The Firing Line Forums - View Single Post - Trump administration to announce final bump stock ban

**44 AMP** · November 29, 2018, 05:03 PM

I look at it a bit differently. Its not the "semiautomatic" part that bothers me, its "initiate a continuous firing cycle".

Now, just what the hell is that???

It seems to ignore the simple and obvious fact that the trigger is pulled EACH time, for each shot.

The chief defining factor in the legal definition of an automatic weapon is being able to fire more than one shot with a single trigger pull/operation.
Bump fire DOES NOT DO THAT! The trigger is pulled for each and every shot.

There are two cases I have heard of (though I cannot cite them, and they may just be urban legend, but the logic still holds, even if they are...) involving home made Tommy guns. The first was a guy who made a perfect replica Tommy Gun, all the parts including the chambered and rifled barrel were made of wood. Only the springs were metal.

Charges brought, illegal full auto firearm...
Defense was simply the legal definition, being able to fire more than one round with a single trigger pull. Case dismissed, as a wooden gun will not survive firing the first round, and so cannot fire MORE than one round for a single pull of the trigger.

Second case was a genius modeler. Made a Tommy Gun, wood and metal, perfect scale replica of the original, the entire gun was about 4 inches long.

Again, (and against all reason it seems) charges were brought, but dismissed, because the gun could not fire more than one round, no ammo small enough exists!

Re-classifying a semi auto into a full auto "that initiates with a single trigger pull" is just wrong. Seems like re-classifying a car into boat because both initiate by turning an ignition key or pushing button...

Much as I hate to give the Obama administration credit for anything, their ATF got it right when they said bump fire stocks were not regulated under existing NFA law.

The "right" way to do it, if it must be done, is for CONGRESS to write a specific law (or specific change to existing law) and get it passed through the normal legislative process.

Banning them through a regulatory definition change is the WRONG way to do it. It's actually bad government.

And, don't we have more than enough of that, already??

November 29, 2018, 05:03 PM	#12
44 AMP Staff Join Date: March 11, 2006 Location: Upper US Posts: 28,833	I look at it a bit differently. Its not the "semiautomatic" part that bothers me, its "initiate a continuous firing cycle". Now, just what the hell is that??? It seems to ignore the simple and obvious fact that the trigger is pulled EACH time, for each shot. The chief defining factor in the legal definition of an automatic weapon is being able to fire more than one shot with a single trigger pull/operation. Bump fire DOES NOT DO THAT! The trigger is pulled for each and every shot. There are two cases I have heard of (though I cannot cite them, and they may just be urban legend, but the logic still holds, even if they are...) involving home made Tommy guns. The first was a guy who made a perfect replica Tommy Gun, all the parts including the chambered and rifled barrel were made of wood. Only the springs were metal. Charges brought, illegal full auto firearm... Defense was simply the legal definition, being able to fire more than one round with a single trigger pull. Case dismissed, as a wooden gun will not survive firing the first round, and so cannot fire MORE than one round for a single pull of the trigger. Second case was a genius modeler. Made a Tommy Gun, wood and metal, perfect scale replica of the original, the entire gun was about 4 inches long. Again, (and against all reason it seems) charges were brought, but dismissed, because the gun could not fire more than one round, no ammo small enough exists! Re-classifying a semi auto into a full auto "that initiates with a single trigger pull" is just wrong. Seems like re-classifying a car into boat because both initiate by turning an ignition key or pushing button... Much as I hate to give the Obama administration credit for anything, their ATF got it right when they said bump fire stocks were not regulated under existing NFA law. The "right" way to do it, if it must be done, is for CONGRESS to write a specific law (or specific change to existing law) and get it passed through the normal legislative process. Banning them through a regulatory definition change is the WRONG way to do it. It's actually bad government. And, don't we have more than enough of that, already?? __________________ All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.