Just imagine: The year’s 2025, Elizabeth Warren has just been inaugurated as President. You’re at the range, shooting your legally-acquired AR-15 when an ATF agent puts you in handcuffs, takes away your gun, and tells you you’re under arrest for owning a “machine gun.”
That may sound crazy now, but if the ATF’s proposed rule change designed to ban “bump stocks” and other devices designed to “increase the rate of fire” on a firearm goes into effect, that very well could happen. That’s because the rule doesn’t just ban bump stocks, it changes the definition of what a “machine gun” is.
In short, currently under federal code a machine gun is a firearm that can fire more than one shot with a single pull of the trigger. The new proposal changes that in an extremely confusing way. To understand that we’re going to need to review the proposed language, found on page 13,475 of the Federal Register:
* * * For purposes of this definition, the term ‘‘automatically’’ as it modifies ‘‘shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot,’’ means functioning as the result of a self-acting or self-regulating mechanism that allows the firing of multiple rounds through a single function of the trigger; and ‘‘single function of the trigger’’ means a single pull of the trigger. The term ‘‘machine gun’’ includes bump-stock type devices, i.e., devices that allow a semiautomatic firearm to shoot more than one shot with a single pull of the
trigger by harnessing the recoil energy of the semiautomatic firearm to which it is
affixed so that the trigger resets and continues firing without additional physical manipulation of the trigger by the shooter.
Sounds confusing, right? Well lets review exactly what this is intended to do, and exactly what could be done with this. One important thing to note is that if this rule change goes into effect, it will stay in effect for the next President. So if we have an anti-gun President in office, their administration could interpret this differently than the Trump Administration, which makes this dangerous.
While the language specifically states that it includes “bump-stock type devices,” it doesn’t keep it at that, which to many gun owners, is bad enough. Instead, it goes on to describe what a bump stock is. Under that definition, any “device” that can harness “the recoil energy of a semiautomatic firearm” to allow it to continue firing “without additional physical manipulation of the trigger by the shooter” would be considered a machine gun.
With that knowledge, going back to the beginning of the machine gun definition is important. The term “readily restored to shoot” creates a dangerous precedent. Under an anti-gun administration, that term could be used to justify the banning of any semi-automatic firearm, as virtually every semi-automatic firearm can be “readily restored to shoot” at a rate which meets the definition of a “machine gun” simply by using a belt loop with a little ingenuity.
So wearing pants with belt loops, while holding an AR-15 could meet the definition, as the belt loop is readily available.
This rule change is currently in the comment period, and many gun rights activists are now fighting it. Dudley Brown, President of the National Association for Gun Rights, is one of those activists fighting back. He spoke exclusively to Big League Politics to explain what his group is doing.
“We’ve been sounding the alarm about this since day one,” Brown stated. “It is a lot easier to stop a federal rule change before it goes into effect than to change it later, which is why we are alerting our 4.5 million members and supporters to this dangerous scheme.”
It is unknown is President Donald Trump is aware of the dangers behind the wording of this rule change, but he has stated his support for banning bump stocks in the past, leading towards anger from many of his pro-gun supporters.
Big League Politics will keep you updated on any developments around this story.
Texas Gun Rights Endorses Anti-Lockdown Hero Shelley Luther
Luther is running for the Texas Senate.
Earlier this month, pro-Second Amendment organization Texas Gun Rights PAC endorsed Shelley Luther in her run for Texas State Senate.
Luther gained national attention for her refusal to close down her salon in Dallas, Texas, which was in violation of Dallas, County’s lockdown order. She would end up in jail for violating the order but would later be set free after Texas Governor Greg Abbott took action to release her.
Chris McNutt, the Director of Texas Gun Rights PAC, issued a statement on Texas Gun Rights PAC’s endorsement of Luther:
It is clear Shelley Luther is the strongest pro-gun candidate running to fill the Senate District 30 seat being vacated by Pat Fallon. Texas Gun Rights PAC is proud to endorse Shelley Luther for Senate in the September 29th Special Election.
“Even before Shelley decided to run for office, she proved she had the courage to stand up and fight against an overreaching government without backing down,” McNutt added. “So it’s no surprise Shelley Luther was also the first candidate in the Senate District 30 race to take a bold, pro-gun stance.”
Constitutional Carry is one of Luther’s legislative priorities for the 2021 legislative session. This issue has been a priority for the Texas Republican Party during the last 6 years. Drew Springer, Luther’s opponent in the Senate election, never supported Constitutional Carry.
Passing Constitutional Carry legislation is part of Luther’s campaign platform and has been a top priority of the Republican Party of Texas for the past 6 years. Her opponent, State Representative Drew Springer, has never backed Constitutional Carry since he came into office back in 2012.
“State Representative Drew Springer claims to be ‘pro-gun,’ and yet he repeatedly refused to co-author Constitutional Carry every year that it was introduced,” commented McNutt. “Pro-gun Texans in Senate District 30 need a leader who is willing to fight for the Second Amendment like Shelley Luther, not another political backbencher looking for a job promotion.”
Should Constitutional Carry be passed, Texas would be the 16th state with this law.
Thanks to the political establishment’s constant legislative roadblocking, Constitutional Carry has had a considerable amount of trouble in being passed in the Lone Star State.
With politicians like Luther potentially in the mix, Constitutional Carry has a stronger chance of being passed. America First patriots living in Texas Senate District 30 should resoundingly vote for Luther due to her firm commitment to limited government.
Politics3 days ago
Judge Amy Coney Barrett Recently Approved Democrat COVID-19 Lockdown Policies
Violent Left4 days ago
Bezos-Linked Thinktank Official Calls for Michael Anton’s Execution for Exposing Anti-Trump Color Revolution
Campaign 20203 days ago
WATCH: Joe Biden Struggles to Read Scripted Answers off a Teleprompter During An INTERVIEW
Congress4 days ago
He Found His Spine: Vulnerable Senator Cory Gardner Vows to Support Trump’s SCOTUS Nominee
States3 days ago
Billionaire Mike Bloomberg Pays $16 Million in Fines of Black and Hispanic Felons to Enable Them to Vote
ANTIFA3 days ago
EXPOSED: BLM Promises to Burn Louisville to the Ground Over Breonna Taylor Case
The Swamp2 days ago
CORRUPT: Hunter Biden Received $3.5 Million From Moscow Mayor’s Wife, Made Payments to Human Trafficking Suspects
Videos3 days ago
WATCH: Ben Shapiro Defends ‘Libertarian’ Policies of Open Borders and Mass Immigration