Are bump-fire stocks protected under DC v. Heller and its progeny? If so, why?

Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Mitlov

Member
Joined
May 14, 2013
Messages
661
Let's skip the "shall not be infringed" means "shall not be infringed in any way" argument...whether or not that should be the law, it's not the law of the land under DC v. Heller. In order to be protected under DC v. Heller, a firearm needs to actually provide utility for self-defense, sport, or hunting to receive Second Amendment protection.

Can anyone articulate a reason why bump-fire stocks would fall into one of these three categories, or why they're an important militia tool, or any argument of the sort that would give them legal protection under DC v. Heller? I'm not seeing it.
 
To be honest, it has been a couple of years since I read the Heller decision from end to end. But, my recollection is that Heller also made mention to protections of the 2nd Amendment applying to firearms (and presumably accessories) that were in common use with the public. Now, of course, common use is a tough thing to define since it's a bit subjective. Thousands of these devices have been sold, but does that make them "common" in a country of 320+ Million people?

The other thing is that Heller hasn't exactly been followed in my opinion. There's no way one could argue that the AR-15 isn't in common use (being that it is probably the single most popular firearm today). But, a number states have successfully banned these firearms so far (or at the very least neutered them).

I don't believe that bump fire stocks need to be regulated, or should be regulated. That doesn't mean they won't be regulated.
 
I'd even like input a bit broader than the OP requests. Is there any utility (potentially protected by Heller or not) to bump stocks besides the "Gee Whiz, that was fun to watch all those watermelons explode!"?
Thanks.

Dan
 
''To me, a bump-fire stock is a device clearly designed to circumvent the machinegun ban, and should be regulated.''

Turn about is fair play; to me, modifying your car's engine is a way to circumvent owning a race car, and should be regulated. Or any host of other examples, foodstuffs, medicines, coffee vs tea etc.
Regardless of which side of the big pond one is located, not only do I not follow that rabbit down a hole, I don't go to the bottom of the hole quickly, and start digging
 
Rightly or wrongly, Heller explicitly says that machine guns can be regulated. Bump-fire stocks, although not technically within the definition of "machine guns" under the current NFA, would fall into the same category. Heck, lower federal courts have upheld bans on semiautomatic guns as being consistent with Heller. If the NFA is amended to include bump-fire stocks, I'm pretty sure the courts would not intervene.

If, indeed, such an expansion is inevitable, we should at least get something out it, such as opening the registry to new machine guns.
 
Blackstone said:
To me, a bump-fire stock is a device clearly designed to circumvent the machinegun ban, and should be regulated.
Click to expand...
I know it won't be a popular opinion shared by many on here, but I agree - it's a device designed to provide the equivalent of automatic fire without the NFA hassles, and it's only currently legal (in my opinion) from ATF following the letter of the law, not the intent of the law. As fun as they might be to use, there's no genuine self defense, hunting or sporting application for them unless there's a bump fire comp I'm not aware of. I'm aware that a skilled (or inept) operator can learn to bump fire some platforms without one, but this is a piece of equipment explicitly to enable it.

Las Vegas is a "worst case scenario" for this device and others - someone has used one to devastating effect, along with "extra" high capacity magazines like the SureFire 100 round magazine shown in various leaked pictures from the scene. Heck, even bipods will probably be targeted by overzealous legislators now.
 
DanTheFarmer said:
I'd even like input a bit broader than the OP requests. Is there any utility (potentially protected by Heller or not) to bump stocks besides the "Gee Whiz, that was fun to watch all those watermelons explode!"?
Thanks.

Dan
Click to expand...

I'd clarify the question as "any lawful utility." They clearly have unlawful utility.
 
coloradokevin said:
To be honest, it has been a couple of years since I read the Heller decision from end to end. But, my recollection is that Heller also made mention to protections of the 2nd Amendment applying to firearms (and presumably accessories) that were in common use with the public. Now, of course, common use is a tough thing to define since it's a bit subjective. Thousands of these devices have been sold, but does that make them "common" in a country of 320+ Million people?

The other thing is that Heller hasn't exactly been followed in my opinion. There's no way one could argue that the AR-15 isn't in common use (being that it is probably the single most popular firearm today). But, a number states have successfully banned these firearms so far (or at the very least neutered them).

I don't believe that bump fire stocks need to be regulated, or should be regulated. That doesn't mean they won't be regulated.
Click to expand...

As I read it, it's in common use for self defense, hunting, and sport...not any single device that has managed to achieve commercial success before its legality is litigated. The Thompson submachine gun had unquestionable commercial success in the early 20th century, but it doesn't receive Heller protection.

Bumpfire stocks sell well, but they're not ever used for those specified purposes to my knowledge.

The AR-15 hasn't been tested either way by SCOTUS under the Heller test...but it has self defense and sport uses that I can't apply to bump fire systems with a straight face.
 
Last edited:
To me, a bump-fire stock is a device clearly designed to circumvent the machinegun ban, and should be regulated.
Click to expand...
As fun as they might be to use, there's no genuine self defense, hunting or sporting application for them unless there's a bump fire comp I'm not aware of.
Click to expand...

We're falling into some traps here. One is to accept that any firearm or accessory SHOULD be regulated. Not that under current law it might be, or with a view to the intent of the NFA writers it should have been. But that it SHOULD be.

Don't ever let us say such a thing. To accept it for one is, eventually, inevitably, to accept it for all. Not your ox being gored, so you don't care? Well, you should, because it WILL be your own ox next time. Count on it.

Further, and looking deeper at the issue, there is a purpose for automatic fire in both defensive and offensive actions. Those have more to do with the battlefield and are not appropriate in individual peace-time SELF-defense, but there is a purpose. And the 2nd Amendment says NOTHING about self-defense, NOTHING about hunting. NOTHING about sport shooting or competition. Understand what the 2nd Amendment if FOR and you'll never accept that a firearm SHOULD be regulated.




Now, as a nearly irrelevant aside, while not a bump-fire stock per se, I did shoot a competition stage last weekend with an AR that was equipped with a trigger mechanism that could be said to "simulate full auto fire." They aren't uncommon and work well. And, in fact, would work just as well in defensive situations as competitions. Just in case you have to come up with a sporting or self-defense use case to convince yourself that you really DO care about the 2nd Amendment.
 
drunkenpoacher said:
If you skip the second amendment, would any weapon be protected?
Click to expand...

Sam1911 said:
And the 2nd Amendment says NOTHING about self-defense, NOTHING about hunting. NOTHING about sport shooting or competition. Understand what the 2nd Amendment if FOR and you'll never accept that a firearm SHOULD be regulated.
Click to expand...

But I created this thread interpreting the Second Amendment as the Heller court interpreted it. I didn't mean to open the can of worms of whether or not Heller was wrongly decided. I understand many people feel that it was, but until it's reversed, it's the law of the land, and this discussion was meant to address bump fire stocks under existing law. As the guidelines say:

"Note: The Legal Forum is for the discussion of the law as it is and how the law actually applies in RKBA matters, not the way we think things should be or the way we wish they were."
 
Right. And that's a fair point. We got off into tangents of defeatism and Fudd-ishness that I responded to, but possibly should have just deleted as off-topic.
 
drunkenpoacher said:
"First they came....
Click to expand...
As I see the slippery slope argument a lot, I wonder about the following hypothetical (and it's a hypothetical that won't ever be reality):

If legislation was introduced along the lines of a gun registry, with all sales having to be made through the books of a FFL, BUT, there was the absolute guarantee that there will never be any more firearms legislation, no confiscation (and yes, this is the part of the hypothetical that is based in fairyland), would you accept it? This removes the slippery slope argument, because the slope is simply eliminated.

I know that "shall not be infringed" is considered by many here to be an absolute command, and accept the argument that any regulation is infringement. But this hypothetical is mainly directed at those who use the slippery slope argument. Because with that argument, there is the implication that one would accept "reasonable" legislation, but that there is the (completely justified) fear that if you give an inch, they will take a mile and will never stop until the utopia of no more gun deaths will be achieved.

Sorry if this is a bit of a tangent from the topic at hand.
 
Sam1911 said:
Right. And that's a fair point. We got off into tangents of defeatism and Fudd-ishness that I responded to, but possibly should have just deleted as off-topic.
Click to expand...

I didn't take "should be banned" as any of those things. "Should" can mean a couple different things, but I took it as "these would not be protected under DC v. Heller if that case is applied in a coherent manner, even though the BATFE has not cracked down on them to date." As opposed to "as a policy matter, I want these banned."
 
Blackstone said:
As I see the slippery slope argument a lot, I wonder about the following hypothetical (and it's a hypothetical that won't ever be reality):

If legislation was introduced along the lines of a gun registry, with all sales having to be made through the books of a FFL, BUT, there was the absolute guarantee that there will never be any more firearms legislation, no confiscation (and yes, this is the part of the hypothetical that is based in fairyland), would you accept it? This removes the slippery slope argument, because the slope is simply eliminated.

I know that "shall not be infringed" is considered by many here to be an absolute command, and accept the argument that any regulation is infringement. But this hypothetical is mainly directed at those who use the slippery slope argument. Because with that argument, there is the implication that one would accept "reasonable" legislation, but that there is the (completely justified) fear that if you give an inch, they will take a mile and will never stop until the utopia of no more gun deaths will be achieved.

Sorry if this is a bit of a tangent from the topic at hand.
Click to expand...
Can I be in charge of deciding what is "reasonable"?
I would also like to be in charge of "common sense" and "safety".
 
drunkenpoacher said:
Can I be in charge of deciding what is "reasonable"?
I would also like to be in charge of "common sense" and "safety".
Click to expand...

Sure! You’re officially in charge of defining those three terms for this thread. BUUUUT none of those terms are part of the DC v. Heller test, and this is about applying the DC v. Heller test to bumpfire stocks... ;-)
 
A lot of blue skying and speculation. But as it says in the Legal Forum guidelines:
....Comments and opinions should be based on legal principles and supported where appropriate with reference to legal authority, including court decisions, statutes and scholarly articles....
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

B
  • Locked
8th Circuit Court of Appeals Upholds Hollis Wayne Fincher Conviction
2 3
Replies
52
Views
3K
ServiceSoon
S
K
  • Locked
DC's reply to brief in response (Heller)
2 3
Replies
53
Views
4K
hugh damright
H
N
  • Locked
Heller: Requiem for three dead ideas
Replies
22
Views
2K
dvcrsn
D
C
  • Locked
DC v. Heller ==>> National Parks ?
Replies
7
Views
586
lacoochee
L
A
  • Locked
is "go figure" appropriate??
Replies
1
Views
514
legaleagle_45
L
Back
Top