NRA Supports Ban on Bumpfire Devices

[wojownik]

and that is the scary part, they will keep trying to produce bills into law that will someday really hurt us, I sometimes think the next few generations will not put up a fight to attempt to keep the 2A safe

"They" will be our kids in a few years. Our kids, who are being subjected to a relentless spin campaign via every possible media. It is an uphill struggle against unfair odds - not just on the 2A - but on just about every other "family value" as well. My job is constantly to challenge my kids with developing the critical thinking skills to make up their own minds. My kids may or may not grow up with the same views that I hold dear, but at least I can try to ensure that they can come to their own conclusions.

And the problem is not just biased media - it's more subliminal than that. My kids are going through school lockdown drills, and even though the school doesn't specifically tell the kids what its about, the kids know full well ... its about bad guys and guns. And guns are bad and scary. I've already had one professional exchange with one of the teachers who spewed out anti 2A info to the kids (social studies class - explaining that some of the Bill of Rights are obsolete and we need to work to remove them).

So, back on topic for this thread (more or less), we need to keep supporting the NRA. Keep pushing forward on 2A rights. And keep hoping a body of law continues to be built (from local to the Supreme Court) and clarifies and reaffirms what the Second Amendment is really about.

The ATF (possibly) made a questionable decision approving some types of bumpfire devices. Replacement of stock, grip, installation of a new part, to simulate full-auto fire? Well, ATF flatly decided that product was not illegal. If this was a bad decision by ATF, ATF needs to be held to account. Not the innocent purchasers of these products, who a whole range of congressmen want to criminalize.

One of (many) galling aspects of Feinstein is "bumpfiring" bad legislation herself, and not even bothering to convene a hearing to find out what ATF was thinking, and to let it defend its decision. We need to tell our Senators to back down - this is bad process, and badly worded legislation ... Ditto for the Cuberto version that emerged in the House. Never mind that Ryan is making sounds like he's going to stall it. Ryan may or may not waffle. Even if it is stalled, we need to remind our Congressman that we are watching, and let them know that Joe Public is not so uneducated as to recognize sloppily written knee-jerk legislation.

 

[AlexanderA]

It's true that there won't be a trade to allow 50-state concealed carry, or the deregulation of silencers, in exchange for the banning of bump-fire stocks. The NRA knows this. Anyway, this could only be done legislatively -- which opens a huge can of worms.

However, if bump-fire stocks were addressed administratively (through the ATF), then there could be some follow-on effects regarding the NFA registry. Let's say that existing bump-fires were grandfathered by being added to the registry (as machine guns). Since the stocks are not serialized, and there is no practical way to serialize them (since they are made of plastic), the registration would have to be done by registering the host weapon (in the same way that the lower receiver is registered for an SBR). This would imply an amnesty period (an opening of the registry) for all lower receivers. Once the lower receivers were registered as machine guns, proper conversions could be done and the bump-fire stocks discarded. This could be expanded, by action of the Attorney General, to an amnesty for all unregistered machine guns, thereby making the Hughes Amendment moot. In addition, in such an amnesty, all SBR's and dealer-sample MG's could be upgraded to fully transferable machine guns.

We need to think two steps ahead. The antigunners are famous for saying "never let a crisis go to waste." The pro-gunners need to follow the same motto. Regulatory changes, if they are inevitable, can be switched to work in our favor. After all, we supposedly have a pro-gun, favorable Administration. Let's hold their feet to the fire.

 

[danez71]

Since the stocks are not serialized, and there is no practical way to serialize them (since they are made of plastic),

This part isn't really true.

CA legislators passed a law that requires the 80% receivers have to be serialized and came out the Regs on how to do it including polymer receivers.

 

[MachIVshooter]

The ATF (possibly) made a questionable decision approving some types of bumpfire devices. Replacement of stock, grip, installation of a new part, to simulate full-auto fire? Well, ATF flatly decided that product was not illegal. If this was a bad decision by ATF, ATF needs to be held to account.

While I agree with much of what you say, there was nothing "bad" or "questionable" about ATF's ruling. In this case, they did their job to the letter, a very strict and literal interpretation of 26 USC 5845 (b), which defines machine guns. Bump fire devices are clearly not.

The term “machinegun” means 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.

Bump fire devices in no way affect that, and "binary" (correctly, dual acting/function) triggers are also clearly not contraband. Rulings on trigger cranks maybe they could be held to task on, since there is some ambiguity employed in that determination, but those falling under scrutiny is a byproduct of the focus on bump fire stocks, not a result of them having ever been used in a crime.

Personally, I view bump stocks, dual function triggers and cranks (aside from actual Gatling guns) as gimmicks, but I do not support their banning or regulation, and I would not try to lay blame for Vegas at the ATF's feet. It's misplaced, concedes to the notion that the tool is the problem, and antagonizes the agency in a way that will NOT be favorable to us down the road on other FTB evaluations. I believe the NRAs statements were a gambit to prevent legislative action, and a fairly sound judgement call at the time, but we should not tow the line. Let the antis run with it and blame ATF whilst we, in stark contrast to the past, quietly defend them in their absolutely correct determination. All the while vehemently fighting legislative efforts to infringe.

 

[danez71]

While I agree with much of what you say, there was nothing "bad" or "questionable" about ATF's ruling. In this case, they did their job to the letter, a very strict and literal interpretation of 26 USC 5845 (b), which defines machine guns. Bump fire devices are clearly not.

The term “machinegun” means 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.

Bump fire devices in no way affect that, and "binary" (correctly, dual acting/function) triggers are also clearly not contraband. Rulings on trigger cranks maybe they could be held to task on, since there is some ambiguity employed in that determination, but those falling under scrutiny is a byproduct of the focus on bump fire stocks, not a result of them having ever been used in a crime.

Personally, I view bump stocks, dual function triggers and cranks (aside from actual Gatling guns) as gimmicks, but I do not support their banning or regulation, and I would not try to lay blame for Vegas at the ATF's feet. It's misplaced, concedes to the notion that the tool is the problem, and antagonizes the agency in a way that will NOT be favorable to us down the road on other FTB evaluations. I believe the NRAs statements were a gambit to prevent legislative action, and a fairly sound judgement call at the time, but we should not tow the line. Let the antis run with it and blame ATF whilst we, in stark contrast to the past, quietly defend them in their absolutely correct determination. All the while vehemently fighting legislative efforts to infringe.

Bingo.

 

[AlexanderA]

CA legislators passed a law that requires the 80% receivers have to be serialized and came out the Regs on how to do it including polymer receivers.

A plastic object (in this case a bump-fire stock) would normally be serialized by having a metal plate embedded in it, on which the serial number would be engraved. (This would be at the time of original manufacture.) However, we're talking about existing bump-fire stocks that would be grandfathered. I suppose plastic could be engraved, but the number could be easily altered, even with a hot stylus. If you're going to grandfather bump stocks, it would be much more practical to simply register the host receivers. That opens the door to a general opening of the registry. It could be done if the Administration wanted to do it.

 

[danez71]

A plastic object (in this case a bump-fire stock) would normally be serialized by having a metal plate embedded in it, on which the serial number would be engraved. (This would be at the time of original manufacture.) However, we're talking about existing bump-fire stocks that would be grandfathered. I suppose plastic could be engraved, but the number could be easily altered, even with a hot stylus. If you're going to grandfather bump stocks, it would be much more practical to simply register the host receivers. That opens the door to a general opening of the registry. It could be done if the Administration wanted to do it.

I understand... and I'm talking about existing 80% receivers in CA.

They made a reg for it and ita not about being practical at all... they don't care if it's practical.

I believe this is the relevent section of
AB857 which is about home builds.

[QUOTE

(B) If the firearm is manufactured or assembled from polymer plastic, 3.7 ounces of material type 17-4 PH stainless steel shall be embedded within the plastic upon fabrication or construction with the unique serial number engraved or otherwise permanently affixed in a manner that meets or exceeds the requirements imposed on licensed importers and licensed manufacturers of firearms pursuant to subsection (i) of Section 923 of Title 18 of the United States Code and regulations issued pursuant thereto.

The concensus on Calguns is that its impossible to meet on some 80% frames because 3.7 Oz of stainless steel works out to be about 1/8" thick x 3" x 2.3"

]The bill would, by January 1, 2019, and subject to exceptions, require any person who, as of July 1, 2018, owns a firearm that does not bear a serial number to likewise apply to the department for a unique serial number or other mark of identification.

 

[wojownik]

Personally, I want to agree with everything you posted below. My underlying point was that citizens and companies ideally shouldn't be harmed because some in Congress disagree with ATF's application of existing law. However, Feinstein and Cuberto bills would do exactly that - criminalize citizens for possessing a piece of plastic.

However, we also live in a world where judges, lawyers and politicians argue over the meaning of words like "is", and the world can turn on the placement of a comma or semicolon. So, the "single function" of a trigger seems self-evident in its plain, ordinary, and literal meaning. So, ATF applied the literal (or plain meaning) rule, reading the law word by word and hopefully without diverting from its true meaning.

But, that is not the end of the story. In American law (and the ATF applying administrative law is part of that body), there is an "absurdity limit" - a statute shouldn't be interpreted literally if it would lead to an absurd result. In this meaning, the intent of the law is more important than its text. The intent of the law was to restrict automatic weapons, and it could argued that an "absurd" result is that a certain combination of parts that render automatic fire is permissible under the literal text of the law. And that is the situation we have here - the literal text allows bumpfire products that yield automatic fire, even though the intent of the law was to restrict (and NOT prohibit) such a function.

I don't like what I typed above, but a fairly strong case can be made that the ATF's decision led to an "absurd result."


(b)Machinegun
The term “machinegun” means 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. The term shall also include the frame or receiver of any such weapon, any part designed and intended solely and exclusively, or combination of parts designed and intended, for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun, and any combination of parts from which a machinegun can be assembled if such parts are in the possession or under the control of a person.

While I agree with much of what you say, there was nothing "bad" or "questionable" about ATF's ruling. In this case, they did their job to the letter, a very strict and literal interpretation of 26 USC 5845 (b), which defines machine guns. Bump fire devices are clearly not.

The term “machinegun” means 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.

Bump fire devices in no way affect that, and "binary" (correctly, dual acting/function) triggers are also clearly not contraband. Rulings on trigger cranks maybe they could be held to task on, since there is some ambiguity employed in that determination, but those falling under scrutiny is a byproduct of the focus on bump fire stocks, not a result of them having ever been used in a crime.

Personally, I view bump stocks, dual function triggers and cranks (aside from actual Gatling guns) as gimmicks, but I do not support their banning or regulation, and I would not try to lay blame for Vegas at the ATF's feet. It's misplaced, concedes to the notion that the tool is the problem, and antagonizes the agency in a way that will NOT be favorable to us down the road on other FTB evaluations. I believe the NRAs statements were a gambit to prevent legislative action, and a fairly sound judgement call at the time, but we should not tow the line. Let the antis run with it and blame ATF whilst we, in stark contrast to the past, quietly defend them in their absolutely correct determination. All the while vehemently fighting legislative efforts to infringe.

 

[Warp]

Yeah...there is no way the dems are going to push for or support a law that includes or obviously opens the door for a re-opening of the machine gun registry to new lowers.

 

[AlexanderA]

Yeah...there is no way the dems are going to push for or support a law that includes or obviously opens the door for a re-opening of the machine gun registry to new lowers.

My point was that this could be done administratively, with no input from the Democrats, or any member of Congress for that matter. The fact that the registry would be reopened would be an "unintended consequence" of the bump-fire stock regulation (wink, wink).

 

[MachIVshooter]

Personally, I want to agree with everything you posted below. My underlying point was that citizens and companies ideally shouldn't be harmed because some in Congress disagree with ATF's application of existing law. However, Feinstein and Cuberto bills would do exactly that - criminalize citizens for possessing a piece of plastic.

However, we also live in a world where judges, lawyers and politicians argue over the meaning of words like "is", and the world can turn on the placement of a comma or semicolon. So, the "single function" of a trigger seems self-evident in its plain, ordinary, and literal meaning. So, ATF applied the literal (or plain meaning) rule, reading the law word by word and hopefully without diverting from its true meaning.

But, that is not the end of the story. In American law (and the ATF applying administrative law is part of that body), there is an "absurdity limit" - a statute shouldn't be interpreted literally if it would lead to an absurd result. In this meaning, the intent of the law is more important than its text. The intent of the law was to restrict automatic weapons, and it could argued that an "absurd" result is that a certain combination of parts that render automatic fire is permissible under the literal text of the law. And that is the situation we have here - the literal text allows bumpfire products that yield automatic fire, even though the intent of the law was to restrict (and NOT prohibit) such a function.

I don't like what I typed above, but a fairly strong case can be made that the ATF's decision led to an "absurd result."


(b)Machinegun
The term “machinegun” means 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. The term shall also include the frame or receiver of any such weapon, any part designed and intended solely and exclusively, or combination of parts designed and intended, for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun, and any combination of parts from which a machinegun can be assembled if such parts are in the possession or under the control of a person.

There's a good case for that, but with my (admittedly limited) understanding of such legal procedures and precedents, I don't believe an executive agency has the latitude to interpret and apply law that way. Maybe our lawyers can chime in, but I'm pretty sure that would have to be done through the judicial; someone legally challenging ATF's determination and the courts deciding that devices which take advantage of a legal loophole to effectively allow automatic fire constitute machine guns in the spirit of the law, and should therefore be regulated by it.

It would be interesting to see what happened if the courts were to rule that bump stocks and the like constitute title II weapons. Unlike it being done legislatively, there'd be no provision for grandfathering existing property or owners, so that creates the sticky situation of the government having to either compensate people so as not to violate the 4th amendment, or re-open the MG registry with an amnesty period. Again, not an attorney, but I'm fairly certain that it is illegal for government to seize/require forfeiture of lawfully obtained and owned property without compensation except in cases of monies owed or as a penalty for criminal acts. I'm not very familiar with 18 USC 983, either, but I know there are options for redress by people who wish to contest a forfeiture, too, which would absolutely swamp the courts.

And a further note on grandfathering: There is a reason that the federal AWB had to grandfather the items, while state laws can elect to grandfather the owners. The latter makes the item non-transferable within the jurisdiction. Where state laws are concerned, the items can still be sold to residents of other states, so it flies. That was a point of contention in fighting the mag ban here in CO, where they made them non-transferable within the state. We lost our legal challenge on those grounds because they can still be sold to/in other states. Federal law, however, has to grandfather the item rather than owner, because making a non-exportable item also non-transferable completely devalues a person's legally obtained and owned property.

 

[Sam1911]

Seeing as the MG registry was closed by an act of Congress, and it's closure is a law of the land, I don't think there's any possible latitude for the BATFE to reopen it administratively, without another act of Congress.

 

[MachIVshooter]

Seeing as the MG registry was closed by an act of Congress, and it's closure is a law of the land, I don't think there's any possible latitude for the BATFE to reopen it administratively, without another act of Congress.

Yeah, I've no idea how that would work with an amnesty period vs. just plain open.

 

[wojownik]

There's a good case for that, but with my (admittedly limited) understanding of such legal procedures and precedents, I don't believe an executive agency has the latitude to interpret and apply law that way. ....
It would be interesting to see what happened if the courts were to rule that bump stocks and the like constitute title II weapons...

Actually, agencies very much have latitude to interpret a statute. The FCC does it all the time, as does the Department of Commerce and Department of State (the latter in interpretation of export control statutes, for example). This is a complicated area of administrative law, and the deference of the judiciary to agency interpretations of statutes. In Chevron v. NRDC, the Supreme Court supplied a strong justification for courts' deference to an agency interpretations of its organic statutes. In short, the Court reasoned that courts should defer to an agency because, when a statute is silent or ambiguous, Congress has delegated the policy making authority necessary to fill the gap to the agency charged with implementing the statute.

So, it would be interesting to see if a court would on bump stocks, but the fact of the matter is that there are no such cases in process (so this is purely speculative), and in all likelihood courts would likely defer to an agency (ATF) decision in this area, since it is an interpretation of law (organic statute) rather than an interpretation of its own regulations, as covered in the Chevron decision.

As for seizure/forfeiture, a ban is not a seizure, per se. And it is not a taking for a public purpose - it is arguably "an exercise of legislative police power to prevent perceived public harm, rather than an exercise of eminent domain for public use." (quoting a decision in a Fesjian v. Jefferson). The Feinstein bill would essentially render bumpfire stocks into "contraband per se", which is property that is always unlawful to possess. Accordingly, the government may not have to provide just compensation. There is a fair amount of case law specific to firearms "bans" that seems to back up a position that compensation is not required in this scenario. However, these decisions are by and large pre-Heller, and some use logic that is contrary with Heller and McDonald. So case law gets a little funky here.

However, the Supreme Court's approach to public taking law is - frankly - all over the place. Back in 1984, the Court itself said that it was "quite simply . . . unable to develop any 'set formula' for determining when 'justice and fairness' require that economic injuries caused by public action be compensated by the government." (Penn Cent. Transp. Co. v. City of New York). That was 33 years ago, and this hasn't gotten a whole lot clearer, IMHO.

 

[AlexanderA]

Seeing as the MG registry was closed by an act of Congress, and it's closure is a law of the land, I don't think there's any possible latitude for the BATFE to reopen it administratively, without another act of Congress.

The GCA '68 has a specific provision that authorizes the Attorney General to declare any number of 90-day machine gun amnesties. Now, it can be argued that the FOPA '86 moratorium, being a later enactment, prevents the reopening of the registry in this way. But, if the AG were to go ahead and declare such an amnesty, no one would have standing to challenge such an action in court. (In other words, no injury to any person could be shown by such an easing of the rules.) Besides that, the FOPA '86 registry freeze carves out an exception for guns possessed "under the authority of" the U.S. It seems that an official AG amnesty would provide plenty of such authority.

 

[MachIVshooter]

Actually, agencies very much have latitude to interpret a statute.

But how does that work when a particular statute and the relevant definitions are as cut & dried as 26 USC 5845(b)? There is absolutely nothing vague or ambiguous in that one, no room for interpretation.

 

[AlexanderA]

There is absolutely nothing vague or ambiguous in that one, no room for interpretation.

I think there is room for interpretation. Let's look at the relevant portion of 26 USC 5845(b):

The term “machinegun” means 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. The term shall also include the frame or receiver of any such weapon, any part designed and intended solely and exclusively, or combination of parts designed and intended, for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun...
​

The key thing here is the meaning of "a single function of the trigger." A bump-fire stock is an "automatic trigger activation device," similar in concept to an electronically-controlled solenoid attached to the trigger. If you can press the switch on the solenoid (even remotely), and it does the rest of the work in pulling the trigger repeatedly, you have a machine gun.

The original Akins Accelerator was ruled to be a machine gun. The only difference between that and the current bump-fire stocks was the presence of a spring, which turned out not to be necessary for its operation.

Similarly, a drop-in auto sear releases the hammer automatically, and is in reality a modification of the trigger. Again, the ATF originally ruled that a DIAS was not a machine gun (in itself), and then reversed its position.

This is the kind of rationale the ATF could use to reverse its earlier position on bump stocks. Remember that the ATF is an executive agency and it ultimately has to follow the orders of its superiors.

 

[whughett]

Battles are won and wars still lost, keep up the prattle about something as utterly useless as bump stocks and weep your bitter tears when the war is lost in the end.

If you don't like the NRA, leave, don't join, just shut up about it and let us that support them do our thing.

 

[Warp]

Battles are won and wars still lost, keep up the prattle about something as utterly useless as bump stocks and weep your bitter tears when the war is lost in the end.

If you don't like the NRA, leave, don't join, just shut up about it and let us that support them do our thing.

What 'battle's have the Pro Second Amendment cadre won with the federal legislature or batfe of late?

What battles do we anticipate winning with the federal legislature or batfe in the near future?

Why do you get to decide what Second Amendment infringements are worthwhile and which ones we should just accept?

 

[danez71]

What 'battle's have the Pro Second Amendment cadre won with the federal legislature or batfe of late?

I often wonder that myself when people say we've been making great strides.

Some states... Yes. Others, just the opposite.

Unfortunately, it seems that the many heavy handed anti 2A fed laws that trump states law are forgotten.


The expiration of the 94 AWB that was blocked from renewal isn't a victory particularly when you consider Bush said he would have signed it if it had got to his desk.

 

[wojownik]

AlexanderA gets it, and is reading the clause exactly as I was. For example, ATF could amend its interpretation of the existing statute to look at something like Slidefire as an installed part, or combination of parts, (replacing the buttstock and grip) that could then be interpreted to have been designed and intended for converting a weapon into something that performs as a machine gun by bypassing the "single function of a trigger". And that is not stretching the law too far at all, IMHO. Could this particular product have gone too far because it is a significant replacement of "parts" rather than a mere external accessory (the latter is not described below)? Could ATF revisit its decision as having been in error in this particular type of product.

That could be an angle for ATF to take, reversing it prior approvals of certain products because the products in retrospect represented "parts designed an intended, for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun." Conversely, there may be other products out there that are mere accessories, not parts, that conform to this regulation.

The administration would be able to state that the proposed legislation is moot, if 26 USC 5845(b) were applied in this manner.

ATF is indeed an executive agency, but does not only follow the orders of its "boss." It must also follow the law (as it is interpreted. And, these two - the boss and interpretation of the law - are frequently interrelated) ... In reality, ATF must also factor in both public perception and common sense (though "common sense" in a bureaucratic sense is not what 99% of humans outside the DC beltway would consider to be common, or sensical).

I think there is room for interpretation. Let's look at the relevant portion of 26 USC 5845(b):

The term “machinegun” means 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. The term shall also include the frame or receiver of any such weapon, any part designed and intended solely and exclusively, or combination of parts designed and intended, for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun...
​

The key thing here is the meaning of "a single function of the trigger." A bump-fire stock is an "automatic trigger activation device," similar in concept to an electronically-controlled solenoid attached to the trigger. If you can press the switch on the solenoid (even remotely), and it does the rest of the work in pulling the trigger repeatedly, you have a machine gun.

The original Akins Accelerator was ruled to be a machine gun. The only difference between that and the current bump-fire stocks was the presence of a spring, which turned out not to be necessary for its operation.

Similarly, a drop-in auto sear releases the hammer automatically, and is in reality a modification of the trigger. Again, the ATF originally ruled that a DIAS was not a machine gun (in itself), and then reversed its position.

This is the kind of rationale the ATF could use to reverse its earlier position on bump stocks. Remember that the ATF is an executive agency and it ultimately has to follow the orders of its superiors.

 

[whughett]

You going to have to convince me just what a bump stock has to do with the 2nd. I'm just a responsible gun owner, senior citizen, husband, father, grand father, registered voter and 6th generation American. I don't decide anything, I just vote and try to live productively. A device that circumvents gun laws and allows cowboys to make you tube videos to shown of the size of their member doesn't do any one any good. Bump stocks have no 2nd amendment value.

 

[Sam1911]

You going to have to convince me just what a bump stock has to do with the 2nd.

Sometimes, every once in a while, when somebody says something like that, they really are asking for someone to explain something to them.

Most of the time, though, it's really a declaration that, "My mind's made up, there's no teaching me anything, and I don't care what you think!"

Assuming the former...

I'm just a responsible gun owner, senior citizen, husband, father, grand father, registered voter and 6th generation American. I don't decide anything, I just vote and try to live productively.

So you're pretty much more or less just like everyone else here. That's cool.

A device that circumvents gun laws...

The regulatory agency that is charged by the federal government with interpreting the black letter law of the land says a bump-fire stock does NOT "circumvent" any law. It precisely FOLLOWS the law.

Apparently you want to argue the point with them?

...and allows cowboys to make you tube videos to shown of the size of their member ...

Any thing done with any firearm in public or on video is claimed by somebody somewhere to be a show of manliness and/or a penis surrogate. I'd think a fine upstanding regular guy like yourself would be ashamed to buy into that kind of cheap elitism.

Bump stocks have no 2nd amendment value.

Ahhh, let us get into the meat of the matter then, shall we?

The 2nd Amendment says, "... the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." That's pretty clear. If we need to figure out just what that was supposed to mean, we can ask Constitutional Convention delegate Tenche Coxe who said, "Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress has no power to disarm the militia. Their swords and every terrible implement of the soldier are the birthright of Americans."

Hmmm... so military weapons are SUPPOSED to be what the 2nd Amendment is all about. I think we all understand that, but it's nice to occasionally point it out again.

In 1934, for some pretty dastardly reasons which would be anathema to all sides of the political circus these days, a heavy push was made to lay an intense weight of federal law enforcement upon the land and part of that package was to outlaw (by extremely expensive registration) almost all firearms that weren't basic hunting guns. Parts of that package passed, including the National Firearms Act which said that only the very wealthy could legally own machine guns. It's always nice to remember that if you're rich enough you can do whatever you want. Only the poor common folks must be kept tied down.

Then, in 1986, some very unpleasant people jammed an ugly bit of text into a good bill that was supposed to protect America's gun owners and managed to close the machine gun registry. So that made the already expensive matter of acquiring a machine gun for LAWFUL purposes suddenly FAR more expensive as the limited supply of existing MGs made the prices charged soar to tens of thousands of dollars.

Now, I oppose the NFA to begin with -- in whole and in every part -- and so I laud the inventors and gun tinkerers of our nation who found a PERFECTLY and BATFE-APPROVED LEGAL way to give some full-auto fire capacity back to the average gun owner who can't spend the tens of thousands of dollars run-amok government has forced purpose-built full-auto firearms to cost now.

Most sincerely, BRAVO! The good folks out there in our nation developed a way through physics and ingenuity to put a functional semblance of the "birthright of Americans" back into the hands of actual everyday Americans.



So...hope that helps you see why this actually IS a 2nd Amendment issue and why we should defend it.

 

[PabloJ]

Making ownership of bump-fire devices ins't going to solve anything.

 

[Tommygunn]

Making ownership of bump-fire devices ins't going to solve anything.

Making them....legal?....illegal? Huh?