243winxb
Member
Bumpfire will go the way of machine guns.
NRA Supports Ban on Bumpfire Devices
- Thread starter Speedo66
- Start date
- Status
just such talk and their sold out, it's been said obama was the best gun salesman ever in history
NIGHTLORD40K
Member
Fair enough bro. I consider bump stocks worthless and ridiculous personally.
I am definitely against the NRA giving the appearance (if not in fact), of caving on this issue, however.
Wisco
member
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2013
- Messages
- 1,239
Historically, the US grandfathers many things, but, BUT, that doesn't have to be the case. The companies could make millions and the consumers could spend millions and then they might have to destroy, render inoperable, or pay a $200 tax stamp to keep the stocks. (Actually, how did the 1934 NFA work? Did owners of existing items need to pay for the stamp, or was there an exception?)
AlexanderA
Member
No, the initial registration (in 1934) was free. The amnesty registration in 1968 was also free.
Carl N. Brown
Member
Ten minutes ago the AOL news feed headline is that NRA opposes a ban.
I suppose if I bought the click bait, I'd find NRA supports some special regulation short of a ban.
Do I believe any ban on an object (malum prohibitum law) will affect bad behavior by bad people (acts that are malum in se)?
No. My experience growing up under local option alcohol prohibition 1953-1968 taught me otherwise.
"It does the dignity of the law no good to pass unenforceable or useless legislation." -- some legislator objecting to the Weimar Republic's gun laws.
The moral panick mindset that gives us bans on things used by millions, bans that fail to control bad acts by thousands, is the mindset that gave us hanging witches in Salem and the Satanic Ritual Abuse hoax of the 1990s -- the rhetoric supporting it I heard from Dry Force speaker in school in 5th grade (he would not allow rubbing alcohol in his house) -- it's almost fill-in-the-blank with the pet bete noir of the day -- Demon Rum, Reefer Madness, Seducton of the Innocents by comic books, Lady Chatterly's Lover -- it's the same old crap delivered with the same smug moral superiority. Why should we cave? When has it really solved a problem? It's just voodoo criminology -- pick a symbol, attack it, act superior to anyone who dares defend the symbol.
I miss my Vault of Horror comic books, shut down by the Kefauver hearings on comic books; but that freed publisher William Gains to concentrate on his MAD magazine, which convinced my generation that authority figures were blithering idiots.
I suppose if I bought the click bait, I'd find NRA supports some special regulation short of a ban.
Do I believe any ban on an object (malum prohibitum law) will affect bad behavior by bad people (acts that are malum in se)?
No. My experience growing up under local option alcohol prohibition 1953-1968 taught me otherwise.
"It does the dignity of the law no good to pass unenforceable or useless legislation." -- some legislator objecting to the Weimar Republic's gun laws.
The moral panick mindset that gives us bans on things used by millions, bans that fail to control bad acts by thousands, is the mindset that gave us hanging witches in Salem and the Satanic Ritual Abuse hoax of the 1990s -- the rhetoric supporting it I heard from Dry Force speaker in school in 5th grade (he would not allow rubbing alcohol in his house) -- it's almost fill-in-the-blank with the pet bete noir of the day -- Demon Rum, Reefer Madness, Seducton of the Innocents by comic books, Lady Chatterly's Lover -- it's the same old crap delivered with the same smug moral superiority. Why should we cave? When has it really solved a problem? It's just voodoo criminology -- pick a symbol, attack it, act superior to anyone who dares defend the symbol.
I miss my Vault of Horror comic books, shut down by the Kefauver hearings on comic books; but that freed publisher William Gains to concentrate on his MAD magazine, which convinced my generation that authority figures were blithering idiots.
Last edited:
AlexanderA
Member
There's a distinct political / legal difference between bump-fires and machine guns.
When the machine gun moratorium was put in place in 1986, existing ones were grandfathered but no new ones could be added to the registry. This inevitably led to the current astronomical prices.
If bump-fires are reconsidered by the ATF and are now ruled to be machine guns (as parts designed and used to convert guns to full automatic), they would not be grandfathered and they could not be added to the registry (precisely because of the Hughes legislation of 1986). What you would have is contraband that would have to be immediately surrendered or destroyed.
Attorney General Sessions could declare a 90-day amnesty (under the provisions of the 1968 Gun Control Act), but it wouldn't be at all clear if that could override the 1986 law. Given the political toxicity of pump-fires, it's unlikely he would do that anyway.
If, instead, the bump-fire issue goes to Congress rather than the ATF, you can bet that they won't be grandfathered. (This is also the result if the ATF declines to change its previous ruling holding them to be legal -- it gets bucked over to Congress.)
Existing owners would probably not be compensated for a 5th Amendment "taking." So existing owners of bump-fires, instead of becoming rich like existing owners of machine guns, would be SOL.
AlexanderA
Member
Yes, I saw that. It appears that the NRA is trying to walk its previous statement back a bit, and dump the whole matter into the hands of the ATF.
As I said in my earlier post, the upshot either way is the banning of bump-fires. At best the NRA tactic will buy a little time.
The way this thing plays out is that you are not going to have "regulation" short of banning.
Carl N. Brown
Member
OK, they are talking about banning something I have no interest in, bumpfire stocks. I also have no interest in triggers that fire on press, fire on release (I can see myself in a situation that two shots are not desirable if the first was all that was needed or was not needed).
I do recall that one of the gun ban groups (VPC I believe) has pointed out that aimed semi-auto fire is deadlier than full-auto spray-and-pray. With that attitude, accept ban on simulated full-auto, a ban on semi-auto is next.
I do not think the any of the bans will affect bad behavior by people with ill intent. The Happy Land social club arsonist killed more people (87) than Paddock killed (59) IF he used a legal bump fire, I am not convinced he did not use an illegal full auto or a real twitchy trigger finger.
With a ban, people with no criminal intent will get felonized for what they own but have not misused. I guarantee the next madman will use something unexpected.
I do recall that one of the gun ban groups (VPC I believe) has pointed out that aimed semi-auto fire is deadlier than full-auto spray-and-pray. With that attitude, accept ban on simulated full-auto, a ban on semi-auto is next.
I do not think the any of the bans will affect bad behavior by people with ill intent. The Happy Land social club arsonist killed more people (87) than Paddock killed (59) IF he used a legal bump fire, I am not convinced he did not use an illegal full auto or a real twitchy trigger finger.
With a ban, people with no criminal intent will get felonized for what they own but have not misused. I guarantee the next madman will use something unexpected.
AlexanderA
Member
The NRA is in a bind. There seems to be a hue and cry (even from purported "friends" of gun owners, such as Republicans in Congress) to ban bump-fire stocks. The NRA, probably correctly, has assessed that this movement is unstoppable. The challenge to the NRA, then, is to prevent this from spreading to other gun accessories and even to the concept of semiautomatics themselves. The usual suspects in Congress (Feinstein, Pelosi, Blumenthal, Murphy) are saying that bump-fire stocks are not enough to ban, and they want to move quickly to universal background checks and magazine limits.
Old Dog
Member
Unfortunately, moderator Sam1911 quickly shut down the thread regarding the NRA official coming out saying they're now OPPOSING the bumpfire stock ban ...
See
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...ses-ban-on-bump-stocks-used-in-vegas-massacre
As members Carl N. Brown and AlexanderA note, the NRA seems to be "walking back" the initial response indicating support of a ban on bumpfire stocks ...
As time passes, the initial emotional responses to the event subside enough to the point where both sides' critical thinking skills start working again.
See
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...ses-ban-on-bump-stocks-used-in-vegas-massacre
As members Carl N. Brown and AlexanderA note, the NRA seems to be "walking back" the initial response indicating support of a ban on bumpfire stocks ...
As time passes, the initial emotional responses to the event subside enough to the point where both sides' critical thinking skills start working again.
NIGHTLORD40K
Member
The left has no "critical thinking" skills. Only "hysterical feeling" skills.
Old Dog
Member
Yeah, right ... underestimate the left at your own risk. This is exactly why we're operating from behind, because they know how to play the clueless and the fence-sitters, while we simply continue to preach to the choir.The left has no "critical thinking" skills. Only "hysterical feeling" skills.
NIGHTLORD40K
Member
Agreed. Tim McVeigh used fertilizer to kill 168. The Nice' attacker used a delivery truck to kill 86. Even the CDC estimates cell phones kill nearly 3300 people in car crashes every year (and that is probably very conservative.) Don't even get me started on cigarettes.....
If Pelosi, Feinstein, and Schumer were really interested in saving lives they would start with that which takes the most lives and work their way down the list. The fact is they only want to maintain and grow their power to enforce their new world order and an armed US populace stands in the way of this.
NIGHTLORD40K
Member
By that I meant they are skilled at manipulating the hysterical feelings of the clueless and fence sitters, because they cannot appeal to those who think critically- the facts and statistics are not on their side.
You are correct, sir, the Leftist (leadership anyway) is intelligent, dangerous, sinister, and not to be trusted or bargained with.
243winxb
Member
https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/atf-national-firearms-act-handbook-chapter-3/download
The bump fire stock may be added?? About the same as an auto sear?
States will be another problem, making there own laws.
I don't see confiscation happening.
Time will tell.
Last edited:
AlexanderA
Member
Their "walk back" seems to be to make a distinction: they're for further "regulation" but not "banning." This is a distinction without a difference. As I pointed out earlier in this thread, any regulation will amount to a banning, because there is no current way to add such items to the registry. It would take legislation, and I don't see Congress as in any mood to open the machine gun registry. Even the NRA is (wrongly) repeating the mantra that "machine guns are already illegal!" Historically, the NRA has been all too willing to throw machine gun owners under the bus (see their support for the original 1934 NFA and the 1986 FOPA). Bump-fires, in reality, are just the "poor man's machine guns." Expect no support for them from the NRA.
243winxb
Member
Seemed so in 1986. NRA just let it happen.
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
Do you actually know what happened in 1986, exactly, or are you just repeating something you've heard?
There are two views on the FOPA/Hughes story and both sides make very compelling cases. It isn't as simple as the NRA threw MG owners under the bus.
If you actually know the details and that's how you feel the story should be portrayed, fine, so be it. But if you don't really know what happened with FOPA and how the NRA decided to ask Pres. Reagan to finally sign it, then don't just repeat something you heard.
Dexter Winslett
Member
As I said on another post, I have been in the NRA since the 1970`s. Harlon Carter died. They became worthless. Just dropped my life membership. I went back to GOA. Larry Pratt will not bend. Lapiere is weak.
AlexanderA
Member
The NRA, whatever its faults, is the only pro-gun organization that has real political clout. It's the one organization that politicians are afraid of. The GOA and the others don't come close. Therefore, without the NRA, we as gun owners would be nowhere. What we have here is a monopoly on advocacy.
If you want change in the NRA's policies and tactics, that change has to come from within. It's counterproductive to withdraw your membership. That's a futile gesture.
If you want change in the NRA's policies and tactics, that change has to come from within. It's counterproductive to withdraw your membership. That's a futile gesture.
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
Or get half a second of any politician's attention, unfortunately.
As far as gun rights advocacy goes there's The NRA, and then there's Everybody else.
I am just Shocked at all the NRA bashing going on especially on a pro 2A site like this , nobody is perfect and can not please all, including the NRA, but in the big picture , the NRA is what stands between us pro 2A folks and the anti 2A folks , The NRA is our road block / speed bump that is stopping Pelosi and her anti 2A train, why bash the one's fighting for our 2A rights , we may not win every battle the the war is still the big picture IMHO
The next election we may not have a pro 2A president we may have an anti 2A president and will need a strong NRA to fight for us , we have it good right now but we are only one election away from a full on 2A assault we need the NRA defense, the big picture is way more than a bump fire stock !!
The next election we may not have a pro 2A president we may have an anti 2A president and will need a strong NRA to fight for us , we have it good right now but we are only one election away from a full on 2A assault we need the NRA defense, the big picture is way more than a bump fire stock !!
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
I'm not, and I'm holding back by the skin of my teeth from joining in it. But I'm trying to trust that the NRA has a strategy and that it is better and more likely to work than what my gut, heart, and knee-jerk reactions would be.
Hearing some of the things the NRA has said this month is INFURIATING. We just have to hope that there's a reason to their apparent loss of conviction and guts.
A strategy is the opposite of doing what you WANT to do.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
