Feinstein's Bumpfire Ban Bill

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I agree but unfortunately any progress on undoing state bans and breaking the hold on carry in the anti states isn't going to happen. SCOTUS and Congress won't go near those.

[carguychris]

Originally Posted by Prndll

It isn't that the NRA is all that popular or that most people gravitate toward other orgs. It's more that none of the current choices match what the vast majority of the people want or believe in... There is a disconnect between the NRA and the people.

What beliefs or desires do you feel are not being represented by the NRA (or GOA, JPFO, etc.)?

Regarding the 100m gun owners vs. 5m NRA members figure, IMHO this figure in itself does not prove that the NRA is somehow not doing an adequate job. Most people who nominally support particular political viewpoints do not join voluntary organizations to support those viewpoints. For comparison, I bet that if you looked at the number of Americans who identify themselves as nominal supporters of protecting the environment, and compared that number to the membership roll of the Sierra Club, you would find an even larger "gap" than for the NRA. (FWIW the Sierra Club is one of the few non-religious, non-charitable U.S. advocacy organizations with membership numbers that approach the NRA.)

[Stats Shooter]

I agree but unfortunately any progress on undoing state bans and breaking the hold on carry in the anti states isn't going to happen. SCOTUS and Congress won't go near those.

I agree, and its a shame too. Removing the tax on suppressors would not only make them $200 cheaper, but it would likely drop the price on all suppressors as they would become much more main-stream and mass produced...further there would become more options of integrally suppressed pistols and rifles if the tax and NFA status were removed.

But alas, this event may not result in any additional restrictions, but will likely curtail the removal of existing restrictions.

[Prndll]

"Why should they be??"
If gun owners (atleast in general) can't find adequate representation in the NRA then there is no point to the NRA. Why should I give my money to someone that will use it to very publicly side with the Clintons/Fienstien/Pelosie?

"What beliefs or desires do you feel are not being represented by the NRA (or GOA, JPFO, etc.)?"
You can't claim to protect the second and at the same time lend aid and comfort to people that will give the store away.

Cars for freedom? Sounds like cash for clunkers to me.

Show me the public support for Trump (or atleast his stated goals). How about cars for a wall? Show me pushback. There is no give-and-take with these people. They must be defeated. The NRA has the power and plenty of force but just like the rest of the republican party, they are too scared to use it. These games that people play are wasting time and will cost us dearly. I suspect that it's all so engrained for being like this for so long that no one even thinks about it anymore. All anyone cares about is bump-stocks! Without any understanding that it's just a made-up construct from Clinton/Feinstein. They needed an excuse and the NRA was all too happy to comply.

[44 AMP]

If gun owners (atleast in general) can't find adequate representation in the NRA then there is no point to the NRA.

Just what is it that you think the NRA is, or ought to be???

because from the tone of your remarks, you don't understand what the NRA actually is.

Why should I give my money to someone that will use it to very publicly side with the Clintons/Fienstien/Pelosie?

Just where do you think the NRA did that???

There is no give-and-take with these people. They must be defeated.

I agree, there is no give with the gun banners, only take. And they must be stopped.

The NRA has the power and plenty of force but just like the rest of the republican party, they are too scared to use it.

So, you consider the NRA to be a part of the Republican party??
If so, you've "drunk the Kool-Aid" of the enemy, and are already thinking like they want you to think.

The NRA was created (in 1871) to promote marksmanship and firearms safety. THAT is the mission, the original mission, and if the gun ban people magically went away tomorrow, the NRA would happily go back to focusing all their effort on that mission.

The NRA wasn't created to represent every gun owner in the political arena. And, it wasn't until it was clear that there was no one else to step up, that the NRA became politically active (within the law), to represent its MEMBERS.

Don't think the NRA is relevant?? Don't think they are doing enough, or doing the right thing?? JOIN, become a voting member, and you will have a voice. USE that voice to get the organization to do what you think is the best course.

UNTIL THEN, STOP Whining about the NRA! Because every gun owner who has benefited from what the NRA has done without being a member, or without contributing anything, has been getting a free ride that NRA members have been paying for.

Simply put, if you don't own the bus, and you aren't even chipping in for the gas, you don't get to drive, or pick the route.

[JohnKSa]

That sounds to me like the average gun owner just simply isn't truly represented.

In my experience, the average gun owner doesn't really care enough to join any gun rights organization. It's not that they feel they won't be properly represented as much as it is that they don't really think they need to be represented and/or don't really care if they aren't represented.

Gun enthusiasts tend to believe that they represent the average gun owner, but the average gun owner is more likely to be the person who buys a rifle to hunt and shoots a handful of rounds a year, if that, or who buys a shotgun or handgun for self-defense and, at most, shoots a couple of boxes of ammo through it in their lifetime.

[Prndll]

"Gun enthusiasts tend to believe that they represent the average gun owner, but the average gun owner is more likely to be the person who buys a rifle to hunt and shoots a handful of rounds a year, if that, or who buys a shotgun or handgun for self-defense and, at most, shoots a couple of boxes of ammo through it in their lifetime."

I have no doubt that there are plenty of people out there like that. I see the same type of thing when it comes to computers or cars. I visit the range every chance I get. Sometimes every other weekend. Sometimes every other month. I find the mechanical simplicity and the power and the chemical balance to be fascinating. Changing out spring and such, all the general learning of it's unique profile is fun to me. Just like building computers. Just like building engines. I can't 'wire' a pistol but I can admire it's rich heritage and near clock like movement.

----------------

"Simply put, if you don't own the bus, and you aren't even chipping in for the gas, you don't get to drive, or pick the route."
With that, I will concede. I understand.

[rickyrick]

I’ve heard something like this a million times

I believe in the 2nd amendment, I’ve got a five shot revolver in the gun cabinet.

Or

No honest man needs more than ten rounds in any gun.

Gun owners can hurt the cause more than an anti gunner.

[Stats Shooter]

@rickyrick

You are correct...I hear that stuff too. Something like "I believe in the 2nd Amendment but, there needs to be......(insert some kind of control legislation here)"

To the revolver guy...How about we ban hand guns as has been proposed in the past and was in effect in D.C. for a period of time?

To the hunter...How about we ban all lead ammunition and move toward shotguns with slugs or muzzle loaders only? For safety of course.

To the magazine limit guy...How about we go all the way to single shot only? It would slow things down the most and make you lever cowboy action rifle you love illegal.


My point? I don't like bump stocks (not in principle, just don't want one), and I don't own or want an ammo drum (because they malfunction too often in my experience and I don't need 60+ rounds for any of my shooting)
But that doesn't mean I don't acknowledge someone else's right to do what they want.

The real "slippery slope" regarding firearms should be defined as: Ambivalence or potential support for regulation hindering others from owning/using a device because it has not or will not directly affect that individual.
That slope is slippery because it will not be long before a regulation appears that DOES affect that individual, and their little group will not be strong enough to resist without the help of other 2A supporters who would not otherwise be directly affected.

[zukiphile]

You are correct...I hear that stuff too. Something like "I believe in the 2nd Amendment but, there needs to be......(insert some kind of control legislation here)"

The "Not X, but..." construction is highly problematic, not because "Not X" isn't a legitimate sentiment, but because "Not X" isn't the operative part of the message. The "but" carries the weight in that formula.

"I support the troops, but not the mission" was a sort of bumper stick length message some years ago. The problem was that it turned out to mean that the speaker liked people who might turn out to be in service, but not troops as troops.

In the context of the 2d Am. this formula necessarily announces an anti-gun message. "I hunted deer with my father, but..." isn't followed by anything except an assertion that signals a misunderstanding of the amendment.

If you doubt what the word but does in that construction, imagine trying to finish the following sentence in a way that doesn't get someone's nose out of joint. "I don't support child sacrifice, but..."

[doofus47]

zukiphile

In the context of the 2d Am. this formula necessarily announces an anti-gun message. "I hunted deer with my father, but..." isn't followed by anything except an assertion that signals a misunderstanding of the amendment.

Yeah, I don't discuss this with my sister for this reason. She loves to lead in with "I'm totally okay with guns as hunting rifles and all, but..."

I sometimes wish that the founding fathers also had enshirined hunting into the BoR, that would clear up a whole crap ton of issues in some people's minds.

[5whiskey]

And by then Congress will have moved on from this such that there isn't enough momentum to get Republicans on board.....I will be an election issue in 2018 in some states, but otherwise the time has likely already passed for any action to have taken place.

We are already at a point where this is no longer in the news cycle anymore. America has the attention span of a gnat. Think about the planning, and effort, and seriousness of this offense. This was a big deal. IMO, much bigger than a kid with mental health issues shooting kids at the Sandy Hook school. Sure, the loss of innocent children is a tragedy to us. But at least we can say "he's not like us, he doesn't think like us." Plus Sandy Hook took very little capacity to plan. This? It's clear that a significant amount of planning went into this. And 3 weeks later there is no reference to it in the media other than in passing.

So, yeah. No gun bans coming from this one. Not even a bumpfire ban. I can see a lawsuit so punishing that SlideFire solutions basically ceases to exist. Then another manufacturer will probably buy the patent for pennies on the dollar and they will come out 3 months later with a different name on them.

[44 AMP]

So, despite the cries of "betrayal, caving in, siding with the enemy", etc. It SEEMS that the NRA's APPARENT agreement, and their call for further review of the bump-fire stock has taken the wind out of the anti-gunner's sails.

The shooting is off the news cycle now, other than small mentions here and there, and soon, those will be gone as well.

The direct pressure to "do something" has ebbed. They were unable to get their wish list turned in to law while emotions were high, and now that things are cooling down, rational thought MAY prevail.

[Prndll]

44 Amp:
Is the idea to be more like marriage where you pretty much have to be in it for the long haul inspite of the inevitable ups-and-downs, trials-and-tribulations, and whatever the appearance on the surface might be over time? Is it more about being able to see a bigger picture? Is it more about holding to a particular ideal long-term?

[44 AMP]

Prindll;

If the idea you're talking about is general support for the NRA, then I'd say yes, pretty much. Now, this doesn't mean slavish devotion to everything they do or say, nor does it mean that when you think they (NRA leadership) are doing something wrong that you should stay silent.

They are just people, after all, and people DO make mistakes, and honest differences of opinion ARE going to happen.

On the other hand, I think that taking a school yard brat's attitude is the wrong thing to do. Too many people seem predisposed to jump to the extreme, as their very first step.

There are a lot of people on our side who are in the "not one step further" camp. They aren't entirely wrong.

Upholding our principles does not, however, mean that we must adopt tactically inflexible positions, nor does it mean attacking or abandoning our strongest ally if they do. I think there is a considerable difference between not holding every single inch of ground to the death (as some would prefer) and sleeping with the enemy (as some claim not holding every inch of ground is...)

At this point in time, I think the NRA's tactic on the bump-fire issue was a good choice. It may, in the long run be seen differently, but right now, it seems to have worked. NO legislation was passed during the initial "panic" response to the shooting, and it seems likely that as more time passes, no serious bun ban laws will.


I do need to comment on this...

No honest man needs more than ten rounds in any gun.

Gun owners can hurt the cause more than an anti gunner.

Yes, yes they can. Especially when quoted out of context, over and over.

Lots of people have heard of Bill Ruger's statement about not needing more than 10 rounds. They blame him for us getting a 10 round magazine limit. It's sad, because if you know the context of the situation, you would be THANKING Ruger for getting us a 10 round limit, instead of a 6 (or possibly 8) round limit, instead.

Sure, Ruger was out to protect his business, which of us wouldn't be, if we were in that position?? (be honest!)

But something WAS going to pass. A mag capacity limit WAS going to be put in the law. There was no stopping that. The numbers being seriously considered was 6 (so we could still keep revolvers), or some favored 8 rounds. Ruger's opinion on 10 rounds as an acceptable limit shifted the debate enough so that the smaller numbers being considered were dropped, in favor of 10 rounds as the limit.

He gets NO credit for that. He just gets blame for 10rnds.

Few people outside the system recognize that in American politics, there are certain points where something will be done. Congress WILL pass something, and that becomes inevitable. Exactly what Congress passes, can be shaped and modified, up until the final vote is cast, but something WILL be passed.

When this happens, those who's work shapes the details of what finally becomes the law be they individuals like Ruger or groups like the NRA, usually get blame from our side, for not "doing enough", rather than credit for what they did manage to accomplish that benefits our side.

People who abandon the NRA because they failed to stop passage of a certain law (or who do so because they feel the NRA betrayed them) only make the next fight more difficult for our side, and easier for our opponents to win.

[Metal god]

44 , do you have links supporting what you just wrote about Bill Ruger's statement about not needing more than 10 rounds . I don't believe that was his purpose in the statement . Do you have something showing him stating something like " they want to restrict ammo capacity to under ten rounds and I'll try to get us at least ten rounds .

Did he start at 20rds then came down to 15 and ultimately settled on 10 ? How exactly did he help us out ? or was it Leave my company alone and I'll indorse a 10 round limit ?

Not being snarky , I really don't know the full story but always thought he sold us out-ish . I was in my 20's then and just starting to get into firearms so I was not following the politics then as closely as I do today .

[rickyrick]

I let the Ruger quote stand on its own, not because of the origin, because it does get used as a stand-alone statement from other people. It gets thrown around without attributing it to Mr. Ruger. It also gets assigned to Ruger as to add some extra “clout” to the statement by others.

[Stats Shooter]

The NRA and their lobbyist's are privy to information we are not regarding what will be said, and what will be done. How do I know? I have worked on the hill as a consultant and as an advisor.

What is said means less than the hot air it took to say it. And even some votes are only symbolic or just to make a point. Need an example? Over 30 votes to repeal Obamacare, some passing both chambers when they knew it didn't matter.

My point? I think 44AMP is very perceptive on the strategy employed by the NRA. Thier comment made it difficult to say they were unwaivering or totally unsympathetic, yet it was a somewhat toothless comment in that , without legislation, and if the ATF was thorough in thier initial evaluation of slide fire stocks, then the result would be ... nothing.

Both sides are susceptible to knee jerk comments. But make no mistake, the NRA is a big ally, probably the biggest. And while I/you/we may not agree on everything the NRA does or says, I am glad they do what they do.

[carguychris]

I understand the NRA's reasoning and I've already argued that they may have had their hand forced by backroom political maneuvering that isn't readily visible to the general public.

However, I've begun to wonder if it was a tactical success yet a strategic failure. The perception that the NRA has caved in to anti-gun forces and is beholden to Beltway interests is causing legitimate outrage on social media. This may hurt the NRA's reputation in the long term.

[jrinne0430]

However, I've begun to wonder if it was a tactical success yet a strategic failure. The perception that the NRA has caved in to anti-gun forces and is beholden to Beltway interests is causing legitimate outrage on social media. This may hurt the NRA's reputation in the long term.

I agree. Some believe the NRA's actions was to distract the anti's attention but I don't see how. The attention to this matter would have subsided on its own as it did with Aurora, Newtown, etc. without the NRA's comments. Now we have emboldened anti politicians, , inflamed fissure among us, more pulling away from the NRA, and others who were on the fence, now deciding not to join. I don't see how this was a good move.

[rwilson452]

I have found out that the NRA knew there was enough votes to pass the Feinstein bill. So they stalled long enough to change some minds.

[44 AMP]

Again, I'm only guessing here, (and obviously if the NRA announced, or admitted it was the plan, it would not have worked), but PERHAPS emboldening the other side was intentional.

The attention to this matter would have subsided on its own as it did with Aurora, Newtown, etc. without the NRA's comments.

Yes, these things do fade over time, but look at state laws that got passed "while the iron was hot", in NY, CT, and CO. Nothing Federal from those, thankfully. But some state politicians got their bills into law so fast it still boggles the mind. And this despite what the NRA could do.

I think that had the ban them all bunch simply focused entirely on the bump-fire stock alone, they likely could have gotten something restricting them passed. They got their steamroller warmed up, but then something unusual happened. The NRA didn't fight them tooth and nail, in fact, they said "lets take another look at this". Not the 'no", or "hell no!" that they were expecting.

And yes, this did encourage them, after their initial confusion wore off. They boldly introduced about everything on their wish list. And that (so far) has proven to have been too big a bite of the apple, all at once.

On the other hand, its only been a month...I'm sure the other side will figure out a different approach the next time somebody runs amok and uses a gun.

[Armed_Chicagoan]

I don't think it's been mentioned here but a bump stock ban in Illinois failed to pass the Illinois House, and by a large margin. So it's not a slam dunk at the national level.

[carguychris]

Originally Posted by Armed_Chicagoan

I don't think it's been mentioned here but a bump stock ban in Illinois failed to pass the Illinois House, and by a large margin.

The IL legislature could afford to ignore them at the time.

Before Vegas, I surmise that >98% of the U.S. population didn't realize that bump stocks existed, and that >80% of serious gun enthusiasts and gun-control advocates didn't realize their existence either, dismissed them as a marginally unpopular gimmick, or were simply ambivalent. Both camps had bigger priorities, and proverbially dying on a hill over bump stocks seemed an absurd notion.

This is no longer true. Vegas changed the calculation.

One of my social-media observations is that many gun enthusiasts who openly admit that they fell into one of these three categories (ignorant, dismissive, ambivalent) are nonetheless furious at the NRA for ideological reasons.

FWIW I would describe myself as moderately angry, although I understand why the NRA did it; in the interest of full disclosure, I previously fell in the "Dismissive" camp.

[Armed_Chicagoan]

Originally Posted by carguychris

The IL legislature could afford to ignore them at the time.

Before Vegas, I surmise that >98% of the U.S. population didn't realize that bump stocks existed, and that >80% of serious gun enthusiasts and gun-control advocates didn't realize their existence either, dismissed them as a marginally unpopular gimmick, or were simply ambivalent. Both camps had bigger priorities, and proverbially dying on a hill over bump stocks seemed an absurd notion.

This is no longer true. Vegas changed the calculation.

This was a post-Vegas bill, the vote was last week.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...026-story.html