Donald Trump Directs Justice Department To Ban Bump Stock Modifications For Guns

[Akoto]

Source: Huffpost / MSNBC / Presidential Announcement

President Donald Trump announced he has ordered Attorney General Jeff Sessions to ban bump stocks, the type of gun modification that enabled the Las Vegas shooter to kill 58 people in October.

Just a few moments ago, I signed a memorandum directing the Attorney General to propose regulations to ban all devices that turn legal weapons into machine guns, Trump said Tuesday while speaking at a medal of valor ceremony at the White House. I expect that these critical regulations will be finalized ... very soon.

Justice Department officials said in December that they do not believe they could regulate bump stock sales without congressional action, according to The New York Times.

Read more: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-bump-stocks_us_5a8c8c4de4b0273053a57f8e

---

Updated with article.

On MSNBC, immediately following, Ari Velshi noted that "the NRA was already heavily in favor of this change. It was not exactly a great stretch."

[turbinetree]

1. Hey sexual predator...............................your fucking republican leaders in both chambers

of Congress the one and only fucker Paul "ayn rand" Ryan and the other fucking hypocrite Mitch "the turtle " McConnell ----------------------will sit on this ploy, they have been given numerous opportunities asshole.......................and they did fucking nothing, dumbshit, they will not bring it to the chamber floor to VOTE......................


The young men and woman is this country are FED -UP, they are FED Up with the dereliction of duty to be protected from the gun and the violence associated with the gun and your appeasement and your right wing congressional appeasement of BULLSHIT


November 2018 cannot get fast enough for our kids sake

[Javaman]

2. give it time, he will change what's left of his mind. nt

[djacq]

3. The Orange Clown procrastinates

[SWBTATTReg]

4. Something fishy is going on w/ tRUMP? An anti-gun directive by tRUMP? nt

[Puzzledtraveller]

20. Word was after Vegas, some strong 2A

proponents, NRA, lawmakers were open to banning bump stocks. It will seem like a major and laudible move by many average americans when it may actually be an easy concession costing him very little politically, and giving him easy browny points with the less informed on our side. Yes, I said it, we have many of those.

[SWBTATTReg]

23. Thanks for the helpful info., I didn't know!! nt

[knightmaar]

5. Can he actually do that?

I thought the president isn't supposed to give orders to the Justice dept.

The structure of your government confounds me, though, so I can't be sure.

[Mr.Bill]

7. The structure of our government

confounds our fake president, too.

[onenote]

14. Yes. Unlike an "independent" agency such as the FCC, DOJ is an executive branch agency

and the President, as head of the executive branch, can direct it to consider the adoption of rules of general applicability (as contrasted with directing the agency to commence an ajudicatory proceeding against particular individuals), provided such rulemaking proceeding is conducted consistent with statutory rules (the Administrative Procedure Act) that govern rulemaking proceedings.

[bluestarone]

21. maybe tRump doing this stops congress from doing what they should do?

[AtheistCrusader]

15. The BATFE made them legal with the stroke of a pen. They can make them un-legal with the

same pen on the next sheet of letterhead.

[onenote]

22. Maybe. Maybe not.

The issue is whether the decision regarding the application of the NFA to bump stocks is an interpretive rule or a legislaitve rule. The distinction between the two has blurred, but if its a legislative rule, it would have to be adopted by a notice and comment rule making. The original 2010 letter and subsequent letters are best viewed as interpretive rules, but since no one challenged their adoption, it can't be said that is the case with absolute certainty. I have no doubt that, had the ATF issued a letter reaching the opposite conclusion in 2010 or thereafter, someone (NAB?) at that time would have taken ATF to court arguing (1) that the ATF should have conducted a notice and comment rule making and (2) in any event, the interpretive ruling was contrary to the plain language of the statute. While both legislative and interpretive rules are entitled to 'deference' from the courts (although the deference doctrine is under attack from conservatives), deference isn't owed if the court concludes that the rule adopted is at odds with the statute.

So, ATF probably could issue a new interpretation reversing the prior rulings without conducting a notice of comment proceeding but it might well be challenged (even if NAB says it's okay with interpreting the NFA as covering bump stocks there might be someone out there that wants bump stocks to remain legal for as long as possible and might challenge such an "interpretive" rule.

So yes, the ATF could reverse itself with the stroke of a pen, but they would get additional protection by going the notice and comment proceeding so I expect that is how they will proceed.

[Hav]

6. After seeing that interview with that pos Kingston,

I think it might be related to a law that was planned for weeks/months and that already had support in the House.

[getagrip_already]

8. can't be done without legislation...

This isn't something sessions can mandate or set regs for. It takes actual legislation.

Which has zero chance of going anywhere and he knows it. Of course this is probably like everything else that will be coming shortly. trust him.

[onenote]

9. Let them set the precedent

Then a Democratic president can use it to impose further restrictions in the future.

[Jedi Guy]

10. That's precisely why they won't do it.

They're always going on about slippery slopes. They won't willingly set a precedent that'll work against them later. This is just kabuki theater on their part.

[getagrip_already]

11. It's not something the president has authority over.....

Executive orders only cover how the federal government operates. It cannot establish or carry out laws or regulations that impact private citizens directly.

Only congress can do that.

[Jedi Guy]

12. Fair point.

So it's most definitely kabuki theater. "Look look, we're doing something!"

[onenote]

13. This isn't an executive order

It's a proposal for a rulemaking proceeding that would result in a rule interpreting the scope of the National Firearms Act. The issue is whether the ATF has the statutory authority, consistent with the language in the NFA, to ban a "part" such as a bump stock. The ATF has taken the position that it lacks that authority with respect to those devices typically referred to as bump stocks. It will be interesting to see if they reverse their position, whether that reversal is challenged and court, and which side prevails.

This 2013 letter sets out the ATF's previous position on the question. https://perlmutter.house.gov/uploadedfiles/atf_response_04.16.13.pdf

[AtheistCrusader]

17. There's an earlier 2010 letter.

But essentially yes.

I think the BATFE can reverse the finding, and no one can do a damn thing about it.

[onenote]

18. Actually, if they reverse their decision, it can be challenged in court

and a court would have to decide whether the agency's interpretation is reasonable based on the language of the statute and its legislative history and whether the agency provided adequate reasons for reversing its prior interpretation.

Without an order in front of us explaining the agency's rationale for interpreting the statute to cover bump stocks and giving reasons for the reversal of its previous statements, it's hard to assess how a court might act. I could easily see a court rejecting the new interpretation and basically saying that it's up to Congress to change the law.

[AtheistCrusader]

16. It actually CAN be done without legislation. They were 'unknown' until 2010,

when the manufacturer applied for a BATFE opinion on whether they were legal. The AFT said 'legal'.

They can change their minds.

[sakabatou]

19. This was asked for after Sandy Hook, if not before

and only NOW does he call for it?!