Feinstein's Bumpfire Ban Bill

[2damnold4this]

I'm have no problem with taking "bump fire" off the general market.

I don't give a toot about bumpfire stocks but I'm not going to give them up unless the gun community gets something substantial in return. I'm ok with bumpfire going on the NFA as an AOW if suppressors come off the NFA, for example.

[Slamfire]

I think it is more than probable that the bump fire stocks will be banned or regulated like fully automatic parts.

I have watched guys using bump fire 223's at the range, and they could not keep all their shots on a 30 foot high berm at 50 yards. I was not impressed.

[JoeSixpack]

Originally Posted by Stroge

The guy was a millionaire for christ sake, clearly would have had the means to make his own.

No need as you said he was a millionaire.. Been a while since I priced any full auto's but Last I checked registered lightening link ran about 15k

Sure there is paper work but he had a clean background.. so that wouldn't have been an barrier.

He would have had an even higher rate of fire I think the news said they clocked him somewhere around 600rpm, I think a full auto ar15 will run 8 or 900 iirc.


Hell even if you confiscated every gun in the MG registry this guy had the resources he could have setup a sham FFL and gotten new product weapons at a fraction of the cost of the registry..

This guy was so abnormal for a mass shooter.. there is nothing on the gun control side that could have altered this exact plan and execution.. PERIOD.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Originally Posted by zipspyder

If there is no give or take from both sides then more than likely when something changes (and it will eventually) it may be way more drastic than compromising earlier.

You seem to be of the belief that if you compromise now, there won't be a drastic compromise down the road when "something changes" as you put it. What is your historic basis for that belief? Every single piece of gun control legislation ever passed is always declared "a good first step" as if the 20,000 previous steps had never happened. You are compromising on how far you'll voluntarily wade into the ocean with someone who intends to drown you in it.

[44 AMP]

I'm an avid hunter and firearm advocate and don't have a problem with this. We have to draw the line somewhere.

We have to draw the line somewhere.

We have to draw the line somewhere.

We DID draw the line "somewhere". We drew it millennia ago, when, we decided that MURDER is a CRIME!!!!!

Let me repeat that,

MURDER IS A CRIME!!!

Let me be clear, I don't own a "bump stock" (and since it is a bump FIRE stock, doesn't "bump stock" sound stupid??)

I have no interest in owning one. I do not, however, think that some one who's only moral claim to legal authority was getting elected (winning a popularity contest) has the right to decide what people should and should not be ALLOWED to OWN.

I'm fine with laws regulating what you DO with what you own, and we have had that covered since the first written laws.

DO note, not one word has come from our legislators about increasing the penalty for committing murder...or for a penalty for committing suicide to avoid prosecution.... (not that those would do any good, either) no, lets make a law that targets people who have not committed any crime, so we can say to our supporters that we "did something".

Might it be that even those elected to Congress realize that while a law might discourage the casual, they do not stop the determined?

And yet, they will gladly pass law upon law, CLAIMING to cure the problem, while all the while knowing that they won't. They don't seem to care that the law they want ONLY affects people who haven't broken any other laws. They don't seem to care that the law will NOT do what they publically claim.

Why not increase the penalty for murder?? It will be just as effective, and won't bother anyone who hasn't committed, and isn't planning on committing murder. And lets include suicide as well (self murder), lets add an extra penalty, like, ...not allowing them to be buried in hallowed ground? Oh, wait, that's been done....

SO, to be seen as doing something, they propose to PUNISH people who have done no wrong, because the people who did wrong are beyond their reach.

That's fair, isn't it??

isn't it??

Not in my book.

[Metal god]

It’s actually called a slide fire stock which is pretty accurate . The news and others have using the term because it operates in the similarly as bump firing a firearm .

[Snuffy308]

Nothing proposed would have stopped this guy. He was wealthy. He could have legally bought numerous machine guns if he so desired. A law against slide fire stocks would not have hindered him in any way. He had a pilot's license and a couple of airplanes. Think of the carnage he could have inflicted if he kamikazied into that crowd in an airplane filled with a fertilizer bomb. We must stop passing laws just so we can say we did something to feel good about ourselves.

[zincwarrior]

Add the Hearing Protection Act and CHL reciprocity and call it done.

[Snuffy308]

Originally Posted by Bartholomew Roberts

If they were really concerned about the proliferation of bumpstocks, open up the registry. That would kill off bumpstocks quickly and they'd have every single replacement registered.

Everybody that's so willing to compromise. There's your compromise

[JoeSixpack]

Originally Posted by Snuffy308

He had a pilot's license and a couple of airplanes. Think of the carnage he could have inflicted if he kamikazied into that crowd in an airplane filled with a fertilizer bomb.

OMG could you even imagine? as tightly clustered as they was? Isn't the airport RIGHT there?.. what the crash didn't get the splashing burning fuel would have burnt alive.. Horrific.

I'd rather be shot than burnt alive.

Everybody that's so willing to compromise. There's your compromise

I'd be willing to register everything, including ammo sales if all the restrictions was lifted.. no anti will take you up on that deal.

[JohnKSa]

This bill has been around in one form or another for years. It's not a good idea. If it had been a good idea it would have passed long ago.

A recent tragedy doesn't alter common sense or redefine logic.

The fact that a stupid idea sounds better after a tragedy doesn't mean it's suddenly "unstupid". It just means that people have a hard time thinking clearly when they're hurting. The dedicated antis understand that principle and never miss a chance to try to exploit it.

[Prof Young]

Lotta issues here. Part of it is that those proposing to ban bump fire stocks don't understand how easy it would be to make one, nor that you don't need the stock to bump fire.

A second issue is the ambiguity of the language. Those above are correct. It could be interpreted that a trigger job increases the rate of fire.

Third and probably most important, there is a line in the sand where "gun control" starts and ends. The more that line moves toward the restrictive side, the less freedom we have. In other words, although banning bump stocks may not seem so bad, it moves the restrictions closer to banning semi auto all together.

Now, while it is unlikely . . . think about this. Suppose they do outlaw bump stocks and grandfather in the already existing bump stocks. That makes those bump stocks already owned worth a boat load of $$$$ ten years down the road. Unlikely and ridiculous . . . but stranger things have happened.

[dahermit]

I'm have no problem with taking "bump fire" off the general market.

So, you think the Second Amendment is about arms that "suitable for sporting purposes"?

[Psychedelic Bang]

I am not sure if my post is a violation of the TOS. If so, plz delete.. send me a pm if you need to.

I'm going to try and word this very carefully. This is a highly complex situation.

It seems like the shooter, may have also wanted to ban bump stocks. To make that inference, plz read this article that I stumbled upon today: https://www.thenewamerican.com/cultu...ce-gun-control

I do not believe gun control is the answer. I believe mental illness medical care - possibly anti-terrorism measures are the answer. I do not believe terrorism can be ruled out.

I myself have been terribly depressed all week. My heart breaks for the victims of the Las Vegas tragedy.

[SonOfScubaDiver]

Personally, I don't feel the need to support any and all gun accessories and products just for the sake of supporting all things gun related. Prior to this shooting, I knew nothing about slide fire/bump stocks. Now that I've had the chance to research them, I see no reason why they should be legal. Their whole purpose is to circumvent the restrictions on fully automatic weapons. I think they should be banned.

[raimius]

Metalgod, the Supreme Court has never ruled on full-auto firearms. The closest they have come was the Miller case about a short barrelled shotguns. The government won by default, because the defense did not present an argument (defendant vanished).

SonOfScubaDiver, are you arguing that because people don't need something, the government should ban it?...seems like a faulty line of thinking to me.

[SonOfScubaDiver]

Raimius, I thought I made myself clear when I said that the purpose of bump stocks is to get around the restrictions on automatic weapons. It's one thing to support the changing of restrictive laws, which I do depending on the issue. It's another entirely to devise devices to defeat the purpose of existing laws, something as a responsible gun owner I do not support. You and others may look at it differently, which you're entitled to do.

[Metal god]

Maybe you raimius or one of the other lawyers can chime in here . If the NFA or other fully auto restrictions have never been heard at the SCOTUS . I ask why ? I find it hard to believe nobody has challenged those laws yet or has the high court just chose not to grant cert any time they've come up ?

It's another entirely to devise devices to defeat the purpose of existing laws,

I'm conflicted as to if I agree or not . Here in CA we adopted the bullet button which is a device that turns your detachable magazine into a fixed magazine that needs a tool in order to release the mag . That tool can be anything pointy and a bullet is often used and where it got it's name .

The bullet button was solely invented to get around CA AW laws that banned guns with detachable magazines that also had any one of the following , pistol grip , flash hider , forward grip and a couple other things I believe . How ever once you put a bullet button on your rifle it was considered a long gun with a "fixed" magazine allowing you to have all those other goodies on your rifle .

I did not support the banning of those cosmetic feature and was more then happy to support the bullet button work around and was happy to have them on all my rifles .

There in lies my conflict . I had no problem with circumventing that law but don't really support the circumventing of the full auto law . Although as I explained in an earlier post . The slide fire stock does not actually circumventing the NFA because the shooter and only the shooter controls the rate of fire . That actually legally makes it no different then pulling the trigger as fast or slow as you can . The shooter is the only thing manipulating the rifle and it's rate of fire .

I don't know , as I stated I'm a little conflicted on this issue and writing about has helped me work out my thoughts a bit but it may take me a little while longer to fully come to a conclusion as to where my heart really is on this .

[Snuffy308]

How come we are not seeing brand new members on the pro 2a side of this debate. Just call me suspicious. And don't think for a minute this is not a 2a debate. Flash headline: It ain't about hunting; it ain't about personal protection. I think we all know what the writers of the Constitution had in mind when they crafted the 2nd amendment. This country was born in bloody revolution not that long ago. Know your history. How we got to where we are today was not cheap. Know your birthright. A lot of good people paid that bill in full for all of us to do what we do and say what we say.

[jnichols2]

I'm not in favor of slide fire stocks. But I'm not ready to willingly give up any further ground.

I would; however, be very tempted to trade slide fire stocks for the Hearing Protection Act and CHL reciprocity.

But, Ms Feinstein would have to reword her bill to make it applicible to slide fire stocks only.

I think that trade would take us from "holding the line" to "pushing them back".

[TDL]

If the bill needs to be written to be more specific to satisfy some of you so be it. I see the usual not one ounce of give and take.

Apparently some line has already been drawn? What line would that be by the way?

No solutions given just don't take out crap away. Nobody said anything about not trying other avenues such as stricter vetting process or more help towards mental health screening but that's not what this thread is about is it.

Gosh forbid they take away your bump stocks. We all know there will be loopholes for people to use anyway but maybe that will satisfy the political morons.

If there is no give or take from both sides then more than likely when something changes (and it will eventually) it may be way more drastic than compromising earlier. And don't give me that 2nd amendment stuff unless you can show be where it's written though shall have a right to bump stocks.

I'm sure this will trigger some of you.

I don't see anyone "triggered at all.

would it not make more sense to outlaw hunting, shotguns or both, which are the source of a lot more gun violence, orders of magnitude more, than bump fire stocks?

If we "have to start somewhere" why would we not look at the higher overall killing machines like shotguns?

Since most murder, 85% to 95% in all the studies, involves prior criminals, and we need to "start somewhere" what loppholes would you suggest we start looking at, to reasonably compromise? Mirada, warrants, stop and frisk, double jeopardy, etc, which of those need new limits?

Give and take would be helpful. Perhaps no juries for second offence? How about no right to remain silent? that might be a good give and take?

Seriously, you are implying anyone resisting this is somehow extreme. do you feel the ACLU is extreme for not wanting to reduce rights when a crime occurs?

Are you forgetting that every single gun control "group" -- every one -- opposed all the way to the supreme court, any right for you to keep an handgun at home even if it was just a revolver, you had zero criminal history, zero mental issues, were extensively trained, and would be keeping it in a safe?

the problem with portraying slippery slope as a fallacy, is that we know from facts that slippery slope is a strategy.

Someone with a bumpfire stock killed 50 people, let's say some 20 to 25 because it was bumpfire instead of semi auto. Once you are on that track, then mag fed semi auto prohibition makes sense, and any semi auto prohibition makes sense, handgun prohibitions make sense, prove a need to own makes sense -- they all lower lethality potential and reality.


And if we are on the logic of "common sense compromises" where is the other side of the compromises? Why would Feinstien not show she actually means compromise by including support for national reciprocity, national ban on "good cause" requirements, or a say a new law that forbids prohibition of on semi auto firearms that are not bumpfire?

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by Metal god

Maybe you raimius or one of the other lawyers can chime in here . If the NFA or other fully auto restrictions have never been heard at the SCOTUS .

If memory serves, the NFA was challenged in Miller.

[Prndll]

I wont pretend to know or understand what was going through the mind of this lunatic. I do know that there is nothing about this event, this man, or the guns he used that would have changed with a ban on bumpstocks. That was just a convenient accessory. Placing these kinds of bans on things does nothing to actually solve anything. There is no way it can as it shifts the focus away from the real issues. People have been killing people since Cain and Abel. Sometimes en mass. Even if you took away every gun out there, that wont change. Lunatics will find a way. The genie us out of the bottle and the cats out of the bag. Too many people in this world understand explosives and firearms and firearms design. People will build and deploy these machines. No law will ever change that. It is not possible. What is much more likely is that any prohibition on lesser items (like bump stocks) will just result in a greater motivation towards more lethal and more powerful ways of killing. This really should be so completely obvious.

Deal with the lunatic. THAT is where the problem is. NOT his tools.

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by jnichols2

I would; however, be very tempted to trade slide fire stocks for the Hearing Protection Act and CHL reciprocity.

You can't really trade with someone who will try to take back what he just "traded" to you. The only question is how much he can get and when he can get it. A good faith negotiation and a fight are qualitatively different things.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Originally Posted by zukiphile

You can't really trade with someone who will try to take back what he just "traded" to you. The only question is how much he can get and when he can get it. A good faith negotiation and a fight are qualitatively different things.

And that sums up the problem nicely. I'd be more than willing to throw away a gimmicky toy that isn't even necessary to perform said gimmick to get real advances in the Second Amendment. If the antis are hungry enough to make a bad deal, I'd sure help them.

But this isn't a negotiation, it is a fight. Look at the 1986 FOPA - the state of New York has been interpreting that language to arrest firearm owners who declared their firearms to TSA and were attempting to comply with the law. How can they do this despite FOPA? They take advantage of vagueness in the original law, which apparently did not foresee such hatred for legal gun ownership, and courts in New York have mostly upheld that interpretation.

Without even legislation or discussion, they are taking back their previous "compromise" but the registry is still closed to new machineguns for us. So not only are they taking back what they offered, they are keeping what they took.

If they are going to interpret FOPA that way, I certainly have no problem with the Obama-era ATF that tried to ban M855 on specious reasoning deciding that slidefire stocks are perfectly legal. Right back at ya.

And for that matter, no compromise is being offered. Instead, they just want us to roll over and accept super-vague language that would put ownership of any semi-automatic weapon entirely at the whim of ATF without future Congressional input. Thankfully, that isn't going to happen under this Congress.