possible legislation to ban bump stocks

How do you feel about legislation to ban bump stocks?

  • Throw the antis a bone, serious shooters don't need bump stocks anyway.

    Votes: 28 21.7%
  • Resist, it will be the first step down the slippery slope.

    Votes: 101 78.3%

  • Total voters
    129
Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Apr 26, 2015
Messages
30,384
In reaction to the Las Vegas shooting, Dianne Feinstein has introduced legislation to ban bump stocks. I'm interested to know whether folks here feel this is something we can safely give up, given that there isn't really a legitimate serious use for them, or whether giving in on this would be a step down the proverbial slippery slope.
 
I say no as the left doesn’t give an inch and the GOP rolls over like a dog with fleas.

If the right had any backbone I’d say, add in the silencer and national conceal carry items that we ant and we’ll give the hag bump stops. But they don’t so this will be interesting
 
Bump stocks don't interest me at all, so it wouldn't affect me if they were banned, but Hell no. Don't give them one inch voluntarily. Make them trade for it if they want it that bad.

A trade similar to removing silencers off of the list and adding a bump fire. I could be okay with that.
 
Personally, I don't care about bump stock, but the question is not the stock itself, or any "evil" stocks, silencers, handguards, triggers or whatever.
Gun-grabbers is taking any opportunity to demonize guns and gun's owner. You give up one small thing, and then another small thing and opp's nothing left to give up any more.
 
In my opinion, bump fire stocks and anything pretending to be full auto are pretty stupid. But the thing is, the vague wording of the bill "anything" that could increase the fire rate of a semi auto would be banned. I know the 3.5 dis connector that Glock lovers always stick would certainly fall under language that vague. As well as anything that would change the trigger to be shorter, lighter, or more accurate.
 
I think it's a dumb battle to fight to keep something that makes a de facto machine gun out of an assault rifle, especially in the aftermath of LV. I can think of at least 59 reasons this stance would alienate most Americans.
 
I think it's a dumb battle to fight to keep something that makes a de facto machine gun out of an assault rifle, especially in the aftermath of LV. I can think of at least 59 reasons this stance would alienate most Americans.
Good point, I did not include the possible perceptions of the great undecided cohort as a poll choice.
 
index.php

This is like the 'shoestring machine gun' because all manner of bump-firing any gun will then "illegally convert the said firearm into an unregistered machine gun". All you need is a thumb and a belt loop and you have made a machine gun.

As seen in many bump fire videos:

I couldn't vote in the poll because this isn't the first step, it's like step #726 or so down the slippery slope.
 

Attachments

  • thumb+beltloop=bumpstock.png
    thumb+beltloop=bumpstock.png
    140 KB · Views: 418
I'd trade bumpfire stocks to the NFA for silencers to be removed from the NFA and sold like any firearm.

Even better, I'd suggest continued NFA on any device that totally eliminates sound and call suppressors some other class of thing entirely...you know, to make suppressors as we know them non-NFA.

With non-NFA suppressors we could be Euro-style progressive!
 
I'd trade bumpfire stocks to the NFA for silencers to be removed from the NFA and sold like any firearm.

Even better, I'd suggest continued NFA on any device that totally eliminates sound and call suppressors some other class of thing entirely...you know, to make suppressors as we know them non-NFA.
How about muffler!
Basically they’re they same as a muffler on a car. Lowers the noise but doesn’t “silence”it.

Now you do realize you violated rule one of lawmaking. No law shall make sense. Imagine if the idiots we have making laws had to be able to explain the whole law to us before it could be signed by the president.
 
A deal could be cut in exchange for off the shelf suppressors.

Honestly, I don't know anyone who has a bump fire. I know a few that have suppressors though. Actually if they were sold off the shelf like muzzle breaks I would have several already.

The problem will be the states. They will claim exclusive rights to regulate and a federal law making suppressors a non CGA item wouldn't stop the states from making them illegal to own.
 
I really don't think the bumpster stock really made a difference in terms of kill count in Vegas. Regardless, I agree with the latter.
 
I really don't think the bumpster stock really made a difference in terms of kill count in Vegas. Regardless, I agree with the latter.

It may have reduced the amount of dead...but would assume that terrorist could've made quick, aimed hits at 400 yards...
 
I voted to throw them a bone. Specifically, I would trade adding bump-fire stocks to the NFA list to remove suppressors from it. It is stupid that a piece of safety equipment (suppressor) is considered an NFA item.
 
Specifically, I would trade adding bump-fire stocks to the NFA list to remove suppressors from it. It is stupid that a piece of safety equipment (suppressor) is considered an NFA item.
Since suppressors had already gotten a lot of negative publicity prior to the Las Vegas incident, and the antigunners were mobilized against suppressors, I think it's a "bridge too far" to have suppressor deregulation be the quid pro quo for adding bump-fire stocks to the NFA. (This is assuming that the bump-fire legislation will gain momentum, and some Republicans -- even President Trump -- will defect and support it.) But this could be the perfect opportunity to finally get rid of the Hughes Amendment. It depends on how a bump-fire ban is implemented. Presumably, bump-fires would be added to the NFA rather than banned outright. If so, there would have to be an amnesty period for their initial registration, and a Form 4 procedure thereafter. It would be easy, through little-noticed legislative language, to have the amnesty and transfer procedures apply to all machine guns and not just the newly-defined ones.

What we need right now are really smart lobbyists, and not just stonewallers.
 
Is the ATF able to issue a 'rule change'?...
This would require legislation redefining what is a "machine gun" under the NFA. Sec. 922(o) (the Hughes Amendment freeze) could easily be eliminated in the process of enacting this redefinition. In fact it would throw the whole machine gun aspect of the NFA into flux.
 
I'm OK with banning (or, rather, NFA-ing) devices that create the functional equivalent of full-auto fire. The better bump-fire stocks obviously do that, as evidenced by what happened in LV. So I'm ok with changing the language of the NFA to bring them under its sweep. (I know, a minority opinion here. I think full-auto is qualitatively different than semi-auto in terms of the ability to create mass casualties, and it doesn't meet Heller's "common use" test. Flame away.)

However: Feinstein's language is preposterously overbroad and a non-starter. There seems to be some real momentum towards what I think is a pretty non-objectionable move on the bump-fire stuff. I'd rather the language be written by someone who understands guns and who isn't trying to back into a ban on any drop-in kits that reduce trigger weights or the like.
 
The problem for me is the language of the bill. I don't think you could practically outlaw bump firing and the like without language so vague and overreaching that it would jeopardize semi auto as a whole. The only way I can think to do it would be to outlaw any device that allowed a certain cyclic rate in semi auto. The problem is that these devices are inherently based on the skill of the shooter. Some people with a light trigger can attain near full auto just with normal rapid fire. Then we have those binary triggers now that can well exceed full auto.

The law is ridiculous enough already. The last thing we need is another absurd regulation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top