Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by old lady new shooter, Oct 4, 2017.
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
A trade similar to removing silencers off of the list and adding a bump fire. I could be okay with that.
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.
Good point, I did not include the possible perceptions of the great undecided cohort as a poll choice.
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.
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!
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.
But my take on this is; if they want to ban those, they should be forced to give something in return. Until they do, I'm against giving anything up voluntarily.
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.
It may have reduced the amount of dead...but would assume that terrorist could've made quick, aimed hits at 400 yards...
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.
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.
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 law is ridiculous enough already. The last thing we need is another absurd regulation.
Separate names with a comma.