More Freedom because of President Trump

Trump is awsome!

trump for bump

trump for bump

Just in my area, at least 20 businesses went out of business during Fauci's lockdown.

A bump stock is not a gun.

Nobody cares about bump stocks. The Left wants to completely abolish the 2nd. It's not even comparable..

Next time you complain about bump stock ban and 2nd-Amendment rights been infringed by Trump, you should consider the side that is actually trying to destroy those rights:

Massachusetts Democrats Introduce One of the Worst Anti-Second Amendment Bills in the Country: Extensive Firearm Restrictions.

The Democratic Party in Massachusetts has introduced one of the strictest gun control bills ever seen in the United States and would take away “civil liberties.”

An Act Modernizing Firearm Laws (HD 4420), often dubbed as the ‘Lawful Citizens Imprisonment Act’ by gun-rights advocates, was introduced by Democrat Rep. Michael Day of Stoneham to “stem the flow of illegal firearms into the Commonwealth and increase protections from gun violence for our communities.”

https://www.votervoice.net/mobile/GunOwners/Campaigns/106453/Respond

https://malegislature.gov/Bills/193/HD4420/Cosponsor

https://www.boston25news.com/news/local/new-mass-gun-bill-receives-push-back-gun-owners-group/3A5KM5DU45H6FAE4NM7JMWKF5Q/

All sources reference weather a bump stock should be considered as “part” of a “machine gun” in order to ban it or make it illegal.
They are not stating that a bump stock, independently, is a machine gun based on your interpretation.

Bump Stocks are considered nothing more than:

- Parts
- Accessories
- Attachments
- Conversion Devices

Shift the blame where it belongs:

- The Shooter
- Public pressure from Leftists/Liberals
- RINO Advisors
- ATF/DOJ

The ATF/DOJ made a decision based on public pressure that would have been made regardless of POTUS/Administration; the fact that the Supreme Court is letting it stand is proof of that.

BTW, The Biden Administration is defending the ATF’s misinterpretation:

January 9, 2023

Judge Jennifer Walker Elrod wrote in the lead majority opinion that a bump stock is excluded from the technical definition of “machine gun” set forth in the Gun Control Act and National Firearms Act, although the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives says a bump stock is part of the definition of machine gun, a position that the Biden administration is defending.

April 27, 2023

At issue in the cases is whether a bump stock is a machine gun “part” that can be banned under the law that prohibits possession of machine guns.

The 6th Circuit noted that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives has flip-flopped on the issue. At first, the agency maintained that a bump stock is not a machine gun part, but it changed its position after a shooter used bump stocks attached to semi-automatic rifles to kill 58 people in Las Vegas.

Other federal appeals courts that have considered the issue are divided.

“And our own circuit is split down the middle, with eight judges voting to uphold the rule and eight judges voting to strike it down,” the 6th Circuit said, referring to a 2021 en banc opinion. The split had the effect of upholding a district court decision in a different case that allowed the bump-stock ban to take effect.

Those differing interpretations show that the machine gun law is ambiguous as applied to bump stocks, the appeals court said in the Hardin case. And because the machine gun law carries criminal penalties, the rule of lenity applies. That rule requires courts to resolve ambiguity in statutes in favor of criminal defendants.

“Because the relevant statutory scheme does not clearly and unambiguously prohibit bump stocks, we are bound to construe the statute in Hardin’s favor,” the 6th Circuit said.

April 25, 2023

At a minimum, as the majority opinion holds, the National Firearms Act of 1934 admits of an interpretation that excludes a bump stock from the definition of a "part" of a "machinegun" under that statute. Indeed, this is the original interpretation that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) gave to the statute.

That ATF later changed its views in order to ban bump stocks does not render unreasonable the ATF's first reading of the statute. Indeed, the ATF's first take aligns with the views of numerous judges on this court and elsewhere who have considered the relevant statutory text.

Simply put, under the statute as it currently reads, the addition of a bump stock to a rifle clearly does not make it a machinegun.

Sequel has just been delayed that's all.

He’s the Jason Vorheeves of great presidents.

Really? I dont remember this. Please post evidence and citations.