NRA Supports Ban on Bumpfire Devices

[Mitlov]

The NRA is asking for something in return, but they're asking for 50-state CHL reciprocity instead of taking SBRs off the NFA list. I think 50-state CHL reciprocity is a lot more practical utility to a lot more gun owners than tax-stamp-free SBRs would be, so I'm glad that's the proposal they're making.

Also, if you want a proposal to actually have a chance of working, instead of us walking away from the negotiating table feeling morally superior and talking about how loudly they're howling at a proposal we knew they'd never accept, we should actually ask for something that the folks on the other side (at least the some of them) would admit makes sense. I live just over the border from California, and California will let me drive a three-ton truck on their roads with an Oregon-issued license, but won't let me conceal-carry a snubnose with an Oregon-issued license. Most people I know, even very very progressive folks, admit that distinction doesn't make much sense. Either California trusts Oregon to know what it's doing when it issues licenses or it doesn't.

 

[Basura Blanca]

In order for PR to have value and work, it mustn't appear to be blatant PR. The NRA's statement, while maybe well intended, stinks to the heavens with this obviousness. For one thing, that awkward segue into a plug for national reciprocity says it all. It screams that this isn't an earnest attempt to urge BATFE to re-evaluate a product . Rather, it's just a wrapper for something else. Seriously, the thing might as well contain a link to a free pizza too.

There's the additional problem that making the statement in general gives into the tacit demand that the NRA constantly weigh in on any and every high profile shooting that takes place in the nation. Overall, I think they lost this one. Although I guess as is always the case, they are damned if they do or don't say something, do something, because it will always be wrong to someone.

 

[armoredman]

I was not serious with my "proposal", as I know it would never fly, just pipe dreaming. I also don't think they will go for the 50 state CCW permit reciprocity, as that will caus Cali, Hawaii, New Jersey, new York and some other places to cry and whine as well. They are going to go for the usual which is "You lose this, and that is your compromise." It doesn't matter how much sense it makes to us, to them, to allow us any leeway whatsoever in "nonsensical", but we can hope.

 

[deadin]

OK, ban bump fire, but we get suppressors, short barreled rifles and short barreled shot guns off NFA completely."

What if they counter with "Agree to a bump fire ban ( or reclassification) and we won't put all semi-auto's capable of taking an extended magazine in the NFA"? (The Australia solution without actually "banning" anything, just heavily regulating.)

 

[Armymutt]

I wonder how they intend to enforce a no bumpfire ban. Are they going to start cutting off fingers? You don't need a stock to bumpfire. I can do it on my Mini-14 from my shoulder just by holding it loosely. I haven't put enough rounds through my ARs yet, but I suspect once they are broken in, they will do the same thing.

 

[carpboy]

What if they counter with "Agree to a bump fire ban ( or reclassification) and we won't put all semi-auto's capable of taking an extended magazine in the NFA"? (The Australia solution without actually "banning" anything, just heavily regulating.)

The response to that would be Elections Matter! The Republicans hold the White House and both houses of Congress. Even as spineless as the current bunch of RINOs is,that threat would never get traction.

 

[jmorris]

"The bureau should revisit the issue and “immediately review whether these devices comply with federal law...

Ok, neat, do your review.

Now that you did, again, and to the letter of the current law, it's not a machine gun. Now what?

Change the law, right?

Nancy Pelosi said she hopes this becomes a "slippery slope" and it will.

How exactly would you word a law banning bump firing when any self loading rifle can be bump fired, even without a slidefire stock?

 

[deadin]

How exactly would you word a law banning bump firing when any self loading rifle can be bump fired, even without a slidefire stock?

"All self loading rifles capable of being "bump fired" are banned"?????

 

[AlexanderA]

The ATF doesn't have the authority to reopen the registry. If it rules that bump-fire stocks are machine guns (reversing its earlier position), that means a total ban because they would be post-1986 contraband machine guns.

AG Sessions can subsequently declare a 90-day amnesty for registration, although that would be of questionable legality.

How do you mark a plastic bump-fire stock with a permanent serial number?

 

[AlexanderA]

Ok, neat, do your review.

Now that you did, again, and to the letter of the current law, it's not a machine gun. Now what?

Change the law, right?

Nancy Pelosi said she hopes this becomes a "slippery slope" and it will.

That's actually the most likely outcome of the NRA taking the issue to the ATF. It gets bucked back to Congress.

Maybe the NRA is thinking that its ploy will buy time, and attention to the issue will fade. It's pretty risky to assume that.

The NRA should be lobbying Congress for linkage to things that gun owners want. Legislatively redefine bump-fires as machine guns, but open the damn registry to bump-fires and new machine guns alike! Sell it as a regulatory scheme.

 

[CoalTrain49]

That's actually the most likely outcome of the NRA taking the issue to the ATF. It gets bucked back to Congress.

Maybe the NRA is thinking that its ploy will buy time, and attention to the issue will fade. It's pretty risky to assume that.

The NRA should be lobbying Congress for linkage to things that gun owners want. Legislatively redefine bump-fires as machine guns, but open the damn registry to bump-fires and new machine guns alike! Sell it as a regulatory scheme.

Or legislatively define AR's and AK's as title II weapons. Same regulatory scheme.

The regulatory scheme is something that could cut both ways. If you say that these things should be regulated what's to keep some industrious dem from realizing that it would also be a great way to regulate the sale of AR-15's. I could make a strong case for that given what I know about AR-15's and title II hardware if I wanted to. For instance, is a short barreled rifle really anymore dangerous than a legal AR with a 20" barrel? Of course it isn't. Which is more dangerous to the unarmed public, a shotgun with a 10 barrel or an AR-15? I think we all know the answer to that, or we should. Most of that title II stuff was implemented back in the 30's when people were robbing banks with sawed off shotguns and gangsters were running amok with machine guns.

Of course NFA needs to be revised but you may not like the revision. Sometimes it's better to just let sleeping dogs sleep.

 

[ilbob]

I think you will have a tough time banning all the things that can make a SA firearm shoot faster. Most people can probably learn to operate their trigger finger almost as fast as a bump fire stock does for you. Just takes some practice. A better trigger makes it run faster too.

 

[Buck60]

After the Jimmy Kimmel tear filled rant .
I had decided to join the NRA .
I have owned and been around guns all my life but have never been a member .

I have to say that I will not now or ever join the NRA after their position on the bump stock fiasco .
I have how ever joined other gun lobby groups instead .
Gun Owners of America is one example of the other choices that are out there .
The NRA seams to be like any other money driven corporation out there .
They only listen if you take away their money .

The thing I seem to see everyone talking about guns for or against .
The real thing they want is your rights .
I you give up any part of your right for the promise of a false security .
You will wind up with no rights and no security .

The whole bump stock thing to me is allot like the NFL players taking a knee during the national anthem .
Neither one is my thing but I gave four years in the Marine Corps so that Americans have the right and freedom for both .

I for one don't believe in any compromise on any freedom of any kind .
If you are willing to surrender this they will be back for more sooner or later .

I could go on but I have blathered and rambled on enough for one post .

 

[Sam1911]

Something I posted in response to someone in another thread:

If the NRA were to propose such an idea, I would very quickly pull my support/membership, and I assume millions of others would do so as well. They would lose their strength and clout almost overnight.

And this is something of a deeper strategic matter that the high-up folks around Wayne and Chris have to be putting into their thinking machine: There is a LOT at stake if the NRA does something that actually does alienate a large portion of their members. The NRA still suffers a little from the backlash due to their support of FOPA back in '86 because of the Hughes Amendment to it. Though what else they could have done at the time, and under the conditions, and considering the benefits FOPA brought, seems unanswered.

But if the NRA actually does alienate the NRA members, and loses that strength and clout, we are in A VERY BAD WAY. There would be nothing at all to stand where NRA stands now, as one of the most powerful lobbying organizations the world has ever known. Our voice in DC would drop to a disorganized whisper, probably never to recover anything like its current strength.

We must try to help the NRA leadership as best as we can, make good decisions here -- from all of the strategic angles. A whole lot rides on that.

---

I am going to try VERY VERY HARD to trust the NRA leadership to be seeing and following a path that smartly and deftly walks us as far away from giving up rights as possible. Maybe it is indeed a great strategy to push this toward the ATF instead of Congress. Maybe it buys time. Maybe it ties things up until the national emotional tide abates. But...but there is no question it is a very dangerous game and even saying the things they've said sets dangerous precedent and directs us to a place we MUST not go.

I'm going to try hard to trust. But I am highly skeptical at the moment.

 

[AlexanderA]

Or legislatively define AR's and AK's as title II weapons. Same regulatory scheme.

I honestly don't think there's any danger of that happening. There are just too many AR's and AK's around. The Republicans, at least, wouldn't want to alienate that many voters.

 

[rust collector]

This is really reminiscent of the old "If we don't hang together we shall all hang separately" observation. The only way the NRA can be effective is with massive support. Nattering like this whittles away that support and trust, weakening the one thing that can effectively get in the way of the drive to blame things instead of people.
There will be things we don't like in every other person, group or entity, including political parties. If you don't look for the big picture and learn to overlook our differences, the prognosis is grim.

 

[HANDLOADER]

The nra sucks, to be more specific they are sell outs who do not stand with the common man. Your 40ish a year due goes to the mags and their pocket book. Gun owners of America all the way.

 

[2ifbyC]

In every battle, there are wins and losses. I am in the “no infringement” camp. But I do not know the DC swamp and I trust that the NRA does. I find it incomprehensible when a “right” is constantly eroded but wise enough to face reality. Nowhere in my mind do I believe that the NRA would act contrary to the best long term interests of their members or to its mission to defend the 2nd Amendment.

In life you must face conflict with a plan to succeed. Often, you are not the captain of that ship. In a Republic, you must turn that duty over to those who represent your beliefs. It’s not perfect, but I cannot think of any other country that excels beyond ours. Given the track record of Congress, I am disillusioned. But I also know that we have the power to tweak things come the next election.

 

[DoubleMag]

Feckless action of the Right in congress is just as bad as expected action of the Left.

I am no advocate of the NRA's current actions (re: requesting a ATF ruling) and they got an earfull from me yesterday, but perhaps they understand this better then most; the Right's ability to win elections or ride coattails, and quickly run out of energy once actually enacting the agenda they ''ran'' for. Or, ran for becomes, run from. Imagine the damage that could come from F's proposed bill and subsequent sniveling er, excuse me, discussion about it before voting on it.

''I just say'n ''

 

[CoalTrain49]

I honestly don't think there's any danger of that happening. There are just too many AR's and AK's around. The Republicans, at least, wouldn't want to alienate that many voters.

You're probably right although a regulation approach would be an easier sell in congress. An AWB is just down right onerous where regulation of a title II device like an SBR isn't impossible to own. Several people at my range shoot them.

I can see some AG congressman making the case that we aren't banning anything, all we are doing is regulating it so they don't get into the wrong hands.

I believe a bill will soon pop up in congress to revise the NFA because Feinstein's bill isn't going anywhere. It's a ban and people don't like language that doesn't allow a legal process to acquire something. It's pretty much the way we do things and even the NRA likes that approach over an outright ban.

 

[petrel800]

I will continue to say this until I'm blue in the face. You're not compromising by giving up bump stocks, you're agreeing to the first step in the argument that rate of fire should be regulated. It is yet another back door approach that ends with semi autos. They will never quit. They are content taking an inch at a time.

You don't negotiate with dishonest people. I've never met an honest anti gunner. Every proposal they talk about has to be packaged in a lie.

In the end, we need to stand pat, no negotiations, no compromise. If you want to get rid of guns change the constitution, until then I'm not compromising.

 

[CoalTrain49]

I will continue to say this until I'm blue in the face. You're not compromising by giving up bump stocks, you're agreeing to the first step in the argument that rate of fire should be regulated. It is yet another back door approach that ends with semi autos. They will never quit. They are content taking an inch at a time.

You don't negotiate with dishonest people. I've never met an honest anti gunner. Every proposal they talk about has to be packaged in a lie.

In the end, we need to stand pat, no negotiations, no compromise. If you want to get rid of guns change the constitution, until then I'm not compromising.

Rate of fire is already regulated. The NRA is a PAC (political action committee). As such they need to play in the political arena. Politics is a dirty business and involves negotiations. It's one big poker game and one needs to pay close attention to the cards one is holding. Every time one of these mass shootings happen with a semi auto rifle our hand looks pretty bad. Bet it if you want but my guess is it isn't a winner right now.

 

[316SS]

Rate of fire is already regulated.

How so, please? In fact, mechanism of fire is (currently) regulated.

I wonder how they intend to enforce a no bumpfire ban. Are they going to start cutting off fingers? You don't need a stock to bumpfire. I can do it on my Mini-14 from my shoulder just by holding it loosely.

It seems obvious to me ... This is not about bumpstocks, it is about banning semi-autos. Anything that could potentially exceed some arbitrary rate of fire, regardless of mechanism.

Edit: From the Bumpfire Ban Bill (see other thread)

it shall be unlawful to .... possess ...any part, combination of parts, device, which is designed or functions to accelerate the rate of fire of a semiautomatic rifle but not convert the semiautomatic rifle into a machinegun.

Seems like that might include your Mini-14, Armymutt.

 

[John Joseph]

IMHO the bump fire circumvents the NFA. Agree with the NFA or not the precedent has already been set re full auto and the bump fire converts a gas operated semi into a binary gas/recoil operated full auto, no? The NRA can hardly be blamed for "giving up" what gun owners haven't had since the NFA was enacted.
I wanted to get this in before the thread gets locked.

 

[Ed N.]

IMHO the bump fire circumvents the NFA. Agree with the NFA or not the precedent has already been set re full auto and the bump fire converts a gas operated semi into a binary gas/recoil operated full auto, no? The NRA can hardly be blamed for "giving up" what gun owners haven't had since the NFA was enacted.
I wanted to get this in before the thread gets locked.

Since practically any semi auto rifle can be bump fired without any modification or accessory, your way of thinking would logically lead to banning all semi auto rifles.