possible legislation to ban bump stocks

Sam1911 said:

The shooter fired for 10 minutes. He had a total of 72 minutes before law enforcement entered. He could have kept going for an hour and 12 minutes.

Click to expand...

No, he couldn't have, because he was dead. Law enforcement didn't know that, but they knew that he had stopped firing. If he had still been firing, they would have breached right away.

That said, I agree with you that bump fire probably didn't do much to increase the body count. He probably would have killed more with aimed semi-auto fire, although he wouldn't have wounded as many.

This thing is moving quickly.

The NRA has spoken: “devices designed to allow semi-automatic rifles to function like fully-automatic rifles should be subject to additional regulations”

One thing I can say about the NRA-ILA is that it's good at assessing the political climate. It's good at counting the potential votes in the House and the Senate, and it's plugged into the thinking at the White House. (It's been widely reported that at least 4 Republican senators are seriously considering action on bumpfire stocks.)

The NRA would not make such a statement unless it was convinced that we're facing a fait accompli. The question now is, does the gun community stand by and let this thing go forward without input, or do we at least try to get something in return? Considering the shameful caving of the NRA on the 1986 FOPA (with the Hughes Amendment), does it redeem itself now by pushing for the repeal of the Hughes Amendment? (And these bumpfire stock restrictions could be a perfect vehicle for that.)

BTW, repeal of the Hughes Amendment doesn't have to be explicit. If the NFA registry is opened for bumpfire stocks, actual machine guns could piggyback along with them. It's all in how the legislation is worded. And a simple ATF ruling limited to bumpfire stocks won't help us at all -- we need to go to Congress.

I sure hope the NRA legislative experts are blanketing the halls of Congress even as we speak.

CoalTrain49 said:

I can't believe people are suggesting that NFA and the Hughes amendment could be repealed.

Click to expand...

Repeal of the Hughes Amendment presupposes that the underlying NFA remains in place. Otherwise such a repeal would make no sense. As part of a bill regulating bumpfire stocks (that is, by adding them to the NFA registry), a provision regarding post-1986 machine guns could easily be slipped in. After all, that is how we got Hughes in the first place.

ATLDave said:

The video and results here seem to suggest that at least this individual was able to run it consistently in the manner of a full-auto gun. "Aiming" isn't super relevant when you're talking about targeting an area/crowd.

FWIW, prior to this incident, I generally had the same impression of the slide-fire/bump-fire stocks... that they were a poor imitation that were hinky enough to probably not be meaningfully equivalent of full-auto and thus not a big deal. I do occasionally change my mind based on new information/evidence. This is one of those times. I think full-auto guns are different than all other guns... and I think the slide-fire/bump-fire stuff has gotten good enough as a technology that it is much more like full-auto than not.

Click to expand...

Another thing to consider is just how effective even assault rifles are at functioning in the area fire machinegun role. It is my impression that an assault rifle like a real M4A1 Carbine isn't all that appropriate or effective in the role normally occupied by a belt fed machinegun. Perhaps this is why the M16A1 and XM177 were full auto and the subsequent rifles have mostly been three round burst.

I agree that the videos demonstrate the technology has progressed to the point where it can emulate a full auto assault rifle in terms of rate of fire and apparently do so more or less reliably, but I just don't see clear and convicing evidence that it truly made this incident significantly more lethal than a regular semi-auto.

That being said, even if it were demonstrably more lethal, I still wouldn't support further restrictions. There are plenty of legal pre-86 belt fed machineguns out there, and if anyone could have afforded one, this turd could have. From what we know at this point, he likely would have been approved for it as well.

alexander45 said:

I'd suggest remembering this quote of yours when they go after semi autos again or shot guns holding more than 3 rounds in the tube firing their "death clouds" like they did during the AWB

Click to expand...

Surely will. The rate of fire of a bump fire stock far surpasses semi-auto.

coloradokevin said:

I find this all to be a rather curious argument coming from a person who flies an avatar of the Gadsden Flag.

Click to expand...

Oh, terribly sorry. Please link to me the Gadsden Flag requirements for avatar use post haste, good sir! I love its design and its history, that good enough? No? Fine and dandy. I seriously enjoy the juxtaposition of the current flag with the Gadsen, quite artistic and spans much of the history of this great nation.

coloradokevin said:

What level of gun control is enough for you?

Click to expand...

Yes, I'm on a gun control rampage saying a bump fire stock allowing rate of fire like an automatic without any of the legal procedure and process of an automatic should be banned. Goodness gracious! Slippery slope, right!

Look, you don't have to agree with me, that's fine. But I am seriously appalled at the behavior around here. It's pretty darn old getting accused of being something I'm not - not sure what it is I'm supposed to be, and how I'm not. And that somehow my avatar makes me suspicious. Not to mention implying that I simply MUST want to destroy all the guns to save the US from all the evil.

I could care less about bumpfire stocks but they open the floodgates to other "common sense" bans. You can simulate a bumpfire stock with a freakin rubber-band!



At what point is the "bumpfire stock" ban used as precedence to ban say lighter trigger springs, trigger upgrades or... Rubber bands?

Having read most of the comments on this thread, I thought I was in a safe room and someone never got their share of Playdough. Playing kumbaya with Democrats, especially on gun control, is a dangerous undertaking.

The liberals are far more crafty and devious when voicing changes in the law that they desire. Now is the time to be silent and to not entertain any of their demands. Stonewall; this is the tactic that Harry Reed used to reject any proposed bills that he thought onerous to the liberal cause.

Unfortunately, we do not have effective Republican leadership. There are many RINO’s that love the swap. There now appears to be a chink in the NRA armor. And the media is now playing Trump as a compromiser. However, we do have a “few good men” on this forum that understands the gravity of the problem. Thank you for your wisdom and encouragement.

This one may already do that as the language is such that it bans any thing that may up the rate of fire

Mitlov said:

Of all the arguments against banning bump-fire stocks, this is the weakest, because all of those other things have practical and beneficial utility for lawful purposes that bump-fire stocks simply do not. They’re useless for a well-regulated militia,

Click to expand...

Really? Shooting 400 rounds a minute from a rifle is unlawful? Well, that’s news to me. And correct me if I’m wrong, but our military has true full-auto rifles with an even faster cyclic rate. So a “well regulated militia” shouldn’t, even if they so choose to. Very interesting indeed.

Once again, let’s blame a device. Not the person operating it. Let’s govern cars speeds to 30mph while we’re at it. You can kill more people at 60mph than you can at 30.....Unbelievable.

stonecutter2 said:

Look, you don't have to agree with me, that's fine. But I am seriously appalled at the behavior around here. It's pretty darn old getting accused of being "something I'm not" - not sure what it is I'm supposed to be, and how I'm not - as well as that I simply MUST want to destroy all the guns to save the US from all the evil.

Click to expand...

What’s appalling is how someone is willing to give up part (translate to all) of a constitutional right because “it doesn’t apply to them”. I have no use for a bump stock. But that doesn’t mean I think any, law abiding citizen, with enough bank roll to feed a weapon that utilizes one, shouldn’t be able to own one. It’s their money. And they’re free to spend $100k on ammo to burn up if they so choose. It’s not criminal until they turn that weapon on others.

All you really need to bump-fire a semi-auto is a steady finger. Once you learn it and practice a bit, you can pretty much have the same effect as advertised by bump stocks, trigger cranks, rubber bands, etc.

Once people realize that, they will appreciate that banning bump stocks is the first step towards banning semi-autos.

Unfortunately, mass murder of a crowd from an elevated position is one of the very few cases where bump-fire "helps." Otherwise it's just a way to get some $#!+s and giggles, all while wearing down and possibly ruining your trigger group or other parts.

Rio Laxas said:

Another thing to consider is just how effective even assault rifles are at functioning in the area fire machinegun role. It is my impression that an assault rifle like a real M4A1 Carbine isn't all that appropriate or effective in the role normally occupied by a belt fed machinegun. Perhaps this is why the M16A1 and XM177 were full auto and the subsequent rifles have mostly been three round burst.

Click to expand...

The move from full-auto M16A1s to three-round-burst M16A2s was eventually reversed in a sense. Nowadays I believe most troops are issued fully-auto M-4s.

And the USMC is currently replacing their belt-fed M249 machine guns with the M27 IAR, which is a magazine-fed machine gun made on the M-4 platform (almost analogous to the RPK74 supporting the AK74).

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/M27_Infantry_Automatic_Rifle

You don't need a bump fire stock to bump fire a rifle. It can be done with a stiff finger. Only a semi-auto ban and a magazine capacity ban can really address the root issue from the gun control side. Expect those to follow soon.

Rio Laxas said:

That being said, even if it were demonstrably more lethal, I still wouldn't support further restrictions.

Click to expand...

It doesn't matter what you or I support or don't support. What matters is what the public in general supports. Politicians by definition are good at reading the public mood. It looks like the tide has turned against things like bumpfire stocks. The important question then becomes, what do we end up getting out of this mess once the dust settles? (I personally would like to Form 1 a couple of machine guns.)

Mitlov said:

Of all the arguments against banning bump-fire stocks, this is the weakest, because all of those other things have practical and beneficial utility for lawful purposes that bump-fire stocks simply do not. They’re useless for a well-regulated militia, they’re useless for self-defense, they’re useless for hunting, and they’re useless for competitive sport.



Using a Remington 700, Charles Whitman (USMC Sharpshooter Badge recipient) killed 17 and injured 31 in a much, much longer period of time. In a few minutes, this perpetrator killed three times that amount and injured twenty times that amount.

Click to expand...

POINT 1:

I disagree. I think this is a "one man's trash is another's treasure" argument. Some people can lay down reasonably accurate fire using a bump-fire stock, and the main purpose of a fully automatic weapon (or fire of that type) has always been suppressive fire. One could easily argue that bump fire stocks allow someone to more easily place suppressive fire, which could be quite useful during a true 2nd Amendment kind of issue (in which a citizen is defending a nation against tyranny -- let's not forget that the 2nd Amendment isn't for protecting your pheasant gun for hunting season).

Regardless, just as you see no useful purpose for bump fire stocks, many other Americans see no useful purpose for any of the things I mentioned in my original comment (like high capacity magazines, semi-automatic rifles, collapsible stocks, etc). Since when should the 2nd Amendment only protect those things that we all (as individuals) see as being useful? I can imagine a use for a bump fire stock, even if that isn't how I typically shoot, and even though I don't own one.

That's perhaps the greater point here: I'm not going to tell you what is and isn't useful to you, and I'm going to defend your right to arm yourself as you see fit. I'd encourage others to do the same, because if some politicians had their way, even your grandpa's old over-under wouldn't be protected!

POINT 2:

Just because Charles Whitman killed less people doesn't mean that my point is invalidated. Totally different situations. A person who could run a bolt gun well could have racked up the same body count in the situation that we're discussing here, at least in my opinion.

stonecutter2 said:

Oh, terribly sorry. Please link to me the Gadsden Flag requirements for avatar use post haste, good sir! I love its design and its history, that good enough? No? Fine and dandy. I seriously enjoy the juxtaposition of the current flag with the Gadsen, quite artistic and spans much of the history of this great nation.


Yes, I'm on a gun control rampage saying a bump fire stock allowing rate of fire like an automatic without any of the legal procedure and process of an automatic should be banned. Goodness gracious! Slippery slope, right!

Look, you don't have to agree with me, that's fine. But I am seriously appalled at the behavior around here. It's pretty darn old getting accused of being something I'm not - not sure what it is I'm supposed to be, and how I'm not. And that somehow my avatar makes me suspicious. Not to mention implying that I simply MUST want to destroy all the guns to save the US from all the evil.

Click to expand...

Relax. I'm not attacking you as a person, but rather the idea for which you're standing here. I did find it interesting that someone with a "Don't Tread on Me" flag is willing to so easily give up freedoms for others, and appeal to the anti-gun crowd. I'm not. I'm sorry if that observation was offensive, but I merely wanted to point out that protecting one's liberty often means standing up for the liberty of others.

But, again, I do feel you're missing the larger point here. Your exact argument can just as easily be applied to all kinds of things that most of us (including probably you) don't want to see banned. So, where do we draw the line? Do we only keep legal the things you want legal, or do we realize that sometimes another person may find a use for an item that we (as individuals) do not?

Since you mentioned it, let's talk about the process of getting a fully automatic weapon. Sure, they're legal, kinda. If you want an automatic weapon you'll have to go through the NFA process, which is really like a glorified NICS check with a $200 fee attached to it. The more important issue is that you'll need to find a registered firearm of this type that was built before 1986, which means a very scarce gun indeed. That fully automatic AR-15/M-16 may be transferable on a $200 tax stamp, but the scarcity of the legally registered gun means that acquiring one will cost you the price of a brand new SUV. I'd happily go through the NFA process to acquire a full auto, if the government hadn't closed the registry and thereby caused a scarcity that makes these items virtually unattainable for anyone except the most serious collector, or wealthy persons.

I wasn't nearly old enough to buy a machine gun in 1986, though I know some people who are now in their 60's who collected quite a few of them back before the government closed the registry. Because of the government-induced artificial scarcity of these items, people like me will never have the chance to own one, even when we're willing to submit to the background check, pay the tax stamp, and follow all of the rules. Seems fair.

coloradokevin said:

That fully automatic AR-15/M-16 may be transferable on a $200 tax stamp, but the scarcity of the legally registered gun means that acquiring one will cost you the price of a brand new SUV.

Click to expand...

When the $200 transfer tax originated, a new Thompson SMG was about $250. An 80% tax was intended to make them unaffordable. What if it had been indexed? In 1985, a Thompson was about $1250 so a proportionate tax would have been $1000. With another 30 years inflation without repression, what, $5000 + $4000 maybe. Still less than the capped market, but beyond a lot of gun budgets.

So, maybe someone has already mentioned this, but just my two cents.

What if the NRA makes a deal? -- Federal Tax stamp through the ATF for bump fire stocks, for the sale of SBR's and barrels without a Tax stamp? That way, nothing is truly banned. One item has more restraint, and another previously restrained item has been lifted.

lets remember the whole idea behind the 2nd amendment is too allow citizens weapons too fight their government with, should the need arise again someday. its not about self defense or hunting.

machine guns, bumpfire equipment, hi cap mags and drums is what the second amendment is truly about.



btw you can EASLY make a bumpfire stock for and ar15 using magpul grip and buttstock and a hurricane bracket..it works

I have no intention of buying a bump fire stock. If the NFA registry was reopened (or even repealed), I don't believe I would buy a FA gun. Don't have a use for one, couldn't afford to feed one.

However, I have to agree with the majority on this one, there is little to be gained by caving in to a ban, it simply plays into the hands of gun control extremists. After the Assault Weapon Ban took effect, Feinstein, Clinton, et al, complained about companies that, in order to comply with the new law, produced the same rifles minus the cosmetic features that they claimed made it more deadly- they called it "circumventing the law". The same concept is at play here. While you can argue that functionally bump fire and full auto are very similar, technically they are not. Therein lies the problem. As others have pointed out, you do not need a particular type of hardware to bump fire any semi-auto. With practice someone may very well be able to match the performance of a bump fire stock without using one.

If you accept the argument that firing a bunch of rounds rapidly = evil, then it makes defending any semi-auto firearms more difficult. Same goes for putting them under NFA in exchange for opening up the registry- you've already conceded that they are bad, why would you want to allow more access to even more rapid fire weapons? Not that the Democrats would ever agree to any such compromise, nor would the Republicans have enough guts to demand one.

I guess we could all agree to settle for California style restrictions, but in the end, they would be as effective at stopping crimes throughout the US as they are in California- not at all.

AlexanderA said:

Repeal of the Hughes Amendment presupposes that the underlying NFA remains in place. Otherwise such a repeal would make no sense. As part of a bill regulating bumpfire stocks (that is, by adding them to the NFA registry), a provision regarding post-1986 machine guns could easily be slipped in. After all, that is how we got Hughes in the first place.

Click to expand...

As I understand it if the bumpfire stock was regulated by the ATF that would appeal to the AG crowd. But why would the AG crowd want new machine guns to be available to the public? Yes, you could try to slip it in I suppose by using the same argument that they would be regulated by the ATF but the mere mention of the word machine gun is going to raise some eyebrows.

A more likely scenario would be the dems try to reclassify semi-auto rifles like the AR and AK as NFA items. Then they wouldn't have to concern themselves with bumpfire stocks or anything else associated with AR's and AK's.

It certainly wouldn't surprise me if they did come with the whole enchilada. Even the NRA is smart enough to know they have some damage control to do here to head off a catastrophe if congress gets into a debate about another AWB.

The NRA and its allies in the gun-rights movement want to avoid the airing in Congress of controversial issues such as universal background checks on gun sales, a ban on assault weapons and limits on high-capacity ammunition magazines.

Click to expand...

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/...mp-fire-stocks-comply-with-current-law-243500

The technique of bump firing without a modified stock has been around for several years. Bump modified stocks just make the technique easier and maybe you gain a little more accuracy. I've tried both and personally don't care for it but can see the appeal.
At the end of the day after slide fire stocks are banned and politicians slap each other on the back claiming we can now all sleep easier at night what have they really accomplished other than wasting tax $$$$ and probably putting a few people out of work? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.

The question now is, does the gun community stand by and let this thing go forward without input, or do we at least try to get something in return?

Click to expand...

I think we all did something in return, but not something related to machine guns. How about 50-state CHL reciprocity for CHL licensing systems that meet certain minimum standards? (States would be free to set up constitutional carry within their own voters, but a license that works be good nationwide would have to meet certain requirements). That would be very useful and practical in day-to-day life, and greater abilities for people who have obtained and maintained a license probably the one issue that the gun control side is most likely to flex on.

Remember, saying "we can't compromise with them because they're bad people, even if we don't object to their position on this one specific issue" gets nobody anywhere in a two-party country. A lot of them feel the same way about second amendment advocates. You get a lot further in the long run by being bipartisan when it doesn't hurt you, instead of filibustering on every single thing the other side wants.