know about firearms? Come on man.
(0)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
SFC Thomas Butler - You'd think if they actually knew much about firearms they wouldn't have allowed it to be sold in the first place.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google