Bump Stocks Banned

paulsj said:

I do not support their ownership because more out there means more chances disturbed individual can shoot into crowd increasing number of casualties. Such events are used to further deteriorate rights of gun owners.

Click to expand...

That can be said about practically anything gun-related. (Even a scoped hunting rifle can be a "sniper rifle.") Where do you draw the line? Pretty soon there are no "rights" left for gun owners.

paulsj said:

I do not support their ownership because more out there means more chances disturbed individual can shoot into crowd increasing number of casualties. Such events are used to further deteriorate rights of gun owners.

Click to expand...

The same can be said about any firearm. Or vehicle. Or knife. Or hammer. Or pencil.

So, we should just have a law stating that we give up everything we own, because someone might break an existing law and steal it, and break another existing law and use it? Where does it end?

dekibg said:

I don't have strong opinion on this,

Click to expand...

You should have, because if this stands, it could be the Waterloo for gun rights. Any modern semiautomatic could be banned by executive fiat. Normally I'm not an alarmist, but this is ringing my alarms.

badkarmamib said:

The same can be said about any firearm. Or vehicle. Or knife. Or hammer. Or pencil.

So, we should just have a law stating that we give up everything we own, because someone might break an existing law and steal it, and break another existing law and use it? Where does it end?

Click to expand...

Don't worry necessities in life will not be banned.

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...

I completely agree with you Alexander. The precedent that is being set up by the Taking of previously legal firearm part can be used in the future to slowly reduce magazine capacity, then get rid of semi automatic guns. Then single shots.

This is why you do not give an inch and why the NRA was wrong to go along with this. If the NRA had stood their ground Trump would not have been so anxious to go along with the ban.

It's not whether bump stocks are good or bad, I think they're stupid, it's about prececent.

paulsj said:

Don't worry necessities in life will not be banned.

Click to expand...

Who gets to decide what we need? What is the difference between allowing only necessities for the greater good, and communism?

Well its official. We are a communist country by default of regulatory agencies. Lets just get the show over already.

paulsj said:

I do not support their ownership because more out there means more chances disturbed individual can shoot into crowd increasing number of casualties. Such events are used to further deteriorate rights of gun owners.

Click to expand...

Don't you realize that the same thing can be said for:

ARs
AKs
Shotguns
Semiauto pistols
Revolvers
etc.?

When the goal is civilian disarmament, every single abuse of any firearm can be used as justification.

psyopspec said:

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.

Click to expand...

The dynamic of this board is vastly different than just a few years ago.

HuckFinn said:

So what is going to happen to those of us who can bump fire a rifle without the need of a "bump stock"?

Click to expand...

Then your finger will meet the definition of a machine gun. The government will confiscate it and sentence you to prison.

Seriously though, you bring up a good point. I have an AR with a sigle-stage Timney 3.5lb trigger that I can bump fire from my shoulder- standard carbine stock. Is that now going to be considered a machine gun? Since a single-stage 3.5lb trigger assists me in shooting rapidly a mimicking full auto fire, doesn't it meet the new definition? Whether you support, are opposed to, or are indifferent to bump stocks getting banned, does anyone see how vague and problematic the language is?

OK, I'll play. I think this is a wheel within a wheel, designed to feed a beast nothing but air. POTUS orders a ban. A ban on an item that the regulatory agency (ATFE tech branch) deemed OK to own, manufacture, possess. These things were purchased by consumers, with no real accountability since there were no serial numbers or 4473's. The ban issued by POTUS clearly redefines these things as something that they are NOT. Also, it punishes the owners monetarily, since the only alternatives are either surrendering/destroying their legally purchased (and possibly constitutionally protected) property, or face the full wrath of the federal government, becoming felons 90 days hence. As I understand it, there's no provision for compensation or buyback, or an opportunity to register these contraptions as a lawfully owned NFA item (and if there were an opportunity to register as NFA, it would likely involve a $200 tax and the usual list of other hoops to leap through). Just unconditional surrender of property, or outlawry. According to the ATFE, there may be as many as HALF A MILLION of these contraptions in circulation- at least, I think that is the number I remember they gave. Thats a big number. Of course, none of this even discusses the very dangerous precedent being set. So why do I think this is a wheel within a wheel? Because I think this is a measure not only DESTINED for failure, but DESIGNED for failure, legally speaking (consider the current composition of SCOTUS). The former POTUS, with all of his minions and allies, didn't accomplish a whole lot on gun control (he admitted that this was his greatest failure). I recall some tears on the steps of the White House, with the requisite props strategically placed. So, when this think fails to meet constitutional muster (and I think it will) the average low information American will think that POTUS "at least tried". Things will go on as they have, the 2A battle continues, and the "gun lobby" remains public enemy #1 of everyone who never has, and never will like us.
Also, remember that the ATF is a law enforcement agency (originally a regulatory agency; they didn't begin to get involved with firearms laws until 1968). But, as a law enforcement agency, they are given the unusual latitude to "interpret" and "give opinions" that in effect, are federal law. This in and of itself is a slippery slope, IMO. Also, their prior "interpretations" that have been "carved in stone", along with the "findings" of their tech branch have been the legal fodder that as of late have been the basis for the legality of things like unregulated suppressors for muzzleloaders, pistol braces (and the debacles that followed), Mossberg shockwaves and similar firearms, binary triggers, and these bumpstocks. Even though I own none of these, and have no interest in them, I consider these "wins" that they served the 2A community on a silver platter. I also find it somewhat humorous.

Bump stocks are a ignorant device used by people who want to give the bird to regulations.
I'm against banning things, but I don't want one.
This same argument can be used on the war on drugs

I’ll just throw this in here for everyone that would be fine if only break open shotguns would be legal.

Divide and rule (from Latin dīvide et imperā), or divide and conquer, in politics and sociology is gaining and maintaining power by breaking up larger concentrations of power into pieces that individually have less power than the one implementing the strategy. The concept refers to a strategy that breaks up existing power structures, and especially prevents smaller power groups from linking up, causing rivalries and fomenting discord among the people.

Click to expand...

Once they eliminate all other forms, you will be insignificant in numbers and disarmed as well.

If it wasn’t a successful strategy it would have stopped being used before Jesus was born but here we are...from Philip II of Macedon to Obama and beyond.

If it’s illegal to drag race on the streets then why would it be ok to “drive really really fast next to each other like we’re drag racing, but we aren’t”? The fact that people pushed the limits for a long time is what caused this. There are 3 sides to every law. There is the letter of the law, the intent of the law, and the way the law is interpreted. The letter of the law says no string fires with a single action of the trigger. The intent of the law is no full auto or machine gun type firing capability. The interpretation has been based on an idiotic technicality to where the gun automatically resets itself with recoil whileyou are STILL DOING THE SAME ACTION but since it’s not really exactly textbook full auto then it’s been kinda sorta by interpretation legal because the letter of the law failed to clearly make it illegal when the intent of the law was for it to be illegal.

I will add that all the screaming of “this is next” is going to give the lawmakers ideas of what to go after next.

Casefull said:

It's not whether bump stocks are good or bad, I think they're stupid, it's about prececent.

Click to expand...

Precedent. Exactly. It’s astounding how many people don’t see this. As a person who values gun rights, admitting that there is such a thing as a bad gun or accessory, and not taking issue with the idea of a government agency making them illegal overnight, is pure stupidity.

If the intent of the law was to make bumpstocks illegal then it should have been worded in a way that made them illegal. Laws are changed all the time. If they want to make them illegal now than change the law. It's that simple.

There are 3 sides to every law.

Click to expand...

I don’t see any problem with that. You write the law have the House, Senate pass it then the POTUS signs it. If the people don’t agree, they are out of a job. Courts decide if laws are legal or not and we continue the process. Bump stocks didn’t break the law, so were allowed to be produced and sold. As for “THE SAME ACTION” you can do that without a $100 hunk of plastic, now we are looking at a ban and confiscation/destruction of all semiauto firearms?

Heck look what Bob Munden could do with a single action revolver, thoes have to go too.

1:05-1:20 you can see a shot to shot spilt faster than most any full auto, much less bump stock.

It is impossible to know just how many bump stocks Americans own because the devices aren’t traceable, but ATF has estimated that between 280,000 and about 520,000 have been sold since 2010.

Click to expand...

He lost popular vote by −2,868,686 in 2016. Hard to motivate people that might feel like they got stabbed in the back.

We can always talk about the lesser of two evils but that’s not always what gets people off their butt to go vote.

jmorris said:

I’ll just throw this in here for everyone that would be fine if only break open shotguns would be legal.



Once they eliminate all other forms, you will be insignificant in numbers and disarmed as well.

If it wasn’t a successful strategy it would have stopped being used before Jesus was born but here we are...from Philip II of Macedon to Obama and beyond.

Click to expand...

Well I don't post much, but you read my mind. This thread illustrates why we as gun owners will lose big time in the future, because we are divided. The "well that doesn't affect me, so I don't care" attitude will burn us all, eventually. At some point they will work their way to something you (general "you") do care about. They aren't going to stop and you are kidding yourself if you think they will.

Why wait until they get to something you do care about? Who will support you then, if you don't support others now?

What could 100 million gun owners do together? Peacefully.

For the record, I don't own a bump stock and have no use for one, but I support the right to own one. I don't like the precedent that has been set.

Well, for those who refuse to destroy or turn them in, might as well just get the real go-fast parts.

Why wait until they get to something you do care about? Who will support you then, if you don't support others now?

What could 100 million gun owners do together? Peacefully.

Click to expand...

That was the point I was trying to make, they are just taking off a 500,000 +/- chunk off that block.

Captains1911 said:

Precedent. Exactly. It’s astounding how many people don’t see this. As a person who values gun rights, admitting that there is such a thing as a bad gun or accessory, and not taking issue with the idea of a government agency making them illegal overnight, is pure stupidity.

Click to expand...

It's beyond precedent. It's unconstitutional. It's ruling by fiat. "I don't like it, so I'll ban it henceforth."
Too many myopic remarks in this thread. This is a test for the administration. If it passes, it opens all kinds of doors. Many folks (not all) on this thread are underestimating the downstream effects of this move. Braces, mags, muzzle attachments, etc. All subject to the whim of whoever is in office. And those are just the things that apply re: 2A. He just rewrote the law- poof- like that. It's almost like he doesn't have a fundamental understanding of how government works.

MachIVshooter said:

Well, for those who refuse to destroy or turn them in, might as well just get the real go-fast parts.

Click to expand...

Pretty sure becoming a felon isn’t part of THR’s goal.

WestKentucky said:

If it’s illegal to drag race on the streets then why would it be ok to “drive really really fast next to each other like we’re drag racing, but we aren’t”?

Click to expand...

Not the same thing friend. Still speeding. Still violating clearly established laws. The government had a definition of what a machine gun was. An entrepreneur sends them a product asking, "Dear Sir, does this item meet the definition of a machine gun or violate any other federal gun control laws?"
The Man says, "No Citizen. You're good to go." Bad thing happens. Blame the inanimate object. Then fundamentally
change a law that took the Congress, Senate, and Executive to pass and enact- by simply willing it. Beyond FUBAR.