Bumpfire stock ban compromise.

[TruthTellers]

With SHARE act basically dead in its current state and Ole Di-Fi introducing a bumpfire stock ban bill, which the NRA seems to be supporting, what will it take to get it through to the Republicans in Congress and the NRA that they need to work out a deal along the lines of "Suppressors for Bumpfires" and remove suppressors from the NFA and replace them with Bumpfire stocks?

Does this not seem like a reasonable compromise and a common sense gun reform?

If Republicans just bend over for a bumpfire ban without trying to get some victory out of this by getting suppressors removed, then they may as well keep bending and kiss their seats goodbye.

Who is with me?

[JoeSixpack]

How long have you been into guns or following politics?

What ever pipe dream getting suppressors removed was to start with is dead..
The anti's won't make a deal like that anyway.

If bump stocks get regulated/banned it will be that soley.. we will get nothing in return and to believe otherwise is just a fantasy.

Typically if you look at gun control bills in the past there are no trade offs, no tit for tat.

And just be to clear even if they did make that deal they're playing with the houses money.. just giving us something they already took from us.

It's not like you can feed the beast and it goes away.. It's stomach does not get full.

Here let me share with you the nature of the beast just so everyone thinking you're going to make a deal with these people can see what we're dealing with.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffI-tWh37UY
Hopefully everyones illusions have been dispelled now.

[tobnpr]

The problem is the damn timing. Guaranteed, no one but "us" knew anything about the suppressor bill until [Hillary Clinton] screamed it. Not at all relevant to the tragedy- but she damn well wanted to call attention to it.

There were a lot of other very useful firearms related items in the current bill- including imports, including preventing the XM855 fiasco again via ammo classification, and others.

I hope they'll simp!y pull the suppressor part and move forward with the rest instead of shelving it all.

[TruthTellers]

tobnpr, you know the Republicans won't do that. The only way to send them a message is say, "You vote for this or that, I don't vote for you."

That's pretty simple and gun people who live in states who vote third party takes votes away from their incumbent reps and they stand a greater chance of losing.

At this point, if the party in control of both houses and the Executive branch will freely give away a gun control measure without getting something out of it, like they were about to with SHARE, then there's no reason to vote for that party or give money and listen to the NRA.

Wayne Lapierre should be on the phone with the leaders in the House/Senate and members of the Freedom Caucus telling them exactly what I'm saying, "Make a trade off."

Change the argument: because suppressors weren't used in the Vegas shooting, it shows they are not a dangerous device. A bumpfire stock... hey, if the Anti's and a majority of America want them banned, they gotta compromise.

If the 2nd Amendment is going to have a future, we can't win by always playing defensively.

[TDL]

If bump stocks get regulated/banned it will be that soley.. we will get nothing in return and to believe otherwise is just a fantasy.

Joe, maybe maybe not. The point is going for something tangible in return is not irrational, even it is not gotten, it serves to highlight that the gun control lobby defines "compromise" as a one way street -- they get something and give nothing.

The problem with the establishment Repubs is that they're still delusional thinking they can get the MSM to play fair.

without getting to political, let me offer an observation on long term tends in gun control lobbying: There are a at least half a dozen acute issues that get driven by immediacy, with high levels public and legislative of public support, were we consistently see support drop over mid and long term (look at tends on support for assault rifle bans, hand gun bans). These can go up to 80% but over the period of education and reflection support drops.

It is virtually always in the gun control lobby's favor to strike while the iron is hot, push's the narrative of "now is the time not to delay".

[TruthTellers]

It is virtually always in the gun control lobby's favor to strike while the iron is hot, push's the narrative of "now is the time not to delay".

Yeah, never let a good crisis go to waste.

But the fact of the matter is this is not a crisis. This is the first shooting in 6 years since the bumpfire stocks were okay'd by the ATF. That does not denote a crisis and when Trump or his press people say to the clucking hens called the MSM that "now isn't the time to discuss gun control..." it's the correct response.

You give it two months, cooler heads prevail and everyone realizes that there are valid points to things like deregulating suppressors, SBR's, and/or SBS while there are reasons to put bumpfire stocks in the Class 3 category.

When tempers have cooled, when time has passed, that's when people see the gun control lobby for who they are: people who don't have reasonable solutions and are playing to their radical base.

So, my point is that those who support or claim to support the 2nd amendment, but in a time immediately after a mass shooting like this fail to support it, they've failed the Litmus test.

[Joe_Pike]

Didn't gun owners have to compromise in '34, '68 and '86?

[edteach]

There is already a file on line to 3d print the things. You can easily make one and you can even use your finger. Its BS and the NRA caving is really making people dump the NRA

[Gary L. Griffiths]

Here's another thought: How about we support a bill that will ban bump-fire stocks and also repeal the 1986 Hughes Amendment that prohibits possession of post-1986 machine guns. Full auto weapons would again become available, under the auspices of the 1934 National Firearms Act.

In the future, we can work on reducing some of the more odious aspects of the NFA, but the immediate effect would be to make legitimate full-auto guns much more affordable. I don't see a downside, other than fully automatic weapons will be somewhat more expensive than buying a $100 plastic stock for your AR or AK.

[raimius]

If by "compromise" you mean only lose some things but not everything, yes.
FOPA might be the exception, but that was more a last minute poison-pill/stick it to the man.

[TruthTellers]

Gary, I don't think we 2A people will ever be able to win over a majority of the country or Congress on changing the laws surrounding automatic weapons and machine guns. That ship has sailed. It'd be nice to get the Hughes amendment rectified, but that will be a tough sell to what has become more and more obvious a feckless Republican Party that only shows how strong it is when it's the minority party.

What you can sell to people on the street and change their opinion on is suppressors, SBR's and SBS by simply saying, "How are these more dangerous than what's already legal to own?"

A suppressor can't do a damn thing unless it's attached to a gun and what's the point of adding 6 inches of length to a pistol? Gangbangers aren't going to be toting around suppressors in their already baggy jeans. Suppressors on a rifle will still sound as loud as Hilary Clinton in front of a mic.

SBR's and SBS are the same thing as a rifle or shotgun, just a little shorter. Nothing about them is more dangerous than your standard AR-15 or Mossberg Shockwave.

Those are areas where people will say, "Yeah, there's no reason for them to be regulated as strictly as they are. Suppressors have legit use as a hunting accessory or to protect hearing. Short barrel shotguns have a legit home defense use, and SBR's are no different than a standard rifle."

Those are where we win hearts and minds, not acting like a dolt clinging to our machine guns and bump stocks.

[Nathan]

How about bump fire for post '86 ban. That seems fair. Forget logic and reason for a second.

Basically, to some, Bumpfire stocks are unregistered machine guns just slipping under the nose of the ATF. The reason for that is people want to buy new machine guns. So Bumpfire stocks get banned and post '86 machine guns are sold but registered and taxed as NFA which has been highly effective at eliminating registered machine gun use in crime.

You know who would be against this? Not the anti's. They could buy in. The rich power brokers in the NRA would loose $100's of thousands of value from their NFA collections. $20000 M16's would go for $1000....still, this is the right thing to do for America. It will protect us from other NFA circumvention too.

Maybe add an express lane to NFA applications as an add on!

[carguychris]

Originally Posted by TruthTellers

...I don't think we 2A people will ever be able to win over a majority of the country or Congress on changing the laws surrounding automatic weapons and machine guns. That ship has sailed. It'd be nice to get the Hughes amendment rectified, but that will be a tough sell...

Originally Posted by Nathan

How about bump fire for post '86 ban. That seems fair.

IMHO the chances of the Hughes Amendment being repealed within the forseeable future recalls the title of that 1980s Robert Downey Jr. movie—"Less Than Zero." IMHO machine guns are the third rail of American gun politics and we are lucky to be able to possess an operating one AT ALL.

The possible negative consequences of letting anti-gun legislators monkey with the NFA far outweigh the possible upsides. Furthermore, IMHO HRC's recent statements opposing the Hearing Protection Act are intended to cut this idea off at the knees; they're a warning to Democrats NOT to consider any sort of legislative horse-trading that involves silencer deregulation. I suspect that any serious proposal to deregulate machine guns will prompt an even stronger reaction.

[44 AMP]

everyone realizes that there are valid points to things like deregulating suppressors, SBR's, and/or SBS while there are reasons to put bumpfire stocks in the Class 3 category.

Except that (for many/most people) there aren't any valid reasons for those things.

Deregulate Silencers??? What on earth for? So you can commit murder (or mass murder) without anyone hearing the shots?? No WAY!!

Oh, so you can protect the shooter's hearing?? "blank" off!!! WEAR EARPLUGS!!!

Expect that kind of response from anyone who isn't already on our side.

SBRs and SBS's?? Call then what the public knows them as, "sawed off" shotguns (and rifles).

Forget "deregulation", that ain't happening. They're "too easy to conceal". You MIGHT be able to make the case that they should be treated like handguns, but you have 80+ years of precedent to overcome...

Remember what the public knows about these things (and believes to be true) is what they have been seeing in movies and on TV for decades. NOT what reality actually is!!

As for adding bump fire stocks to the class 3 list, I see no valid reason for that, either. I don't feel the outrage being whipped up at them because they were "designed to evade the law". This is America, evading laws is a time honored tradition. Evading, not breaking...

They were evaluated by the government, and found to be LEGAL under existing law. Are you suggesting our government (particularly the Obama administration) made a MISTAKE???

If you think they belong in the class 3 category, then CHANGE THE LAW. Not the ATF's opinion which is as changeable as the weather, depending on the administration in power.

ATF says the M16 auto sear is a machine gun. Just that one part, all by itself, without it being in a gun, is a machine gun, according the them, and you will face all legal penalties for having an unregistered one, even if you don't have any gun it fits, at all!!!!

ATF said stocked pistols were illegal, then they said they weren't, then they said they were, unless the stock was original, not a reproduction. (and that's a slick trick, proving its original, as the original stocks were not marked with serial #s, dates of mfg, or indeed, most had no markings at all. So other than it looking like it was made 50- 80 some years ago there IS no proof!)

People are ranting about how some people are "exploiting loopholes" in the law. They are trying hard to make it sound like someone who "exploits a loophole" is doing something wrong. Got news for you, if you are exploiting a loophole, YOU ARE OBEYING THE LAW!!!!

If they're not happy with people obeying the law, the people they should be yelling at are the people who wrote the law, in the first place!!

If they had written a "better" law, there wouldn't be loopholes....
(of course, that "better" law might not have been able to be passed, but that's the chance you take...)

[2damnold4this]

With SHARE act basically dead in its current state and Ole Di-Fi introducing a bumpfire stock ban bill, which the NRA seems to be supporting, what will it take to get it through to the Republicans in Congress and the NRA that they need to work out a deal along the lines of "Suppressors for Bumpfires" and remove suppressors from the NFA and replace them with Bumpfire stocks?

Does this not seem like a reasonable compromise and a common sense gun reform?

If Republicans just bend over for a bumpfire ban without trying to get some victory out of this by getting suppressors removed, then they may as well keep bending and kiss their seats goodbye.

Who is with me?

Count me in. I see no reason to give up bump stocks without at least trying to get something in return.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

If Congress tries to write a law restricting bumpstocks, we will absolutely be hosed by vague language that slips through the bill. Feinstein will do it intentionally because she already knows if her opposition is scared enough to take up gun control despite the NRA, they aren't going to suddenly develop a spine when she starts screaming that Senator So and So's desire to precisely define some semantic issue is murdering babies!

That was the thinking behind the NRA's hare-brained statement to let the ATF evaluate it. To keep it away from Congress since so many Congressmen seem to think they can just ban this gimmicky toy nobody cares about, score some quick points and sing kumbaya.

[SonOfScubaDiver]

I wouldn't count on much negotiation on this bump stock ban. I've heard nothing, even from lawmakers on the right, about negotiating a tit for tat deal. All I've heard is talk of banning them.

I know it's a bit off topic, but I'm hoping that this agreement on the banning of bump stocks opens the door for agreements on other issues. You speak of making trades. Well, maybe something could be worked out where national reciprocity becomes law in exchange for not allowing people on terrorist watch lists to purchase guns. That seems like a reasonable "everyone gets something" type of compromise to me.

[Prndll]

Some rich idiot does something bad that gets everyone's attention

Leeds to

Clinton/Di Fi (for lack of anything more intelligent to say) points the finger of blame at the NRA

Leeds to

NRA says no we didn't do anything, we are not responsible

Leeds to

Pressure builds as people need someone to blame as answers about the shooter are scarce

Leeds to

NRA says fine, we will support your efforts to make these accessories illegal as we don't really like them all that much anyway.....just quit blaming us for it

Leeds to


Ultimately, the only compromise is the NRA saves face in exchange for their support on this

[imp]

Bartholomew Roberts nailed it.

I don't own a bump stock nor do I care to. However, any piece of legislation aimed at banning it will almost certainly contain language that will put many other items in jeopardy. Short reset triggers, binary triggers, even lightweight competition triggers, collapsible stocks, rubber bands...who knows...

As to getting something positive, it's a pipe dream. Never underestimate the weakness of republicans. They lose when they have all the cards, and they certainly won't even fight when the left uses this tragedy to club law abiding gun owners.

The best outcome we can hope for, is to maintain the status quo.

[carguychris]

Originally Posted by 2damnold4this

I see no reason to give up bump stocks without at least trying to get something in return.

Assuming for the sake of argument that we decide to do some NFA horse-trading—which I still believe is a bad idea—there is ONE possible item that I believe is both politically attainable AND a benefit for gun owners (although the chances are remote).

An increase in ATF funding to process tax stamps faster.

That said, opponents bound to scoff at the idea on the basis that it's not "revenue neutral," and that GOP legislators are being hypocrites by not simultaneously proposing to offset the cost by raising the tax stamp fee to something "reasonable," like, say, $5,000.

Like I said, remote.

NO Dem is going to vote for legislation loosening restrictions on "rapid-fire mass-murder weapons" (machine guns and now bump stocks), "silencers to facilitate mass murder" (suppressors), or "sawed-off shotguns" (SBS/SBRs). The current Senate majority is too slender to overcome this obstacle. Not. Gonna. Happen.

[5whiskey]

You speak of making trades. Well, maybe something could be worked out where national reciprocity becomes law in exchange for not allowing people on terrorist watch lists to purchase guns. That seems like a reasonable "everyone gets something" type of compromise to me.

Republican Senator John Cornyn proposed a bill that would bar a terror watchlist suspect for 3 days while the Government sought an order from a court blocking the sale. If, after 3 days, the Government had not obtained said order then the sell would continue. This measure was proposed 12/03/2015, 6 months before the shooting at Pulse nightclub. Because Senator Cornyn's bill contained due process, even most pro-2A groups were okay with it. Nancy Pelosi & company said "clever lawyers could easily delay court action for 72 hours, rendering Cornyn’s proposal toothless." Because two constitutional rights (RKBA and Due Process) are trivial matters and should be disregarded out of convenience to "do something, anything, right now" to gun control groups.

Fienstein later introduced a bill that had no due process, just simply if you were on the terror watch list you were barred from purchasing a gun. That failed because of the lack of due process. But Fienstein and company don't want due process, so we couldn't even agree on that. Having a constitutional right (2A) blocked because some government agent put your name on a secret list without your knowledge, with no due process redress available to you, is hardly reasonable. False positives on the no-fly and terror watch list is a very real issue. Senators, Marines returning home from Iraq, small children, and EVEN FEDERAL AIR MARSHALS ASSIGNED TO PROTECT THE FLIGHT have been been flagged on the no-fly or terror watch list.

[5whiskey]

Now that we're back on that topic and that I think about it, Senator Cornyn's terror watch list bill is proof that you CAN NOT compromise with the anti-gun lobby. His proposal was the very definition of reasonable compromise and it was shot down because of Pelosi, Feinstein, & Co. Any type of gun regulation for the terror watch list has yet to be addressed because we couldn't even come to terms with the means with which it can be done.

[Al Norris]

The thread, NRA is calling ATF to review the bump stock!!, beat this thread by about an hour and is the proper place to talk about the NRA's role in this debacle.

This thread, Feinstein's Bumpfire Ban Bill, should be used to discuss the current introduced/pending legislation.

There is absolutely no need to have 3 threads all discussing the same basic thing. Pick a thread. But not this one.

Closed.