NRA Supports Ban on Bumpfire Devices

Status
Not open for further replies.
Speedo66

Speedo66

Member
Joined
May 31, 2008
Messages
11,076
Location
Flatlandistan
The NRA announced they would support new rules reclassifying or banning bumpfire devices. They asked the BATF to take another look at their ruling OK'ing them.

"The bureau should revisit the issue and “immediately review whether these devices comply with federal law,” the N.R.A. said in a statement released Thursday. “The N.R.A. believes that devices designed to allow semiautomatic rifles to function like fully-automatic rifles should be subject to additional regulations.”

Here's an article about it: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/05/...e-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0
 
And at the very least they will be classified right in there with ''silencers''. I suspect an all out ban is coming.
 
Read both the original statement on NRA-ILA page as well as the gunfreezone page and feel that GFZ has the angle right. Nowhere in the statement did I see the NRA wanting to 'ban' anything.
 
The NRA is onto something. They poked the ATF for review and maybe it goes through but don't think they would allow a bill to make it through DC without something as a trade. Suppressor legislation, Reciprocity, opening the registry back up for bump fires to be listed, and while its open......To me its common sense to pass of something as insignificant as a bump fire "change" in exchange for something big.
 
Vonderek said:
They are trying to make it a regulatory issue in order to keep it out of Congress where a lot more may end up at stake.
Click to expand...
They appear to be trying to make it an ATF issue, which is great because I'm tired of people blaming the NRA for these incidents. They also clearly define it is a decision made under Obama by the ATF.

I'll bet the ATF issues a statement that they're legal. But then Congress may push something through to change that.
 
csa77 said:
this is exactly why im a member of the GoA...they understand "shall not be infringed upon" NO compromises
Click to expand...

And as an all-or-nothing kind of group, they have achieved pretty much- nothing. Not that I agree with the NRA in this particular case, but without them and the SAF, our RKBA would have been thoroughly gutted long ago.
stonecutter2 said:
They appear to be trying to make it an ATF issue, which is great because I'm tired of people blaming the NRA for these incidents. They also clearly define it is a decision made under Obama by the ATF.

I'll bet the ATF issues a statement that they're legal. But then Congress may push something through to change that.
Click to expand...

From the NRA press release:
"The NRA believes that devices designed to allow semi-automatic rifles to function like fully-automatic rifles should be subject to additional regulations"

Sure sounds like they are agreeing to new restrictions to me
 
The NRA believes that devices designed to allow semi-automatic rifles to function like fully-automatic rifles should be subject to additional regulations
Click to expand...

Yep, agree with JN01. They're suggesting classification with silencers and other similar. Another loss, although one, frankly, that I think we'll be lucky if that's all that happens after Vegas.
 
csa77 said:
the nra is ran by gun grabbers.
Click to expand...
A ridiculous statement, if not for the NRA over the last 40 years we would have no gun rights.

Sure, they're not perfect, but they are not run by gun grabbers. Let's be realistic.

I have mixed feelings on this, but the bump fire stocks took the technology to a whole nother level from bumpfire devices on triggers. No surprise they are wanting to ban or classify them.

That said, they have to get the votes.
 
JN01 said:
And as an all-or-nothing kind of group, they have achieved pretty much- nothing. Not that I agree with the NRA in this particular case, but without them and the SAF, our RKBA would have been thoroughly gutted long ago....
Click to expand...

Yes. It's politics. It's always been politics; it's politics now; and forever shall be politics -- world without end. That's how decisions are made as a group composed of people with disparate interests, beliefs, and values.

The reality is that we live in a pluralistic, political society, and not everyone thinks as we do. People have varying beliefs, values, needs, wants and fears. People have differing views on the proper role government. So while we may be using the tools the Constitution, our laws and our system give us to promote our vision of how things should be, others may and will be using those same tools to promote their visions.

The Constitution, our laws, and our system give us resource and remedies. We can associate with others who think as we do and exercise what political power that association gives us to influence legislation. We have the opportunity to try to join with enough other people we can elect legislators and other public officials who we consider more attuned to our interests. And we can seek redress in court. And others who believe differently have the same opportunities.

Success will depend on political acumen. Holding one's breath until turning blue isn't a very effective strategy.
 
Practically speaking, losing bump fire stocks would be no big deal. Fundamentally, it would be a travesty, establishing precedent that we've been fighting so hard against.

Don't give them an inch. This was a one-time deal with a lunatic the likes of which we haven't seen before. Maybe we have to lose this one if it becomes an epidemic, but allowing public policy to be changed based on singular freak occurrences is as foolish as it gets. "Look, we haven't had airplanes crash into buildings in terror attacks since the post-9/11 security measures". Yeah, we didn't have it happening before 9/11, either. It's a failure to understand cause & effect, correlation vs. causation; post hoc and causal oversimplification.
 
I think Vonderek nailed it.

The ATF famously once classified a shoestring as a machine gun. To be honest, I'm surprised they ever approved bumpfire type devices, which simply do a good job of what the shoestring did badly. They can flip-flop that determination at will (as they did a couple of times for pistol braces). An ATF reclassification avoids any other mischief from congress.

"This was a one-time deal with a lunatic the likes of which we haven't seen before"

I sure hope it's the last one, but the whackos seem to study their whacko predecessors.
 
stonecutter2 said:
They appear to be trying to make it an ATF issue, which is great because I'm tired of people blaming the NRA for these incidents. They also clearly define it is a decision made under Obama by the ATF.

I'll bet the ATF issues a statement that they're legal. But then Congress may push something through to change that.
Click to expand...

Of course they will. I don't think the ATF is real eager to be the scapegoat here. Although the NRA would like to blame the ATF and the Obama administration for leaving that loophole open it goes against the NRA's fundamental beliefs and lobbying efforts against more gun control. Very out-of-character for the NRA to say the least.

Actually, my bet is the DOJ and Trump adm. doesn't want anything to do with this. It's a no win situation to even take a position on it. Notice you haven't heard anything from Trump yet that would indicate a position or a plan of action.

This one is going to get resolved in congress by a vote. Should go the full ten rounds. No pun intended.
 
Do we even know for sure if the bumpfire stocks were used in the shooting? The guns were sent to the ATF and as far as I know they haven't returned with a final verdict if they were modified for full-auto or they were just bump-fired. On top of that the initial reports were saying that a tripod mounted weapon was used (ie a mounted machinegun).

Also, would it be possible that the NRA could attach a "bumpfire regulation" clause to the SHARE Act in order to speed it up the processing and trick Democrats into voting for it?

Disclaimer: I think bumpfire stocks are gimmicky but I still believe in the whole "don't give an inch" thing. But if the bumpfire ban is inevitable, I think it should be traded for suppressor de-regulation.
 
MachIVshooter said:
Fundamentally, it would be a travesty, establishing precedent that we've been fighting so hard against.
Click to expand...

a precedent??? you mean like when they approved the Akins Accelerator then banned it? Bump stocks are just another play on the same theory.
Wont even delve into the other flip flops of the BATFE..

This isn't poker game there isn't going to be any bargaining or upping the ante.
 
I think it's a great compromise. A ban on all semi autos could have been called for but just the BF stock. A small percentage of semi auto owners actually have or use a BF stock. The NRA and gun owners are always portrayed by the media as not caring after mass shootings. This devise allowed a much larger amount of fire in this shooting. If he was using a standard semi auto much less rounds would have been fired. This should also be a big plus in the public perception that we(NRA) is willing to get rid of this. A no brainier AFAIK. Or they could be put under the Class III restrictions.
 
"Do we even know for sure if the bumpfire stocks were used in the shooting?"

A wide variety of media sources are quoting an ATF agent - google 'Jill Snyder bump fire'. There are also pictures leaked of the inside of the room that show at least one.
 
csa77 said:
this is exactly why im a member of the GoA...they understand "shall not be infringed upon" NO compromises


the nra is ran by gun grabbers.
Click to expand...

Well, it hasn't worked, doesn't work, and never will work that way. We've had plenty of laws and regulations over the past 100 years on a national level, and for almost as long as the country has been around in local areas.

As for NRA being run by gun grabbers that's just ignorant. Although I know longer support them due to their political leanings no one with a modicum of knowledge would say that.
 
csa77 wrote:
...they understand "shall not be infringed upon"
Click to expand...

Well, hopefully they understand that the fragment you're pretending to quote is "shall not be infringed" and that the word "upon" is nowhere to be found.
 
MachIVShooter wrote:
Practically speaking, losing bump fire stocks would be no big deal. Fundamentally, it would be a travesty, establishing precedent that we've been fighting so hard against.
Click to expand...

Actually, it might be a good thing to admit that with bump-fire stocks the pro-gun movement went "a bridge too far".
 
Scooter22 said:
I think it's a great compromise.
Click to expand...
It is a lousy "compromise". A compromise is when both parties give something to gain something, and 99% of our "compromises" in Congress have been "We'll take this, but we'll let you keep that!" Death by inches. Wanna compromise? OK, ban bump fire, but we get suppressors, short barreled rifles and short barreled shot guns off NFA completely."
Of course that would never work, and the spineless in Washington couldn't make it stick anyway, but the HOWLS from the Left would be fun to listen to!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Speedo66
  • Locked
Kalashnikov Marketing
Replies
1
Views
707
yokel
yokel
Speedo66
  • Locked
OK Gov Vetos Non Licensed Carry Bill
Replies
10
Views
626
Frank Ettin
Frank Ettin
Speedo66
  • Locked
NY Times is Starting to Get Worried About Reciprocal Concealed Carry Licenses
2
Replies
35
Views
2K
herrwalther
H
Speedo66
  • Locked
"What Drives Gun Sales, Fear of Restrictions" (NY Times)
Replies
7
Views
1K
toivo
toivo
Neo-Luddite
  • Locked
NY Times Anti RKBA Editorial--the first to run on page 1 in almost a century.
2 3
Replies
64
Views
5K
Robert
Robert
Back
Top