Bump Stocks Banned

Yeah, that's a pretty thin technicality, being that you can pull the trigger just once, and then the stock does it's thing allowing the whole rifle to spring back and forth into your trigger finger.

All it's going to take is a judge to pull the trigger once, just to see what happens. Hopefully they screw it up and it only sends one.

Zerodefect said:

Yeah, that's a pretty thin technicality, being that you can pull the trigger just once, and then the stock does it's thing allowing the whole rifle to spring back and forth into your trigger finger.

All it's going to take is a judge to pull the trigger once, just to see what happens. Hopefully they screw it up and it only sends one.

Click to expand...

Ok,
I don’t really care about any of that. The law says what law says, which is that it is not a machine gun.

So that leads me back to my original question, why should I lose my right to own one?

Mike OTDP said:

Which will be one line of argument in the lawsuit. The manufacturers designed a product that worked around the definition of "machine gun" in Federal law, submitted their product to ATF to ensure that it was legal, and sold them in good faith. For DOJ to reverse ATF by fiat arguably constitutes an ex post facto law (prohibited by the Constitution). The situation is worsened by the 'solution' of uncompensated seizure.

Click to expand...

Our dear leaders addressed that as well... the posession of bump stocks in the past isn't a crime, only posession 90 days after the rule is published. Plenty of time to dispose of them.

Mike OTDP said:

For DOJ to reverse ATF by fiat arguably constitutes an ex post facto law (prohibited by the Constitution).

Click to expand...

Don't say that! There's a good case that this is a "taking" that requires compensation, but there is no case that this is an ex post facto law. The criminally-proscribed behavior is future possession (90 days after the rule is published in the Federal Register), not past possession.

All of the people here who are "ok with this" and claim "we haven't lost anything" are completely missing the issue and not realizing the implications of this. Come on people, wake up.

Zerodefect said:

Yeah, that's a pretty thin technicality, being that you can pull the trigger just once, and then the stock does it's thing allowing the whole rifle to spring back and forth into your trigger finger.

All it's going to take is a judge to pull the trigger once, just to see what happens. Hopefully they screw it up and it only sends one.

Click to expand...

That is patently false.

Pull the trigger on a bump stock equipped rifle without pulling the rifle forward at the same time and you get one round fired.

Do the same while rigidly holding the rifle forward and you get one round fired.

Only by allowing the rifle to recoil and then pulling the rifle forward after each round is fired will you get multiple shots... but the user must act on the trigger each time. There is nothing automatic about it.

A simple jig could easily be built to demonstrate the first two cases and remove the operator from the function.

Captains1911 said:

All of the people here who are "ok with this" and claim "we haven't lost anything" are completely missing the issue and not realizing the implications of this. Come on people, wake up.

Click to expand...

Please enlighten us.

Zerodefect said:

Please enlighten us.

Click to expand...

Please answer my question.

Zerodefect said:

Please enlighten us.

Click to expand...

The administration has overstepped its powers as outlined in the constitution. If the administration can simply reinterpret the meaning of a word to whatever it wants, then the law means nothing.

Coincidentally, SCOTUS recently granted cert ona case about such things... Kisor v. Wilkie

@DeepSouth

Because you just made a machine gun after the '86 ban.

It's not me, that'll need convinced. Sure will be an interesting case.

Should we be thankful it's not about something we care about? And when do I get my suppressor. Lol.

Zerodefect said:

@DeepSouth

Because you just made a machine gun after the '86 ban.

Click to expand...

But that’s false, it’s not true by any means.

It’s just as true for me to say you shouldn’t be able to own a gun because you murdered your mother in law.

It’s the same thing, it’s called a false premise.

So please answer the question, without stating something that’s false.

Zerodefect said:

@DeepSouth

Because you just made a machine gun after the '86 ban.

Click to expand...

Only under the administration's flawed definition of the word "automatic".

Seems to be a running problem in DC:

I have the distinct feeling that the noose is tightening around my neck. I don't own any bump stocks, but this sets the precedent that semiautomatics, especially the AR-15, can reclassified as machine guns by mere administrative fiat. That, in combination with the Hughes Amendment, means that they can be declared contraband without grandfathering and without compensation. If you are subsequently caught with one, you could be sent to federal prison for up to 10 years. Trump might not do this, but his successor very well might.

Zerodefect said:

@DeepSouth

Because you just made a machine gun after the '86 ban.

Click to expand...

Here let me help you.

As from the ATF's website:

Any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger

Key words, "...single function of the trigger", the minute the gun recoils your finger away from the trigger it is no longer a "single function of the trigger." The trigger went from being pressed, to depressed, to pressed again. Not in any stretch of ones imagination is that a full auto scenario. Like all red-blooded American's have done once or twice in their lives, one can simply do this with a pair of Levi's or Wranglers if your in my neck of the woods.

If you can't understand it after this then there is no use in discussing it with you.

I'm surprised at the amount of members of this board who are okay with this. Had it happened a few years ago the response on this board would very likely would have been different.

AlexanderA said:

I have the distinct feeling that the noose is tightening around my neck. I don't own any bump stocks, but this sets the precedent that semiautomatics, especially the AR-15, can reclassified as machine guns by mere administrative fiat. That, in combination with the Hughes Amendment, means that they can be declared contraband without grandfathering and without compensation. If you are subsequently caught with one, you could be sent to federal prison for up to 10 years. Trump might not do this, but his successor very well might.

Click to expand...

Exactly right... what happens when the definition of "readily restored to fire automatically" is expanded to encompass AR's? Based on this new rule, no machining is even required to restore an AR to a machine gun.

M-1A's can even be readily restored to automatic fire with nothing more than a shoestring.

So they reword it in the legislature to a single function of the ''trigger finger'', and now we've lost bumpstocks and binary's. Seems even worse.

Frankly I am astonished and dismayed at how many on this forum are OK with this action by the government. Its not as if the Left, pushing for this, offered something in return where we could claim at least the bump stock ban was part of a compromise that gained us national reciprocity for concealed carry, or something of equivalent value. Saying you are OK with banning bump stocks is naive and foolish in the extreme. Those favoring total gun banning and confiscation use each small concession by the pro-2nd Amendment community as merely a moving of the chains as the fight moves downfield, closer to their ultimate and not so secret goal.

This reminds me of the foolish and/or misinformed that have voiced support for bans on large capacity magazines. Not only does this set the stage for an ever decreasing legal size of a magazine, but to ultimately the innocent sounding proposition of banning any firearm capable of accepting a magazine of more than the acceptable (to the gun haters) number of rounds. Anyone that understands how a magazine functions should realize that such a ban could be used to justify making illegal ANY semi automatic firearm that uses other than an fully internal fixed magazine. My compact handgun that normally has a 7 round magazine could accommodate a 30 round one, even if that made the gun unwieldy, and just like that our choice of self defense guns would be down to revolvers and even lower capacity guns like one or two shot Derringers.

In the past I have had heated arguments with some that claim to support the RKBA but as hunters, will not lift a finger or even their voice to stop the banning of handguns or other guns that they personally do not use. Truthfully, such stupidity by a gun owner is what will ultimately cause us to lose all of our 2nd Amendment rights as the gun haters pick off one category after another until nothing remains legal. And then those hunters that would not join the NRA or do anything for gun rights will find that their deer rifle or their bird hunting shotgun are no longer legal for ordinary citizens to own, but it will be too late by then.

<*(((>< said:

Key words, "...single function of the trigger", the minute the gun recoils your finger away from the trigger it is no longer a "single function of the trigger."

Click to expand...

And as RIGHT NOW that is not even the ATF’s definition. Not to mention logic, one pull = one bullet.
So apparently multiple pulls is a single function. A second grader can see the problem in that.
Your absolute refusal/inability to answer the question is concession enough for me.

Because you are right about one thing, their is no use in me and you discussing this.

When they come for something you do care about, please remember this day.

Zerodefect said:

So they reword it in the legislature to a single function of the ''trigger finger'', and now we've lost bumpstocks and binary's. Seems even worse.

Click to expand...

This rule already does that... the law says single function. ATF defines that as a pull. Pull and release are two functions, but a single pull. Thus binary triggers are machineguns under this definition (two rounds with one pull)

DeepSouth said:

And as RIGHT NOW that is not even the ATF’s definition. Not to mention logic, one pull = one bullet.
So apparently multiple pulls is a single function. A second grader can see the problem in that.
Your absolute refusal/inability to answer the question is concession enough for me.

Because you are right about one thing, their is no use in me and you discussing this.

When they come for something you do care about, please remember this day.

Click to expand...

"<*(((><" agrees with you, unless I'm badly mistaken.

pdsmith505 said:

"<*(((><" agrees with you, unless I'm badly mistaken.

Click to expand...

I was confused as well, but chalked it up to misunderstanding. I have thick skin, it's evident by this forums membership of all places that we need to have thick skin on 2A issues with the arrows coming from the rear..