theotherwaldo
Member
The effort came to an end when the NRA and most responsible gun owners said, "go ahead and ban it."
That took all of the fun out of it.
That took all of the fun out of it.
Efforts to ban bump stocks come to halt
- Thread starter DeepSouth
- Start date
- Status
DannyLandrum
Member
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2017
- Messages
- 439
Guess I should go ahead and get a Fostech Echo to hold for a future build in case this crap comes up again.
In my view, if we can't stop it, we should press for a TRUE compromise, where the other side has to give up something, too (not just our side) - meaning tell all of our legis-critters that: Putting bumpfire stocks into the NFA regulatory scheme, just like machine guns, except with NO moratorium, is fine, PROVIDED that they pass simultaneously in the same bill, the hearing protection act, which takes silencers out of the NFA (no federal regulation at all) and leaves their regulation to each state. There is absolutely no reason why bumpfires or binary triggers should be regulated MORE strictly than true machine guns (i.e. no reason to have an outright ban either with or without grandfathering) - perhaps on a par with machine guns though, as long as we get something big as a tradeoff ... Otherwise NO DEAL - tell that to your senators and rep.
This is more "Legal" than anything.
In my view, if we can't stop it, we should press for a TRUE compromise, where the other side has to give up something, too (not just our side) - meaning tell all of our legis-critters that: Putting bumpfire stocks into the NFA regulatory scheme, just like machine guns, except with NO moratorium, is fine, PROVIDED that they pass simultaneously in the same bill, the hearing protection act, which takes silencers out of the NFA (no federal regulation at all) and leaves their regulation to each state. There is absolutely no reason why bumpfires or binary triggers should be regulated MORE strictly than true machine guns (i.e. no reason to have an outright ban either with or without grandfathering) - perhaps on a par with machine guns though, as long as we get something big as a tradeoff ... Otherwise NO DEAL - tell that to your senators and rep.
This is more "Legal" than anything.
One would hope that Hilary learned from BIll's devastating loss in congress that going after guns isn't a winner.
AlexanderA
Member
First there has to be agreement on what the word "compromise" really means. To the anti-gunners, a "reasonable compromise" means that they will (temporarily) accept something less than their maximal demands.
For an example of this thinking, see the recent CNN opinion piece by Prof. Jeffrey Sachs of Columbia University. http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/16/opini...omise-on-gun-control-sachs-opinion/index.html To most of us here, his proposal reads like a sick parody, but I'm sure he's entirely serious. Here's the meat of his proposal:
"Here is an example of a regulation that could provide an effective compromise. If individuals want to own semi-automatic assault weapons, either as collectors or for practice shooting, then enforce a provision that such weapons can only be kept at legally registered shooting ranges or other registered depositories, and cannot be removed from the designated premises.
"Similarly, if individuals want to use unusual high-powered weapons for hunting, and if such weapons are deemed to be acceptable for hunting purposes, then require that the hunters collect their weapons from a registered hunting depot and redeposit them after hunting, with the guns and ammunition properly accounted for. Or if gun enthusiasts want to visit gun shows, then fine, but purchases of regulated weapons would have to be delivered to designated sites, such as shooting ranges or hunting depots.
"Gun ownership at home would be protected, according to the protections recognized in Heller." [I.e., handguns only in the home.]
I, for one, would have no interest in a gun collection if I had to deposit the guns anywhere outside my immediate control. Actually, Prof. Sachs' idea would be a confiscation without even a pretense of Australian-style compensation."Similarly, if individuals want to use unusual high-powered weapons for hunting, and if such weapons are deemed to be acceptable for hunting purposes, then require that the hunters collect their weapons from a registered hunting depot and redeposit them after hunting, with the guns and ammunition properly accounted for. Or if gun enthusiasts want to visit gun shows, then fine, but purchases of regulated weapons would have to be delivered to designated sites, such as shooting ranges or hunting depots.
"Gun ownership at home would be protected, according to the protections recognized in Heller." [I.e., handguns only in the home.]
How can you carry on a dialogue with people who think like that?
Yea, if you can't ban them, control them. Nothing really new about that idea from the anti gun folks. Of course eventually they would take them as we continued to "compromise". More and more guns would be added to the list of guns you can't have at home. Then one day they would just destroy them all.
The answer is no more.
The answer is no more.
fallout mike
Member
Guess that's bad news for the guy selling one on here for $550.....
Gtscotty
Member
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2007
- Messages
- 3,635
This is exactly why I couldn't understand why so many people were up in arms about what I thought was a masterstroke by the NRA on this topic. Throwing the ATF under the bus by suggesting that they should reevaluate the legality of these stocks served to throw the screaming heads off balance a bit while creating cool down time out of the ATFs bureaucratically slow revaluation of something that the NRA knew had already been looked at in a less politically favorable climate and declared perfectly legal. In the meantime a squirrel comes along, most of the public is distracted and the majority of the Pols let the topic fall to the background.
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
I'll agree that it seems to have been a solid tactical move as I fervently hoped it would be.
I'll also admit that I still cringe at having to take a "one step back" approach and set up a bit of precedent that looks to the world like the NRA was willing to accept that there was less than a 2nd Amendment fight to be made of this and that they'd throw some guns and some people under the bus because of guilt or fear in the aftermath of a mass killing. It would be wonderful if we could keep a consistent and monolithic message that America's gun owners and guns and gun accessories are not to blame for violence and banning them won't stop it.
But somebody a long time ago said politics is a lot like sausage making. You don't want to have to look too closely at how it's done and you can't get all squeamish when you see patches of hair and eyeballs floating by in the mix.
I'll also admit that I still cringe at having to take a "one step back" approach and set up a bit of precedent that looks to the world like the NRA was willing to accept that there was less than a 2nd Amendment fight to be made of this and that they'd throw some guns and some people under the bus because of guilt or fear in the aftermath of a mass killing. It would be wonderful if we could keep a consistent and monolithic message that America's gun owners and guns and gun accessories are not to blame for violence and banning them won't stop it.
But somebody a long time ago said politics is a lot like sausage making. You don't want to have to look too closely at how it's done and you can't get all squeamish when you see patches of hair and eyeballs floating by in the mix.
DisgruntledPatriot
Member
- Joined
- May 29, 2015
- Messages
- 89
The comments here kill me. "I guess i need to put back parts for a build they'll try to ban"
REALLY?
What you SHOULD be doing in a pre-emptive move is getting the word out and trying to get bad lawmakers VOTED OUT next year. Instead of buying parts, start petitions and meetings. Donate to Gun Owners of America. Write letters.
Put your efforts where they NEED to be instead of cringing down and getting ready to be told what they will let you have of your own rights.
Ready for the hate, (not that I give a damn about it).
REALLY?
What you SHOULD be doing in a pre-emptive move is getting the word out and trying to get bad lawmakers VOTED OUT next year. Instead of buying parts, start petitions and meetings. Donate to Gun Owners of America. Write letters.
Put your efforts where they NEED to be instead of cringing down and getting ready to be told what they will let you have of your own rights.
Ready for the hate, (not that I give a damn about it).
Hokie_PhD
Member
Very true
here in Virgina we have the real state and the area overrun by the far left who have destroyed the Northern part of the state. They've elected a couple of horrible Senators, Clinton's buddy McAwful and an AG that wants to outlaw guns.
I've been doing all I can to get folks to vote for the GOP candidates who are more gun friendly than their Dem rivals (and I'm an independent).
I never thought of that. Thank you...
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
Ha ha.
You can only do one thing at a time. Owning guns and voting, at the same time, would be too much for the mind to handle.
You can only do one thing at a time. Owning guns and voting, at the same time, would be too much for the mind to handle.
armoredman
Member
I seem to be able to do it quite consistently...must be a fluke.
Hokie_PhD
Member
I just saw on Fox News that MA has banned them. I’m not surprised. Well maybe surprised that they were legal before there as nothing is legal in the People’s Republic of Massachusetts
Elkins45
Member
"Hunting depots?" WTH is a hunting depot? My backyard is my hunting depot.
They probably weren't on anyone's radar before that, likely due to a 10 round mag limit.
The number of people who don't vote but own guns in this nation is staggering. On average, half the adults in America don't vote, and elected representatives are largely hired by a minority - typically about 26%. Vs the 24% who vote for the opposition.
What the representatives then did is get themselves out of the nit picky details of regulation by creating Agencies and empowering them to interpret law.
Those changes are then put to the public in a process to get approval. We've fought them before and will again, things based on "sporting ammunition", "armor piercing" and what constitutes "machine gun." It's the same oversight we are supposed to exercise over interpretations which make a back lock Buck knife become a "gravity" knife in some states and therefore given the same treatment as NFA. We can rant they shouldn't - or vote in elected representatives who cater to our wishes, not those who are part of the problem in the first place.
Because of the current situation in politics to exploit every weakness in any officeholder for political gain, it takes a carbon and titanium reinforced armored skin to put up with the stupidity thrown by the other party. Good people simply aren't attracted to the kind of mud wrestling it requires. Those whose genetic predisposition is living in a swamp seem to dominate it.
Stop voting for swamp creatures and the process gets better.
What the representatives then did is get themselves out of the nit picky details of regulation by creating Agencies and empowering them to interpret law.
Congress, unfortunately, DID empower them to make decisions and propose regulations that have the power of law. ATF, EPA, DOT, on and on, the Agencies can and do come up with interpretation to meet new circumstances where technology may have come up with a need for regulation and the Agency then proposes a change.
Those changes are then put to the public in a process to get approval. We've fought them before and will again, things based on "sporting ammunition", "armor piercing" and what constitutes "machine gun." It's the same oversight we are supposed to exercise over interpretations which make a back lock Buck knife become a "gravity" knife in some states and therefore given the same treatment as NFA. We can rant they shouldn't - or vote in elected representatives who cater to our wishes, not those who are part of the problem in the first place.
Because of the current situation in politics to exploit every weakness in any officeholder for political gain, it takes a carbon and titanium reinforced armored skin to put up with the stupidity thrown by the other party. Good people simply aren't attracted to the kind of mud wrestling it requires. Those whose genetic predisposition is living in a swamp seem to dominate it.
Stop voting for swamp creatures and the process gets better.
FROGO207
Member
Actually MA has signed into law a narrow ban on bump stocks and trigger cranks only but the penalties when getting caught with one are "severe" according to the AP article I read.
Hokie_PhD
Member
That doesn’t surprise me.
It’s stupid like most of the stuff there. Maybe I’m mistaken but bump stocks are more of a toy than a useful tool for accurate shooting.
FROGO207
Member
Yeah I have no interest in having one BUT if you want one it should be legal to buy and own it everywhere in the US! The thing is that it is blurring the line between FA and semi to the point that FA restrictions make little sense. And the ATF has restated that they are legal to own without a stamp.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked