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.
The NRA Files for Bankruptcy
The Pro-Second Amendment Organization is Now Moving to Texas
On January 15, 2021, the National Rifle Association announced that it would be filing for bankruptcy.
The long-time advocate of gun ownership revealed that this bankruptcy is part of its new plan to restructure as a Texas non-profit organization. It has been motivated to do so because it believes that New York has a corrupt political and regulatory environment. Before the NRA’s decision to file bankruptcy, it was registered in the Empire State.
A few months ago, New York Attorney General Letitia James filed a lawsuit that threatened to dissolve the NRA. The suit contends that the NRA has been involved in cases of fraud and mismanagement of funds. Following New York’s attempts to persecute the NRA, President Donald Trump suggested that the NRA move to Texas, a state that treats pro-Second Amendment organizations much better. Trump stated, “I think the NRA should move to Texas and lead a very good and beautiful life, and I’ve told them that for a long time.”
“This strategic plan represents a pathway to opportunity, growth and progress,” NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre declared in a statement. “Obviously, an important part of this plan is ‘dumping New York.’ The NRA is pursuing reincorporating in a state that values the contributions of the NRA, celebrates our law-abiding members, and will join us as a partner in upholding cn.
“The @NRA‘s claimed financial status has finally met its moral status: bankrupt. While we review its bankruptcy filing, we will not allow the @NRA to use this or any other tactic to evade accountability and my office’s oversight,” James said in a tweet that she posted on January 15 following the bankruptcy announcement.
The @NRA's claimed financial status has finally met its moral status: bankrupt.
While we review its bankruptcy filing, we will not allow the @NRA to use this or any other tactic to evade accountability and my office’s oversight.
— NY AG James (@NewYorkStateAG) January 15, 2021
Indeed, the NRA’s decision to move to the Lone Star State is a wise decision. Texas’ gun laws are much better than New York’s. Furthermore, Texas actually bothers to protect free speech and the state government will not go on petty vendettas against right-wing organizations that leftist politicians hate.-
Mass polarization is here to stay in American politics, so it would be wise for right wing organizations in solidly Blue states to consider relocating to friendlier political climes.
Sports4 days ago
National Hockey League Declares War on Trump Supporters? Former Trump Campaign Staffer Reveals Chilling Account of Political Persecution
Violent Left2 days ago
Leftist Thug Targets Roger Stone’s Handicapped Wife for Vicious Attack in Own Neighborhood
Congress3 days ago
Freshman GOP Rep. Nancy Mace Calls for Federal Investigations Against Pro-Trump Lawmakers
Congress3 days ago
Nikki Haley Announces Super PAC to Support Anti-Trump Incumbents with Big Corporate Money
The Swamp3 days ago
Dan Crenshaw White Knights for Liz Cheney After Republicans Blast Her Support for Trump’s Second Impeachment
Free Speech3 days ago
SILENCING TRUMP: Jared Kushner ‘Intervened’ to Stop the President from Joining Gab, Parler
Around The World2 days ago
Ex-Soviet Leader Gorbachev: US Capitol Riot “Planned in Advance, And It Is Clear by Whom”
Tech3 days ago
WEAK EXCUSE: Twitter Oligarch Jack Dorsey Tries to Rationalize Banning Trump, Fails Miserably