JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
From 1908 to 1934ish, the Bureau of Investigation/ FBI were rather limited on gun carry by agents; yes, they could own and carry purely for defensive purposes snd on their dime and abided by same State restrictions as private citizens, and agents couldn't make formal arrests other than "citizens arrests".. they had to get either local LEOs or US Marshals.

I don't mind pulling back some of the Fed powers of the FBI as well as completely doing away with the BATFE... but that'd also require IMHO, complete repeal and prohibition of laws like NFA, GCA, Hughes Amendment, and the now gone AWB...
 
conveniently introduced into a time when it wont pass under any circumstances. Right out of the scumbag politician playbook. Introduce a bill that appeals to constituents even though the politician has no desire to actually pass it so they can say that they did a good job at the time of re-election.
 
conveniently introduced into a time when it wont pass under any circumstances. Right out of the scumbag politician playbook. Introduce a bill that appeals to constituents even though the politician has no desire to actually pass it so they can say that they did a good job at the time of re-election.
Introduced by a Freshman representative only five months into their first term? A member of the House only gets two years; when should she have waited to bring up this legislation?

The alternative is…she does nothing?
 
I like the idea of one less bloated bureaucratic agency. But, once again talk is cheap. One side had 4 years and the ability to pass similar bills, national reciprocity, hearing protection act, and more that would have been a shot in the arm for constitutional rights... but they sat on their thumbs. Yet the other side, only 6-months into this administration, has coordinated numerous and significant assaults on the constitution. The Re-publicans need to drop the "re" from their re-actionary politics and act for a change. But, they won't because they are playing the role of the opposition party on the flip side of the same corrupt DS coin.
 
I say give the Explosives part over to the FBI, and completely dissolve the Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms parts, never to be seen again! All they are is another illegal Tax collector who only regulate things to allow for more taxes to be levied, and to control free commerce of lawful products! It's like having the IRS in charge of Water!
I hate the atf they busted me as a youth
What I'm saying is like getting rid of an evil dictator the next will be worst just saying. Fight these bastards in the courts. If I thought getting rid of them and nothing replacing them was an option I'm 1000% on that but that's not how democrats and Republicans work
 
I like the idea of one less bloated bureaucratic agency. But, once again talk is cheap. One side had 4 years and the ability to pass similar bills, national reciprocity, hearing protection act, and more that would have been a shot in the arm for constitutional rights... but they sat on their thumbs. Yet the other side, only 6-months into this administration, has coordinated numerous and significant assaults on the constitution. The Re-publicans need to drop the "re" from their re-actionary politics and act for a change. But, they won't because they are playing the role of the opposition party on the flip side of the same corrupt DS coin.
Yup but Trump created this blue print with reclassification of bumpfire stocks.
 
Yes, Trump created the ATF blueprint! Lol
Yup but Trump created this blue print with reclassification of bumpfire stocks.
We could probably follow the precedent of improper use of executive orders back a couple administrations earlier. But, yes the bumpfire stock situation was not a good decision. Even then we had too many spineless yet supposedly 2A representatives that sat by and watched.
 
One side had 4 years and the ability to pass similar bills, national reciprocity, hearing protection act, and more that would have been a shot in the arm for constitutional rights.
Just because the 'one side' didn't do anything for gun rights does not mean they were 'against' anything. Maybe the 'one side' didn't didn't see these issues as priorities, or something that required any major consideration. Not all presidents have gun rights first and foremost on their agenda.

'Hearing protection act' ? If I were a prez (and pro gun) I most likely wouldn't approach anything so blatantly obvious as a way to make suppressors legal either - even IF I were proposing other pro gun issues.

Kind of like saying pistol 'braces' are a way to allow 'disabled' people to shoot handguns - yet no one ever uses them as 'braces' and they all look like stocks.

Guns were simply not a priority with Trump and the 'bump stock' issue was a way for him to placate the antis. Kind of a 'lessor of all evils', a tactical retreat.
 
I hate theATF but if we get rid of them. The FBI who has far more power and resources will take over and it will be far worst
Absolute B.S. As the man who pioneered this legislation, I carefully studied how to defund tyranny. The FBI has NO authority to make up regulations to enforce. They are an investigatory body, NOT a regulatory agency.
 
Just because the 'one side' didn't do anything for gun rights does not mean they were 'against' anything. Maybe the 'one side' didn't didn't see these issues as priorities, or something that required any major consideration. Not all presidents have gun rights first and foremost on their agenda.

'Hearing protection act' ? If I were a prez (and pro gun) I most likely wouldn't approach anything so blatantly obvious as a way to make suppressors legal either - even IF I were proposing other pro gun issues.

Kind of like saying pistol 'braces' are a way to allow 'disabled' people to shoot handguns - yet no one ever uses them as 'braces' and they all look like stocks.

Guns were simply not a priority with Trump and the 'bump stock' issue was a way for him to placate the antis. Kind of a 'lessor of all evils', a tactical retreat.
WRONG. I have used a brace before. My elbow was destroyed in an automobile accident. I'd send the ATF the brace back if I had one rather than to pay $200 tax and be treated differently than other gun owners.
 
Hey, she is doing exactly what she said she would. Which to me means she has at this point kept about 95% more of her promises to her constituents...unlike literally the entire rest of her "peers"

will it pass? Hell no, but you gotta slam everything at the wall if you want even one thing to stick in this current political quagmire.
 
Fights against popular items often end up increasing money to the black markets.

Has the government learned it's lesson yet?

Looks like it hasn't...

Or maybe they get a kick back, I'm looking at you Leland Yee! No yee yee in your Leland
 
Hey, she is doing exactly what she said she would. Which to me means she has at this point kept about 95% more of her promises to her constituents...unlike literally the entire rest of her "peers"

will it pass? Hell no, but you gotta slam everything at the wall if you want even one thing to stick in this current political quagmire.
As long as you remain negative and not on board, it will not pass. Go to work with the attitude that we can do.
 
I hate the atf they busted me as a youth
What I'm saying is like getting rid of an evil dictator the next will be worst just saying. Fight these bastards in the courts. If I thought getting rid of them and nothing replacing them was an option I'm 1000% on that but that's not how democrats and Republicans work
They would be forced into replacing it with something. Then the legislators would have to be held accountable for what anti- gun laws they put on the books.
 
Just because the 'one side' didn't do anything for gun rights does not mean they were 'against' anything. Maybe the 'one side' didn't didn't see these issues as priorities, or something that required any major consideration. Not all presidents have gun rights first and foremost on their agenda.
Whether a lie of omission or a lie of commission the results are the same.

Campaigning on pro-gun platforms to get pro gun votes then doing nothing pro gun is what many politicians have done for years. When it is time to play their straight flush, they always fold against the bluff of a loud and annoying pair of twos.
Unfortunately, both sides are filled with career swamp creatures who do not want to give up their power so they play their parts. In the case of first and second amendment issues what is apparent is that the antis are much more vocal and proactive than the frustratingly quiet, reactive or inactive pros. The antis approach it with a view of scorched earth, no compromise, destroy and cancel your opposition. The pros approach it with a view of concessions and milktoast, go along to get along, "it doesn't really affect me, maybe I can work around this" compromises that always result in a net loss. And so the bullies keep stealing our lunch money.
Being for 1A or 2A, yet doing nothing when speech or firearms ownership has been methodically censored and infringed by tech, media and bureaucracy, ends up being the same result as being against those same rights: Inaction has resulted in the oppression of rights.
 

Upcoming Events

Tillamook Gun & Knife Show
Tillamook, OR
"The Original" Kalispell Gun Show
Kalispell, MT
Teen Rifle 1 Class
Springfield, OR
Kids Firearm Safety 2 Class
Springfield, OR

New Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top