Bump Stocks not being turned in.

GBExpat said:

My guess would be the AutoSear, since that is what is continuing the cycle.

Click to expand...

Thank you.

So as I said ad finger you have a machine gun. I don`t like the ruling any more than anyone else on this site does, but it is the law now.
I have never owned a bump stock nor have I ever wanted one, but I hope for all of you who want one the best of luck. Maybe in the near future we will all get our wish and all of the nonsense will be reversed .

yeet said:

I love how the ATF can just make up it's own rulings without any sort of real procedure, enforce them anyway they want, and unless you're somehow able to spare thousands and thousands for a lawyer they can "getcha" anyway they want regardless of what was previously stated as a 'legal ruling.' A government agency with essentially nobody to answer to, no oversight, that can do whatever it wants. Even investigate itself and find itself clear of wrong doing. Orwell.

Click to expand...

That's the problem with the creation of entire unelected government agencies created in defiance of the Constitution. There's a reason the Constitution spells out what the federal government may and may not do, but much, if not most, of what it does now goes well beyond those limitations and violates the Constitution.

That's the problem with the creation of entire unelected government agencies created in defiance of the Constitution.

Click to expand...

But it was the Federal Government that created them in the first place and the ATF is just doing what their mandate requires of them. It requires them to regulate whatever Department they currently report to decides needs regulation. The ATF is mandated to create regulations that will satisfy the wishes of their Department head. (Currently the Department of Homeland Security or the Department of Justice. Things keep shifting around in DC).
Anyway, these department heads are appointed by POTUS and approved by Congress, so, IMHO, the problem is with the elected officials and could be solved by the elected officials. The ATF is just doing what their bosses are telling them to do and don't deserve to be hammered for doing their job.
AS we don't discuss politics here, and this is obviously political, I will only say, be careful of what you wish for...

deadin said:

The ATF is just doing what their bosses are telling them to do and don't deserve to be hammered for doing their job.

Click to expand...

That phrase has been used to justify more atrocities than probably any other in history.

The ATF is just doing what their bosses are telling them to do and don't deserve to be hammered for doing their job.

Click to expand...

bearcreek said:

That phrase has been used to justify more atrocities than probably any other in history.

Click to expand...

I'm just suggesting that the "hammer" be aimed a different "nail". IOW Put the blame where it belongs.

deadin said:

I'm just suggesting that the "hammer" be aimed a different "nail". IOW Put the blame where it belongs.

Click to expand...

The blame belongs with anyone who is part of infringing on the rights of the people.

Tommygunn said:

No LEO may have published a statement saying the Mandalay shooter used bumpstocks, but after hearing and seeing the video, is it really logical to believe he did not? If he did not, were automatic weapons used?

Click to expand...

As has been pointed out over and over in the bump stock debate... you don't need a bump stock to bump fire a semiautomatic rifle. I've heard any number of expedient measured used (rubber bands? shoe laces?) to accomplish it.

I've heard any number of expedient measured used (rubber bands? shoe laces?) to accomplish it.

Click to expand...

True,, but it takes practice and just doesn't seem like a real full-auto. (You can simulate the same thing with a quick trigger finger, but that doesn't seem to satisfy some folks.)

mdauben said:

As has been pointed out over and over in the bump stock debate... you don't need a bump stock to bump fire a semiautomatic rifle. I've heard any number of expedient measured used (rubber bands? shoe laces?) to accomplish it.

Click to expand...

I'm very aware of the fact that you don't need a bumpstock to fire in a ersatz full auto-like manner. But;

1.) It requires a very precise alignment of the weapon, which makes manipulating it to fire a tricky thing, and,

2.) Atleast one of the shooter's ARs was equipped with the stock.

Is it reasonable to believe he had bumpstock guns, but used a thumb and a pocket, or shoestring, to accomplish his act?

I have no use for bumpstocks. However, I was -- and AM -- against the bumpstock ban, AND the way it was implemented. I think it is eminently challengeable in court and hope a court ends it.

But I think it is very reasonable to believe the shooter used bumpstock gun(s) to commit his crimes.

Tommygunn said:

I'm very aware of the fact that you don't need a bumpstock to fire in a ersatz full auto-like manner. But;

1.) It requires a very precise alignment of the weapon, which makes manipulating it to fire a tricky thing, and,

Click to expand...

Which does not seem to rule out the sporadic rapid fire recorded on audio of the event, which AFAIK is the only "evidence" of the use of a bump-stock in the shooting.

2.) Atleast one of the shooter's ARs was equipped with the stock.

Click to expand...

Source? My understand was that the LVP had not released much if any information on the guns found with the accused shooter.

I have no use for bumpstocks. However, I was -- and AM -- against the bumpstock ban, AND the way it was implemented. I think it is eminently challengeable in court and hope a court ends it.

Click to expand...

Here, I most certainly agree with you!

My guess is a few folks here in WA who turned in their bump stocks as part of the State "buy-back" may be a bit nervous. An unidentified citizen has submitted a request to the State Patrol to turn over the names and addresses of everyone who will be receiving a check from .gov. The citizen states he/she will use it to develop a searchable database of the previous owners so everyone can know where these dangers to society live.

The last I heard is legal action has been started to block the request but, unless a court intervenes, WSP supposedly will turn over the list as early as tomorrow, Friday.

There are laws on the books here to protect the privacy of carry permit holders and several other classes, apparently that may not apply to this particular class. I hope it doesn't come to pass even though I have no dog in the fight.

An unidentified citizen has submitted a request to the State Patrol to turn over the names and addresses of everyone who will be receiving a check from .gov.

Click to expand...

It's called a "public records request" everybody except our State legislators are subject to it. However, it works both ways. Anybody can request the name and address of whoever submitted the original request......What they do with it is up to them.....

Acrmny said:

why would anyone surrender his/her belongings to the Government, Not happening.

Click to expand...

The problem starts when the Government declares something to be contraband, mere possession of it is illegal. I'm not saying that's right, just what it is. Therein lies the answer; if you don't want to be found in possession of contraband you need to get rid of it, either by destroying it or agreeing to the terms of the offered surrender.

mdauben said:

Which does not seem to rule out the sporadic rapid fire recorded on audio of the event, which AFAIK is the only "evidence" of the use of a bump-stock in the shooting.


Source? My understand was that the LVP had not released much if any information on the guns found with the accused shooter.


Here, I most certainly agree with you!

Click to expand...

I believe there were photos of the room in which the shooter used as his "sniper's nest" showing the guns. They have been published on Internet sites.
One thing that is very frustrating about this case is that the LEO agencies involved have ALL been much too tight-lipped about this case. I get it that the shooter died, and that eliminates him from providing any details on motives, but we often get to see much more of the "corpus delicti" ("body of the crime") than in this case.
I don't know why this is, and I do not like it or agree with it for several reasons. One is it tends to fuel conspiracy theories. While investigators may not always be able to answer every question surrounding a crime, and sometimes if one is unsolved, with holding specific details makes sense to be able to weed out phony people who claim the fame, in our Internet fueled society people with vivid imaginations will be too quick to throw out all sorts of silly and wrong ideas.
It doesn't even require Internet communication!
President John F. Kennedy was assassinated November 22, 1963, and look at all the conspiracy theories about that event! Many of them deny or ignore actual known facts.

I remain convinced bump stocks were used because I think it is the simplest explanation for how the shooter accomplished the crime. I suppose using rubber bands, strings, thumb in pocket, the "field expedient" methods cannot be 100% ruled out ..... but if it results he did do it that way then all I can say is ; "WOW! HE WAS REALLY REALLY GOOD AT IT!!!!!!"

Many folks on these boards refuse to read anything that is provided by other posters. Folks are doing themselves and other gun owners a dis service by claiming the Las Vegas police never found any bump stocks and have no evidence that bump stocks were used in the massacre. That's just not true.

There is a previous link on this thread to the Las Vegas PDs Preliminary Report on the massacre.

1. Every recovered bullet found was matched to the specific firearm that fired the >1,000 recovered bullets.

2. Beginning on page 41 of the report is an inventory of the firearms found at the crime scene.

Here is a sampling of the firearms found:


LWRC M61C


24-18648 AR-15 .223/5.56 with a bump stock,

vertical fore grip and 100 round

magazine. No sights or optics.

POF USA P-308 UA-1600204 AR-10 .308/7.62 with a bipod, scope and

25 round magazine.

Christensen

Arms

CA-15 CA04625

AR-15 .223 Wylde with a bump stock,

vertical fore grip and 100 round

magazine. No sights or optics.

POF USA P-15 PE-1600179 AR-15 .223/5.56 with a bump stock,

vertical fore grip and 100 round

magazine. No sights or optics.

Colt Competition CCR014544 AR-15 .223/5.56 with a bump stock,

vertical fore grip and 100 round

magazine. No sights or optics.


3. The Las Vegas police worked hard to compile this report and some posters claim it does not exist.

Link to the Las Vegas PD Report: Photos begin on page 55.

https://www.lvmpd.com/en-us/Documents/1_October_FIT_Report_01-18-2018_Footnoted.pdf

On 19 Oct 2018 I downloaded LasVegasStripShooting_LVMPD_Final_Report.pdf.
It does no good to claim the Las Vegas shooter did not use bumpstocks.
The Las Vegas MPD summarized the FBI analysis of the 14 rifles fired and 1057 shell casings recovered and matched to the rifles.
Nine of the weapons in his two rooms were not fired but were found with loaded magazines in place.
The weapons fired were found with empty or partial magazines.
One rifle that had fired 100 empties had no magazine (as tho Paddock had started to change magazines but went to another loaded weapon).
The two rooms 32-134 and (main) 32-135 had an internal connecting door, in addition to entrances on the hallway.


ADDED: with that established.

1 Oct 2017 Stephen Paddock killed 58 people by firing from a hotel down into the crowd at the Route 91 Harvest music festival in Las Vegas using several rifles equipped with bumpstocks.
Horrifying.
25 Mar 1990 Julio Gonzalez killed 87 people by setting fire to the entrance stairwell of the Happy Land social club in NYC using a jug containing $1 worth of gasoline.
Equally horrifying (in my opinion).
In a typical year, FBI Uniform Crime Reports table of homicide by weapon used lists 600 to 800 homicides by assailants using "personal weapons" (fists, hands, feet, etc) -- in other words, unarmed assailants.
Should be horrifying (and more likely to affect me tomorrow than a bumpstock or a gas can).
Aside from the Las Vegas horror bumpstocks are rarely used in crime. Bumpstocks have been outlawed. But is anyone really safer because of that? It strikes me as effective as trashing Beatles' White Albums after the Helter Skelter murders. (At least there was no executive order felonizing owners of White Albums containing the song that allegedly inspired Charlie Manson.)
People still are allowed hands and feet.
People can still go to gas stations and fill cans with gasoline.
Making bumpstocks illegal, and apparently driving a lot of them underground, felonizing owners who were not at Las Vegas and who never did anything, really does not make me feel safer. What I do worry about is what next horror will be answered by an executive order to symbolically answer public outrage. That legislation by fiat out of fear is the true threat.

Acrmny said:

I bought the Bump stock with my hard earned Money so its mine, the government has no right to take what's mine, that's forceful theft. Bump stock never did anything bad to nobody. Look here Buddie. what if they Government say eating Cow meat is illegal, So no more ham so all of us, so we have to abide to such nonsense laws too right ? its a slippery slope. There government Serve us and not the other way around.

Click to expand...

As I mentioned, I'm not saying what the Government did was right, just saying what they did.

Read up on Eminent Domain sometime, .gov has ways of separating an owner from his possessions as long as they "fairly" compensate the owner. Again, not saying I agree with Eminent Domain but it's been used in the past and will be used in the future. I only bring up Eminent Domain to illustrate one way .gov can separate an owner and his property, not that they used E.D. to outlaw bump stocks.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/eminent_domain

Acrmny said:

what if they Government say eating Cow meat is illegal, So no more ham so all of us, so we have to abide to such nonsense laws too right ?

Click to expand...

Uh ...

Only have vodka handy, starting now

We are starting to just post things with little useful information. So, unless you have some, let this one die out.

The bump stock ban is a terrible thing as repeatedly discussed:

1. Not because the thing is particularly useful.
2. It was done by the executive branch and not through a reasoned legislative and judicial process because of the whim of a President.
3. It sets a precedent for other bans as suggested by Nancy Pelosi as a risk for out of whack executive executions and explicitly part of Kamala Harris' campaign promises.
4. It demonstrates that some progun politicians are full of crap, despite fawning editorials in gun organization publications and said politicians make BS speeches

About not turning them in. Well, pilgrim, if you just said that on the Internet and the authorities really want to enforce a ban, look out the window for the black vehicles. You can be the test case that SCOTUS refuses to take after several years.

WA legislature passed, and Gov signed senate bill 6025, citizens who surrendered bump stocks under the plan administered by WA State Patrol may NOT be released to the public. Good news.

Carl N. Brown said:

...clipped

1 Oct 2017 Stephen Paddock killed 58 people by firing from a hotel down into the crowd at the Route 91 Harvest music festival in Las Vegas using several rifles equipped with bumpstocks.
Horrifying.
25 Mar 1990 Julio Gonzalez killed 87 people by setting fire to the entrance stairwell of the Happy Land social club in NYC using a jug containing $1 worth of gasoline.
Equally horrifying (in my opinion).
In a typical year, FBI Uniform Crime Reports table of homicide by weapon used lists 600 to 800 homicides by assailants using "personal weapons" (fists, hands, feet, etc) -- in other words, unarmed assailants.
Should be horrifying (and more likely to affect me tomorrow than a bumpstock or a gas can).
Aside from the Las Vegas horror bumpstocks are rarely used in crime. Bumpstocks have been outlawed. But is anyone really safer because of that? It strikes me as effective as trashing Beatles' White Albums after the Helter Skelter murders. (At least there was no executive order felonizing owners of White Albums containing the song that allegedly inspired Charlie Manson.)
People still are allowed hands and feet.
People can still go to gas stations and fill cans with gasoline.
Making bumpstocks illegal, and apparently driving a lot of them underground, felonizing owners who were not at Las Vegas and who never did anything, really does not make me feel safer. What I do worry about is what next horror will be answered by an executive order to symbolically answer public outrage. That legislation by fiat out of fear is the true threat.

Click to expand...

The major difference that I can see is that gasoline has a primary purpose other than igniting stairwells in hate crimes. It is used by tens of millions of vehicles every single day to drive tens of millions of miles a day, without hurting anyone.
A bumpstock has no such alternate utility. It's only purpose for existence is to increase the rate of fire of a gun. And the rate of fire achieved with a bumpstock often approaches that of a machine gun while still allowing the use of the weapons stock and sights. As Paddock showed us, he didn't need to worry about accurate aimed fire with his rifles, minute-of-concert-venue was good enough.
I see bumpstocks as an attempt to circumvent the restrictions on machineguns in this country and I don't see a single problem with banning them. Of course you'll have some people who won't turn them in. You'll have some who do, but the real aim is to stop production and/or importation into the USA. As a matter of course, the supply will decrease and demand might go up or it might not. You might find someone selling a black market bumpstock for hundreds of dollars.
Does it make us safer? Well, I don't know. I don't think it really helps but it does keep our laws uniform. You're not allowed to have machine guns without jumping through the appropriate hoops, because we decided long ago that machine guns weren't something we wanted readily available in civilized society. Allowing people to circumvent the intent of the law is foolish.

^ The 1986 Hughes Amendment freeze on the pool of legal machineguns registered as transferable to civilians actual stimulated circumvention or defiance of the freeze with work-arounds, like the Hellfire trigger switch, various crank devices, binary triggers and bumpstocks.

I also I think the attempts to get around the legal machine gun restrictions with work-arounds do NOT help efforts to repeal the Hughes Amendment. Legally resistered machineguns simply were not possessed or used by criminals. Freezing the registry was not justified. So now we have a quarter- to half-a-million bumpstocks underground as contraband.

I have to say as someone directly impacted by the bump stock ban, the discussion about how many stocks got turned in is really a silly thing to discuss, it simply doesn’t matter.

At the end of the day, you’ll be a “law abiding citizen” or a criminal.

I bought one when they had been out a little over a year, I always wanted to experience full auto and I figured that’s probably as close as I’d ever get. And yes is silly and pointless other than to turn frowns upside down, other people shot mine way more than I did, and i only ever saw one person not smile while using it.

Sure I could have driven about a 5 hour round trip to give it to a ATF office, after I made an appointment, or I could take shop tools and be done in minutes.


I think I know three other people who owned bumpstocks, I’m not stupid enough to ask them what they did with theirs. Destroyed, turned in, put in the back of the safe, buried, it doesn’t matter at this point. If you own one you made the decision to become someone committing a felony. Which leads to, “I have have this illegal item I can’t use without risking prison”
Face it, we lost this round, thanks to Mr. “the war on the second amendment is over”



I have no regrets, had I voted for the man responsible, I guess I’d have one.

The important thing here is not the bump stocks themselves, but the precedent that is set. A future antigun president could use this to ban semiautomatics (on the ground that they're "readily converted" into machine guns) without input from Congress. Previous ATF determinations could be reversed on a whim. And, like bump stocks, the guns would be instant contraband, with no way to retroactively register them as machine guns, and no compensation.