FLASHBACK: Obama Administration Signed Off On The Use of Bump Stocks in 2010

[Tom B]

FLASHBACK: Obama Administration Signed Off On The Use of Bump Stocks in 2010

https://www.google.com/amp/s/lawnew...signed-off-on-the-use-of-bump-stocks-in-2010/

 

[Slartibartfast]

"In the wake of the carnage following the Las Vegas the scores of bodies had only barely begun to cool when massive partisan finger pointing began. To be fair, Hillary Clinton was out of the box early tweeting how much worse it could have been had the shooter had a silencer. Her statement did not occur in a vacuum, Republicans were pushing a bill in Congress that very week seeking to legalize silencers. Republicans tabled the legislation, at least for now, after the Las Vegas incident. Still, Hillary Clinton was strongly criticized for “exploiting” the tragedy for political purposes.

..............

So are they right? Did the Obama Administration, which these same conservatives claim had no respect for the 2d Amendment, really decide to not regulate the bump stock? The short answer is . . . not really.

Rather than deciding to not regulate the bump stock (which suggests discretion to do so if it wanted) the ATF determined it did not have the authority to regulate the device. It is quite obviously one thing to say “we can’t do this” vs. “we choose to not do this.” The ATF decided the former.

At issue was the authority granted the ATF to regulate firearms under the National Firearms Act. The NFA allows the ATF to regulate some firearms, in some ways. However, the NFA does not generally (with a few exceptions) allow the ATF to regulate firearm parts. So when presented the question by a bump stock manufacturer Obama’s ATF had a threshold question:

Is the bump stock a firearm (possibly subject to regulation) or a firearm part (not subject to regulation)?
Quite understandably, Obama’s ATF determined a bump stock is not, itself, a firearm but rather a part to a firearm. Thus, Obama’s ATF determined it was without authority to regulate this part to a firearm. In the words of the ATF:

“we find the ‘bump stock is a firearm part and is is not regulated as a firearm under the Gun Control Act or National Firearms Act.”

In short, because the Act does not allow us to regulate it, we cannot regulate it. Duh. This is simply a case of the Obama Administration respecting the rule of law. The problem was not with the Obama Administration, it was with a law that handcuffed the Administration. Before blaming the Obama Administration you might want to consider which party generally opposes legislation expanding the authority of the ATF to regulate in this area."

 

[Wallet]

Who controlled Congress in 2010?

 

[Spike Trader]

"In the wake of the carnage following the Las Vegas the scores of bodies had only barely begun to cool when massive partisan finger pointing began. To be fair, Hillary Clinton was out of the box early tweeting how much worse it could have been had the shooter had a silencer. Her statement did not occur in a vacuum, Republicans were pushing a bill in Congress that very week seeking to legalize silencers. Republicans tabled the legislation, at least for now, after the Las Vegas incident. Still, Hillary Clinton was strongly criticized for “exploiting” the tragedy for political purposes.

..............

So are they right? Did the Obama Administration, which these same conservatives claim had no respect for the 2d Amendment, really decide to not regulate the bump stock? The short answer is . . . not really.

Rather than deciding to not regulate the bump stock (which suggests discretion to do so if it wanted) the ATF determined it did not have the authority to regulate the device. It is quite obviously one thing to say “we can’t do this” vs. “we choose to not do this.” The ATF decided the former.

At issue was the authority granted the ATF to regulate firearms under the National Firearms Act. The NFA allows the ATF to regulate some firearms, in some ways. However, the NFA does not generally (with a few exceptions) allow the ATF to regulate firearm parts. So when presented the question by a bump stock manufacturer Obama’s ATF had a threshold question:

Is the bump stock a firearm (possibly subject to regulation) or a firearm part (not subject to regulation)?
Quite understandably, Obama’s ATF determined a bump stock is not, itself, a firearm but rather a part to a firearm. Thus, Obama’s ATF determined it was without authority to regulate this part to a firearm. In the words of the ATF:

“we find the ‘bump stock is a firearm part and is is not regulated as a firearm under the Gun Control Act or National Firearms Act.”

In short, because the Act does not allow us to regulate it, we cannot regulate it. Duh. This is simply a case of the Obama Administration respecting the rule of law. The problem was not with the Obama Administration, it was with a law that handcuffed the Administration. Before blaming the Obama Administration you might want to consider which party generally opposes legislation expanding the authority of the ATF to regulate in this area."

Thank you for that information ,

needless to say , all of the above will no doubt fly right over his head.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Thank you for that information ,

needless to say , all of the above will no doubt fly right over his head.

Tom B and Co. inspired my new profile picture

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/...al-non-searchable-gun-databases-explained-392

Why is the ATF required to trace guns but with crappy technology?
The 1968 Gun Control Act gave the ATF authority to regulate federally licensed gun dealers. In 1978, the ATF tried to make dealers report most quarterly sales. The National Rifle Association and other groups attacked the plan and lobbied to kill the reporting requirement. Congress did as the gun lobby requested, blocking the quarterly report proposal and reducing the ATF's budget by $5 million, which happened to be the amount the agency had sought to update its computer capacity.

I recall John Oliver did a good piece on this.

Somehow, it is not hard to understand how an obscure at the time device got little attention during the economic crisis.

Of course a bumpstock is nothing to make up yourself. You can just bumpfire from the hip with your thumb in a pants belt loop or similar if you don't want to go to even that trouble. Many ways.

 

[Tom B]

"In the wake of the carnage following the Las Vegas the scores of bodies had only barely begun to cool when massive partisan finger pointing began. To be fair, Hillary Clinton was out of the box early tweeting how much worse it could have been had the shooter had a silencer. Her statement did not occur in a vacuum, Republicans were pushing a bill in Congress that very week seeking to legalize silencers. Republicans tabled the legislation, at least for now, after the Las Vegas incident. Still, Hillary Clinton was strongly criticized for “exploiting” the tragedy for political purposes.

..............

So are they right? Did the Obama Administration, which these same conservatives claim had no respect for the 2d Amendment, really decide to not regulate the bump stock? The short answer is . . . not really.

Rather than deciding to not regulate the bump stock (which suggests discretion to do so if it wanted) the ATF determined it did not have the authority to regulate the device. It is quite obviously one thing to say “we can’t do this” vs. “we choose to not do this.” The ATF decided the former.

At issue was the authority granted the ATF to regulate firearms under the National Firearms Act. The NFA allows the ATF to regulate some firearms, in some ways. However, the NFA does not generally (with a few exceptions) allow the ATF to regulate firearm parts. So when presented the question by a bump stock manufacturer Obama’s ATF had a threshold question:

Is the bump stock a firearm (possibly subject to regulation) or a firearm part (not subject to regulation)?
Quite understandably, Obama’s ATF determined a bump stock is not, itself, a firearm but rather a part to a firearm. Thus, Obama’s ATF determined it was without authority to regulate this part to a firearm. In the words of the ATF:

“we find the ‘bump stock is a firearm part and is is not regulated as a firearm under the Gun Control Act or National Firearms Act.”

In short, because the Act does not allow us to regulate it, we cannot regulate it. Duh. This is simply a case of the Obama Administration respecting the rule of law. The problem was not with the Obama Administration, it was with a law that handcuffed the Administration. Before blaming the Obama Administration you might want to consider which party generally opposes legislation expanding the authority of the ATF to regulate in this area."

Stop making excuses for Obama, brown shirt. Grouping suppressors and bump stocks together demonstrates the author's ignorance.

 

[peilthetraveler]

Who controlled Congress in 2010?

The democrats for the majority of the year

 

[Slartibartfast]

Stop making excuses for Obama, brown shirt. Grouping suppressors and bump stocks together demonstrates the author's ignorance.

The democrats for the majority of the year

Hahaha. "Triggered"? hate saying that stupid phrase but in this context.

The majority of the year? Ok that is correct.

Congress election was November 2, 2010 and power went to the Cons.

The BATFE as we know did NOT approve bumpstocks:
"“we find the ‘bump stock is a firearm part and is is not regulated as a firearm under the Gun Control Act or National Firearms Act.”

In short, because the Act does not allow us to regulate it, we cannot regulate it. ""

So... this was decided in 2010. When, lets look at the letter from the ATF to the manufacturer which is dated June 07 2010 (plus a while to clear the post room).

Yeah..ok. I'll be on Earth when you come back from the planet you guys are on.

Maybe you can trace John R Spencer's actions to alert his superiors of the threat?

 

[UsualName]

So let's ban bump stocks now.

The notion the republicans need to blame democrats before they can take any governmental action on guns is crazy. How about doing it because it's the right thing?

Next, they can bring back the assault weapons ban and ban these drum clips too. Both of those are common sense gun safety laws. Let's not forget the Brady Bill was the law of the land for many years.

 

[Slartibartfast]

So let's ban bump stocks now.

The notion the republicans need to blame democrats before they can take any governmental action on guns is crazy. How about doing it because it's the right thing?

Next, they can bring back the assault weapons ban and ban these drum clips too. Both of those are common sense gun safety laws. Let's not forget the Brady Bill was the law of the land for many years.

Nice idea.. just..

https://twitter.com/x/status/915987243633987584