possible legislation to ban bump stocks

[Plan2Live]

I voted with the minority. Bump stocks are nothing more than a NFA workaround that never should have been approved. Circumventing existing laws doesn't cast a positive light on legitimate gun owners. I'll add this since others have thrown suppressors/silencers into this conversation. I wonder how many people who support the HPA in the interest of protecting their hearing (supposedly) also own motorcycles with the mufflers removed because they claim loud pipes save lives. That would be an interesting poll.

 

[GBExpat]

... I'm interested to know whether folks here feel this is something we can safely give up ...

Use for barter, yes. Just give it up? Absolutely not.

=====

In 2003 after reading about and experimenting with bumpfiring in my backyard I started development of a bumpfire stock. I used an AK for development.

The prototype was to prove the concept. The second device helped me to eradicate bugs and improve operation and control. With the new muzzle brake, muzzle rise was almost eliminated and with the adjustable trigger finger rest I found that I could quickly "burst fire" almost all of the 20 rounds (I prefer the Hungarian[?] tanker mags) onto a paper plate at 50 yards. The RPM rate was surprisingly high.

A couple of family/friends thought that it was a dandy little invention ... as did I ...

... but ...

... after thinking about it long & hard one day after working with it at my range, I abandoned the project. I had decided that the chance of accident or misuse was something which which I did not wish to deal. S'just me. <shrug>

I felt sure that such devices would soon appear in the marketplace (within ~2 years I started seeing them) and I hoped that the folks that purchased them used them with respect and had a ball with them.

 

[yokel]

Feinstein and her ilk are well aware that there is little sense in a so-called bump stock ban.

Don't you realize that it's merely part of a series forming successive stages?

The leftists may deny it for now, but in their estimation what we actually need to significantly enhance public safety is domestic disarmament, collecting and destroying guns from their civilian populations.

Indeed, the ultimate goal is a comprehensive ban on weapons and they only make incremental claims to disguise their real aims.

The unfortunate reality of the matter is that our obstinate adversaries detest the Second Amendment, and detest the people who seek to exercise their rights under the Second Amendment.

 

[TJ AK-74]

I voted with the minority. Bump stocks are nothing more than a NFA workaround that never should have been approved. Circumventing existing laws doesn't cast a positive light on legitimate gun owners.

Nothing wrong with working around NFA when the BATFE approved it. It's kind of like saying that itemizing your taxes to take advantage of the tax code, as allowed by the IRS, is putting legitimate taxpayers in a bad light by circumventing the tax code... that just makes no sense. NFA is stupid law and should be done away with anyways, and the fact that the ATF approved these devices just shows how pointless the whole thing is, since these devices give almost the same capabilities without the extra paperwork and tax revenue.

 

[WrongHanded]

i absolutely disagree 100% with wronghanded's perspective. that was the approach that was tried in the 80s when even the NRA was all about hunting and didn't care at all about the 2A or black rifles etc. and Ruger made stupid comments about nobody needing more than 10 rounds, and colt made semi auto bolt carriers and a shelf and jacked up pins in their lowers. etc.

there is absolutely zero value to be gained from attempting to appease gun banners. they won't stop at any line and will use any minor victory to attempt to convince politicians that they can vote against guns and get reelected. it doesn't matter how many inches you give or how much you compromise, they will still paint you as the enemy and think of you as a racist nut

and this entire country should be focused MORE on individual rights and less on public safety.

Politics is won and lost in the middle ground. And firearms legislation is most definitely politics. The more unreasonable one side seems to be, the more the middle trends the other way.

 

[Sam1911]

Politics is won and lost in the middle ground. And firearms legislation is most definitely politics. The more unreasonable one side seems to be, the more the middle trends the other way.

That's a sticky, gooey, tempting, way of looking at things, but in this case it is disastrously wrong, and will suck us down into total loss.

If we go along with a ban on bumpfire stocks -- throw them a sacrificial bone -- then what we've REALLY done is to acquiesce to the basic idea that guns are the problem and gun control works. The antis will dance a jig and pop champagne corks if they see us do that because they'll know they've won, it's just a matter of time.

If you agree with a little gun ban then you've just told the world, "YES, ok, fine, our guns are the problem, and we'll give some up -- its the right thing to do." After that there's no high ground left to stand on when trying to hang on to our other guns. Because if bumpfire stocks need to be banned because of what this one psychopath did with them, then AR-15s need to be banned because of what Lanza did, and shotguns need to be banned because of what Aaron Alexis did, and handguns need to be banned because of all the murders committed with them. And scoped rifles need to be banned because of Charles Whitman, etc., etc.


We CANNOT capitulate. It is absolute, certain death of our rights to do so.

 

[Fine Figure of a Man]

That's a sticky, gooey, tempting, way of looking at things, but in this case it is disastrously wrong, and will suck us down into total loss.

If we go along with a ban on bumpfire stocks -- throw them a sacrificial bone -- then what we've REALLY done is to acquiesce to the basic idea that guns are the problem and gun control works. The antis will dance a jig and pop champagne corks if they see us do that because they'll know they've won, it's just a matter of time.

If you agree with a little gun ban then you've just told the world, "YES, ok, fine, our guns are the problem, and we'll give some up -- its the right thing to do." After that there's no high ground left to stand on when trying to hang on to our other guns. Because if bumpfire stocks need to be banned because of what this one psychopath did with them, then AR-15s need to be banned because of what Lanza did, and shotguns need to be banned because of what Aaron Alexis did, and handguns need to be banned because of all the murders committed with them. And scoped rifles need to be banned because of Charles Whitman, etc., etc.


We CANNOT capitulate. It is absolute, certain death of our rights to do so.

100% correct

 

[jmorris]

i'm not really clear what you're talking about. firearm rights are arguably stronger now than they have been at any time in my lifetime.

They will take what they can get anytime they can get it. I don't know how old you are but things like the Hughes Amendment for example, that shut down the registry.

They also know they have little to no chance right now for anything, that's why they are going after a type of stock and misrepresenting the facts, at best, on every "news" channel. Whatever they can get, whenever they can get it, pretty clear.

 

[jmorris]

If we go along with a ban on bumpfire stocks -- throw them a sacrificial bone

I am looking at it the way they would if they argued from our side.

It's not a ban on bump fire stocks, it's putting them in the same catagory as a machine gun, that I would be OK with; however, first we would need to open the registry again.

Ball is in their court, we give a little to get a lot vs just give and wait until they comeback for more....

I always find it funny that the people who cry "We must do something!" are the most clueless as what to do...

 

[bassjam]

The Republicans are in a great position right now to use this to their advantage and turn this around on the Democrats.

"Hey, we offered to make bump stocks an NFA item in return for Constitutional Carry, but they laughed in our face. They are unwilling to work with us to save lives."

 

[WrongHanded]

That's a sticky, gooey, tempting, way of looking at things, but in this case it is disastrously wrong, and will suck us down into total loss.

If we go along with a ban on bumpfire stocks -- throw them a sacrificial bone -- then what we've REALLY done is to acquiesce to the basic idea that guns are the problem and gun control works. The antis will dance a jig and pop champagne corks if they see us do that because they'll know they've won, it's just a matter of time.

If you agree with a little gun ban then you've just told the world, "YES, ok, fine, our guns are the problem, and we'll give some up -- its the right thing to do." After that there's no high ground left to stand on when trying to hang on to our other guns. Because if bumpfire stocks need to be banned because of what this one psychopath did with them, then AR-15s need to be banned because of what Lanza did, and shotguns need to be banned because of what Aaron Alexis did, and handguns need to be banned because of all the murders committed with them. And scoped rifles need to be banned because of Charles Whitman, etc., etc.


We CANNOT capitulate. It is absolute, certain death of our rights to do so.

I understand exactly what you're saying. I just seriously doubt that the majority of Americans agree. And that is, as I see it, the real issue. 'No compromise' sounds great, but it's never that simple.

 

[BigBore44]

“Those who would give up an Essential liberty to puchase a little Temporary safety, deserve neither.”

Benjamin Franklin.

I know how I interpret that.

 

[littlebluevette]

Can anyone explain how a bump stock could even work on a tri-pod as portrayed by the press?

 

[ATLDave]

I agree that the anti-gun people will never stop asking for more. That's their modus operandi. That's what they do. So there's no reason to do this as "bone throwing" in the hopes that they will be satisfied. That makes no sense.

There are four possible good reasons to do this, none of which depend upon "trusting" the anti-gunners:

1) In order to extract something else of value. At this moment, the Hughes repeal is a pipe dream. But swapping bump-fire stocks into the NFA in exchange for taking SBR's or suppressors out from under... possibly get-able.
2) In order to avoid generating massive negative views among independents/swing voters. This is already a concern with very negative views of the GOP, the current president, Dems leading big on generic congressional ballot questions, etc. Maybe you don't want to make that worse.
3) Because you think it's actually a good idea in and of itself. Maybe you think that full-auto gunfire is qualitatively different in terms of its ability to generate mass casualties and its non-usefulness for lawful activities, and that an NFA level of regulation of it is actually appropriate.
4) Because you think it's politically inevitable and you want control/input as to the language.

Those are the reasons I can think of. Not because it will make "the other side" satisfied. We know that doesn't happen.

 

[AlexanderA]

I think that it's incredibly tone deaf to defend machine guns to the point of demanding more of them.

Legal machine guns (the ones that are regulated by the NFA) have never been a problem. In the 80+ years since the NFA was enacted, there have only been a couple of incidents where such weapons have been misused. In fact, you could argue that the 1986 Hughes Amendment moratorium on new legal machine guns is what inspired workarounds such as bumpfire stocks. If legit machine guns were available at reasonable prices (albeit after strict vetting), you wouldn't have such interest in bypassing the law.

 

[wojownik]

I'm split on this issue. Yes, bumpfire products could be argued to be a workaround to simulate near-full auto fire that is restricted under NFA rules.

No, I don't like the idea of a government "ban" on anything, particularly when the item has been legally purchased to date. That is simply a "taking" without compensation.

Maybe, the idea of "restriction" to add these under NFA is a discussion area. But, no, I don't relish the idea of a $200+ tax stamp on a product that might cost as little as $20.

And, no, I don't trust the anti-2A crowd. And, I no longer trust the supposed pro-2A crowd on the Hill. And the lack of trust is the greatest problem here. Politicians and bureaucrats will succumb to the passions of the moment, and bit by bit, start taking back gains made under Heller, etc... Not that bumpfire falls under Heller at all, IMHO, but note that the New York Times this morning published an op ed calling for the outright repeal of the Second Amendment.

No, it does not start or stop with bumpfire stocks. And, for whatever public benefit a "restriction" on these products might provide, no legislation should be tolerated that restricts one area, without expanding rights in another ...

 

[jmorris]

One more thing, the people that elected the party that is in control now did so to push certain agendas.

Despite controlling Executive and Legislative branches they haven't delivered yet on promises made. In a little over a year some folks are going to want to be re elected and are going to have a hard enough time with noting to show for it, even harder with something seen as a negative, on their record, by potential voters.

 

[Sam1911]

I understand exactly what you're saying. I just seriously doubt that the majority of Americans agree. And that is, as I see it, the real issue. 'No compromise' sounds great, but it's never that simple.

But consider: Right now we are in a position where nothing has to actually be done (or likely WILL be done) beside a little political posturing. No legislation's actually going to come from this.

And, this week and this month, emotions are very high, but the American public (as shown by their voting record and the candidates elected) doesn't really see such bans as useful when they're not in the grip of tragic emotion.

"No compromise" is enough to carry us past this turbulent time of outrage. If WE ourselves can't help ourselves from quaking in our own boots and throwing out appeasements, then we might as well give up.

 

[Sam1911]

Can anyone explain how a bump stock could even work on a tri-pod as portrayed by the press?

It's certainly quite feasible. All the gun has to do is rock back and forth a little to make the system work, and that's possible with a bipod. And, the whole gun doesn't have to move, either.

 

[Jim Watson]

I am very pessimistic on this.
I see a high probability of repressive restrictions such as a ban on "bump stocks" and a return to magazine capacity limits.
It could be prevented if the Republicans would stand up for the constituents they said they would support. Which I doubt will happen.

I see no prospect for an exchange on restrictions. Count the bump stock as a MG but "open the registry" for new sales of bump stocks and real MGs? Not going to happen.

 

[AlexanderA]

The original poll in this thread is flawed. There should have been a third choice, which would be to trade bumpfire stocks for something else that we wanted more, such as repealing the Hughes Amendment. Getting something in exchange for giving up something is the true meaning of compromise. It's time that the antis get that message.

Also, no one has explained how bumpfire stocks relate to the Second Amendment. They're not useful for personal defense, they don't satisfy the tests in the Heller case, and they don't have a militia use. I don't think you can make the argument that they're constitutionally protected. These are mere range toys that unfortunately have the potential for serious misuse.

 

[Dan Forrester]

Why do people keep on bringing up national ccw reciprocity, suppressors or SBR? It doesn't seem to be relevant to the events that just happened in Nevada.

I think this is a great opportunity for the republicans to finally agree that we need tougher regulations on devices such as the bump stock and require them to be registered under the NFA as a machine gun similar to a drop in auto sear thereby re-opening the MG registry.

Dan

 

[Sam1911]

I think this is a great opportunity for the republicans to finally agree that we need tougher regulations on devices such as the bump stock

But that would be a terrible, terrible thing to.

Unless there was some guarantee of a concrete exchange for ...

and require them to be registered under the NFA as a machine gun similar to a drop in auto sear thereby re-opening the MG registry.

And that's so incredibly unlikely as to be almost a running joke. While there are "backroom deals" in politics, the idea that the powerful members of our side is going to sit down with the powerful people on their side and say to the American public, "we hammered out a deal exchanging some restrictions here for MORE gun freedom there..." is just practically inconceivable. It isn't the way business is done in DC.

 

[ATLDave]

While there are "backroom deals" in politics, the idea that the powerful members of our side is going to sit down with the powerful people on their side and say to the American public, "we hammered out a deal exchanging some restrictions here for MORE gun freedom there..." is just practically inconceivable. It isn't the way business is done in DC.

That used to happen all the time. That was precisely what actual compromise meant: each side gives (and, in return, gets something) of value.

I agree that doesn't happen much anymore, which is a function of political polarization which is a whole 'nother topic.

 

[Shanghai McCoy]

Emotions are running high and the opposition voices are once again calling to repeal the "outdated" 2nd Amendment .
Banning bump stocks could be the least of our worries.