Trump and suppressors - 1911Forum
1911Forum
Advertise Here
Forum   Reviews   Rules   Legal   Site Supporters & Donations   Advertise


Go Back   1911Forum > >

Notices


Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 06-11-2019, 08:21 AM
TRSOtto TRSOtto is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 13,268
Trump and suppressors

This has been in the news for several days now. No one is talking about on this forum. Thought I'd post it. It's not a one off article. There are dozens like it.

Friend of Gun Owners? Hardly.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...rs/1407871001/
  #2  
Old 06-11-2019, 08:24 AM
TRSOtto TRSOtto is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 13,268
Really??? You gotta wonder what's next.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trum...ry?id=63502902
  #3  
Old 06-11-2019, 08:30 AM
jamiesaun jamiesaun is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Boise
Age: 34
Posts: 6,745
Someone will get in his ear and tell him like it is. I've shot suppressors before. They don't "silence" anything, except maybe a 22lr. They better anyway, because I'm getting tired of the 2nd amendment not meaning what it actually means.

Quite simply, it means the people have access to the same weapons as the military, period. Maybe not nuclear weapons, but good luck building one of those anyway. Lots of physics and theory involved in one of those bombs.
__________________
Jamie
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
  #4  
Old 06-11-2019, 08:35 AM
TRSOtto TRSOtto is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 13,268
I own 8 of them, shoot them all regularly. If Trump does what he's thinking....an Executive Order could have ATF agents knocking on mine and millions of others doors and saying "Hand them over".
  #5  
Old 06-11-2019, 09:03 AM
1911_Kid 1911_Kid is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: AZ
Posts: 6,680
What I find interesting about the USA Today article is this.

Quote:
Two lower federal courts previously ruled that gun silencers fall outside the scope of the Second Amendment because they are accessories not in common use by law-abiding citizens.
So, if a can is an accessory then why is it classified as a "firearm" under ATF rules?

Also, I can easily argue to any court that "not in common use by law-abiding citizens" is BS because 1) to many other things that were not common but become common, like internet access, cell phone use, anti-lock brakes, wifi, etc etc etc, 2) cans are less common because the govt has placed hardship restrictions on the accessory, like a $200 tax, and in comparison some people have firearms that don't even cost $200.

Nothing they do makes sense any longer. If we only had crafty lawyers to start combating all this BS we would be better off.
__________________
Citizens for 2A
"We choose truth over facts" - Joe Biden (Iowa Aug 2019)
  #6  
Old 06-11-2019, 09:18 AM
YVK YVK is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 3,441
Trump has no clue. He'll ban anything that he perceives as not useful, dangerous, and politically expendable. He's claiming a credit for banning bump stocks, he'll do so with cans.
__________________
Sig Sauer also contends that ATF placed too great an emphasis upon reliability in determining which offers should continue to phase III.
U.S. GAO-B-402339.3
  #7  
Old 06-11-2019, 09:43 AM
USMM guy USMM guy is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Rural VA
Posts: 21,919
Hopefully he will come to his senses.

Before he really gets a bunch of people really POd
  #8  
Old 06-11-2019, 09:43 AM
HT77 HT77 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 7,845
They are defending current policy regulating suppressors as it exists. When has Trump said he wants to completely ban them?
  #9  
Old 06-11-2019, 10:07 AM
tray burge tray burge is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Age: 59
Posts: 956
This banning stuff with an "Executive Order" is getting out of hand, it sets the bad precedent for the next anti-gunner President to totally outlaw ALL firearms with the same order and circumventing exactly what our forefathers set in place to protect our rights!
__________________
"Real men carry steel guns, plastic is for squirt guns" - Jeff Cooper
  #10  
Old 06-11-2019, 11:55 AM
1911_Kid 1911_Kid is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: AZ
Posts: 6,680
Remember this, Trump will cut low hanging fruit from the tree if it makes his political position better. He's focused on whole-country issues, and removing some cans from a few folks is not a big deal to him. He knew the bumpstock thing was BS, but because of the very limited scope of the item in public hands, he nix'd them. Cans can be next.

Trump is not the all-glorious guy, he's playing in a game that has lots of consequences for Americans. I just not sure why he didnt fully close the MX border yet. Who cares if produce does not come up from MX, Americans are fat anyways, so a little forced diet will do the body good, perhaps help drive down cost of healtcare


What I dont fully understand is, you buy legal property today, and tomorrow the govt says its illegal and comes take it? That sound very illegal to me, and should be an issue for scotus to decide.
__________________
Citizens for 2A
"We choose truth over facts" - Joe Biden (Iowa Aug 2019)

Last edited by 1911_Kid; 06-11-2019 at 11:57 AM.
  #11  
Old 06-11-2019, 03:02 PM
ope135's Avatar
ope135 ope135 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,452
This has been discussed in the thread about the Virginia Beach shooting. I noted in my comment that the President should be made aware that silencers are already highly restricted by the National Firearms Act and some states ban them outright, and silencers do not render firearms silent and banning them would have no effect on a mass shooting when the premises are a "gun free" zone.

file:///C:/Users/L23al/Documents/Virginia%20Beach%20Shooting.html

See the attached. The shooter, who supposedly had shown no signs of being dangerous, prompted at least one fellow worker to arm herself due to his behavior. Not the first time we've seen stories like this.
__________________
Chance favors the prepared mind.
NRA Benefactor Member
USAR - Ordnance Corps

Last edited by ope135; 06-11-2019 at 03:04 PM.
  #12  
Old 06-11-2019, 03:32 PM
1911_Kid 1911_Kid is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: AZ
Posts: 6,680
Quote:
Originally Posted by ope135 View Post
This has been discussed in the thread about the Virginia Beach shooting. I noted in my comment that the President should be made aware that silencers are already highly restricted by the National Firearms Act and some states ban them outright, and silencers do not render firearms silent and banning them would have no effect on a mass shooting when the premises are a "gun free" zone.

file:///C:/Users/L23al/Documents/Virginia%20Beach%20Shooting.html

See the attached. The shooter, who supposedly had shown no signs of being dangerous, prompted at least one fellow worker to arm herself due to his behavior. Not the first time we've seen stories like this.
Unfortunately for us, the tics don't talk the same jive as we do, nor to they understand our jive (basic simple facts). The tics do whatever they want in order to try and fortify more votes.

The attachment did not upload, but the filepath did, Mr L23al
Does that UID in any way have reference to L23Al auger electrons?
__________________
Citizens for 2A
"We choose truth over facts" - Joe Biden (Iowa Aug 2019)

Last edited by 1911_Kid; 06-11-2019 at 03:47 PM.
  #13  
Old 06-11-2019, 04:04 PM
STORM2 STORM2 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 2,744
Taking away $50 bump stocks is one thing but taking $1000 suppressors from a million well healed voters who own legal stamped suppressors will be different. This would not be an insignificant financial issue. Suppressors will remain as they are currently regulated.
  #14  
Old 06-11-2019, 04:07 PM
TRSOtto TRSOtto is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 13,268
Quote:
Originally Posted by HT77 View Post
They are defending current policy regulating suppressors as it exists. When has Trump said he wants to completely ban them?
See post #2. He stated it to Piers Morgan on Good Morning Britain while in the UK.
  #15  
Old 06-11-2019, 05:06 PM
HarryO45 HarryO45 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Home of the Infantry
Posts: 4,744
My question is what presidential candidate in 2016 would be protecting the 2A better than President Trump? The answer: Not Any of Them.

Has he done executive action to take away your suppressors?

I am gonna argue that the Dems would be attacking any R President the same as they are hitting and resisting President Trump. They would be investigating any and all our candidates equally. They wanted Hillary and were shocked that our president won (likely the only candidate who could have beat her). He just hits back and it gets messy... I am OK with that.

I don’t think he will talk about silencers anymore... I hope not, we will see.
  #16  
Old 06-11-2019, 05:16 PM
TRSOtto TRSOtto is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 13,268
Quote:
Originally Posted by HarryO45 View Post
....
I donít think he will talk about silencers anymore... I hope not, we will see.
It is disturbing to hear any president talking about banning anything firearms related, but ESPECIALLY disturbing to hear it coming from a president who only a month ago stood before the throngs of the NRA and pronounced himself a solid supporter of gun owners. He wants gun owners support for reelection, then opens his fly trap to utter stupid things like this.

Let's hope he stops talking about things that he knows nothing about.
  #17  
Old 06-11-2019, 05:31 PM
Livefreeanddie Livefreeanddie is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: New Hampshire
Posts: 277
Listen to almost anything our president said before he became a " conservative ". He is a shill and will do anything to get a vote. Sorry to break this news, and I'm sure it's not the popular opinion here. We had a choice between a poop sandwich with bread, and a poop sandwich without bread. Not a great sandwich either way.
  #18  
Old 06-11-2019, 05:48 PM
HT77 HT77 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 7,845
Reading some of these posts, it gets easier to understand how someone like Obama can get elected twice and the Democrats are in charge of the House.
  #19  
Old 06-11-2019, 07:11 PM
jamiesaun jamiesaun is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Boise
Age: 34
Posts: 6,745
It's the same thing as when he said "maybe we take the guns first and due process second," or whatever he said. Remember that?

Trump has diahrea of the mouth big time. He sort of just blurts any thought that pops into his head at any given moment. I'm not worried about him actually doing this.
__________________
Jamie
  #20  
Old 06-11-2019, 08:08 PM
1911_Kid 1911_Kid is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: AZ
Posts: 6,680
Quote:
Originally Posted by HarryO45 View Post
My question is what presidential candidate in 2016 would be protecting the 2A better than President Trump? The answer: Not Any of Them.
Being complacent is no good position either. We need positive action, to take back our 2A rights.
__________________
Citizens for 2A
"We choose truth over facts" - Joe Biden (Iowa Aug 2019)
  #21  
Old 06-11-2019, 08:56 PM
Dath Dath is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2019
Posts: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamiesaun View Post
...because I'm getting tired of the 2nd amendment not meaning what it actually means.

Quite simply, it means the people have access to the same weapons as the military, period.
I agree. The 1934 NFA was the beginning of the end. 85 years later and the gangs that this legislation was intended to effect are better armed now than they were then. The difference now is that our law biding citizens do not have the legal means to effectively defend themselves from that trash or from the clinically retarded politicians that are systematically turning us into subjects.
We have been reduced to fighting for how many rounds and what type of attachments we are allowed to have on our semi-automatic firearms. And our founding fathers would be stacking bodies high enough to keep the Mexicans in Mexico if the government told them they needed four character references, a background check and the blessing of a local judge just to hold a sidearm.
I've read this book before. I know how it ends.
  #22  
Old 06-11-2019, 08:58 PM
Plantar5 Plantar5 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 6,515
Saying he didn’t like suppressors in an interview is a long way from signing an EO to ban them. Was it the best response, absolutely not. But Its puzzling why a fair number of people here are reaching conclusions that a ban is a definite based on a bad answer.
Rather than hoping for the worst to happen (like some), I’ll prefer to remain cautiously optimistic.
  #23  
Old 06-11-2019, 09:22 PM
USMM guy USMM guy is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Rural VA
Posts: 21,919
I do not think.

[QUOTE=TRSOtto;12853564]
Let's hope he stops talking about things that he knows nothing about.[/QUOTE

That there is any chance of that happening anytime soon. Clearly this is one of those individuals that is omniscient.
  #24  
Old 06-11-2019, 09:24 PM
GunCollector509 GunCollector509 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2019
Posts: 9
Let's be real here. We all know why people buy accessories like bump stocks and pistol braces. People want NFA firearms without a $200 tax stamp, finger prints, paperwork, and so on. The intent of these accessories is the reason why they're on unstable legal grounds. Trump was able to ban bump stocks because it can be argued that they're being used to turn semiautos into machine guns. Yes, I know there's only one pull of the trigger for each shot and technically it's still a semiauto under the legal definition. It's also pretty clear the device circumvents the NFA and when you consider what Congress was trying to do when they passed the NFA, it can be argued that a semiauto with a bump stock is a machine gun. This is a question that is making its way through the courts right now, so perhaps Trump's ban will be overturned. I suspect it will hold up in court however.

Pistol braces are on a little sturdier legal ground than bump stocks. They were originally designed to help disabled people shoot heavy handguns like AR15 pistols. They can also be used as a stock to turn a pistol into a short barreled rifle. That's why the ATF uses the word "intent" in their infamous opinion:

Quote:
These items are intended to improve accuracy by using the operatorís forearm to provide stable support for the AR-type pistol. ATF has previously determined that attaching the brace to a firearm does not alter the classification of the firearm or subject the firearm to National Firearms Act (NFA) control. However, this classification is based upon the use of the device as designed. When the device is redesigned for use as a shoulder stock on a handgun with a rifled barrel under 16 inches in length, the firearm is properly classified as a firearm under the NFA.
Silencers are a whole different ball game. Unlike bump stocks or pistol braces (when used as a stock to make an SBR), there's no circumventing the NFA going on here. It would take a act of Congress to ban silencers. Trump is just bloviating like he always does. He doesn't have the power to ban silencers.
  #25  
Old 06-11-2019, 10:12 PM
drail drail is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 15,156
"Well, I like to take the guns first and then worry about due process later." And now he would like us all to know that he "doesn't like silencers". His ignorance is at times, astounding.
Closed Thread

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:00 PM.


NOTICE TO USERS OF THIS SITE: By continuing to use this site, you certify that you have read and agree to abide by the Legal Terms of Use. All information, data, text or other materials ("Content") posted to this site by any users are the sole responsibility of those users. 1911Forum does not guarantee the accuracy, integrity, or quality of such Content.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimisation provided by DragonByte SEO (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2020 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2020 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright 2015 1911Forum.com, LLC. All Rights Reserved