possible legislation to ban bump stocks

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by old lady new shooter, Oct 4, 2017.

Tags:
?

How do you feel about legislation to ban bump stocks?

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

    28 vote(s)
    21.7%
  2. Resist, it will be the first step down the slippery slope.

    101 vote(s)
    78.3%
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. old lady new shooter

    old lady new shooter Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2015
    Messages:
    24,554
    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.
     
  2. Hokie_PhD

    Hokie_PhD Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2017
    Messages:
    2,734
    Location:
    Central Virginia
    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
     
    GabeIsFat, Kyle S. and Darkhorse like this.
  3. Jack B.

    Jack B. Member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2017
    Messages:
    1,949
    Location:
    Cocoa
    Make Bump Stocks illegal now! Oop's it's illegal to murder people. Never mind.
     
  4. Jeff H

    Jeff H Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2009
    Messages:
    1,764
    Location:
    Ohio
    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.
     
  5. CZ-75BD

    CZ-75BD Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2011
    Messages:
    392
    Location:
    IL
    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.
     
    J-Bar, Darkhorse and Hokie_PhD like this.
  6. herrwalther

    herrwalther Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2013
    Messages:
    7,482
    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.
     
  7. toivo

    toivo Member

    Joined:
    May 27, 2005
    Messages:
    3,396
    Location:
    New York State
    I advocate a trade: Make bump stocks NFA, but open the registry. See how that goes over ...
     
    GabeIsFat, Kyle S., VTKFJoe and 5 others like this.
  8. Rocketmedic

    Rocketmedic Member

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2010
    Messages:
    491
    Location:
    Texas
    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.
     
    BigLar and WrongHanded like this.
  9. old lady new shooter

    old lady new shooter Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2015
    Messages:
    24,554
    Good point, I did not include the possible perceptions of the great undecided cohort as a poll choice.
     
    Steel Horse Rider likes this.
  10. Robert

    Robert Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2006
    Messages:
    13,754
    Location:
    Texan by birth, in Colorado cause I hate humidity
    While I find bump fire stocks absolutely useless and pretty stupid, we have given away enough already. Gun control is not about guns. They will only be happy when we are totally disarmed.
     
  11. CoRoMo

    CoRoMo Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2007
    Messages:
    8,952
    Location:
    Californicated Colorado
    [​IMG]
    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.
     

    Attached Files:

    alexander45 and BigBore44 like this.
  12. Wisco

    Wisco member

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2013
    Messages:
    1,239
    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!
     
    alexander45 and Redacted like this.
  13. Hokie_PhD

    Hokie_PhD Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2017
    Messages:
    2,734
    Location:
    Central Virginia
    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.
     
  14. jrmiddleton425

    jrmiddleton425 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2011
    Messages:
    597
    As has been stated, I don't have much use for the stock, and bump fire can be done without the stock.

    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.
     
  15. IlikeSA

    IlikeSA Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2005
    Messages:
    1,237
    I am willing to trade bump fire stocks for Constitutional carry legislated throughout the land.
     
    Steel Horse Rider and Hokie_PhD like this.
  16. bnolsen

    bnolsen Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2004
    Messages:
    473
    Location:
    Colorado
    If this goes unilateral its stupid. There should be a horse trade here. SBRs in no way should be such a PITA. Neither should supressors.
     
    GabeIsFat and everydefense like this.
  17. CoalTrain49

    CoalTrain49 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2014
    Messages:
    4,773
    Location:
    Somewhere in WA.
    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.
     
    everydefense likes this.
  18. Panzerschwein

    Panzerschwein member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2011
    Messages:
    8,122
    Location:
    Desert
    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.
     
  19. Wisco

    Wisco member

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2013
    Messages:
    1,239
    It may have reduced the amount of dead...but would assume that terrorist could've made quick, aimed hits at 400 yards...
     
  20. everydefense

    everydefense Member

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2016
    Messages:
    311
    Location:
    Oklahoma
    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.
     
  21. kwguy

    kwguy Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2012
    Messages:
    1,144
    Is the ATF able to issue a 'rule change'?...
     
    Neo-Luddite likes this.
  22. AlexanderA
    • Contributing Member

    AlexanderA Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2011
    Messages:
    9,011
    Location:
    Virginia
    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.
     
    Neo-Luddite likes this.
  23. AlexanderA
    • Contributing Member

    AlexanderA Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2011
    Messages:
    9,011
    Location:
    Virginia
    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.
     
  24. ATLDave

    ATLDave Member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2011
    Messages:
    8,906
    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.
     
    BigLar, everydefense and WrongHanded like this.
  25. grampajack

    grampajack AR Junkie

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2016
    Messages:
    1,714
    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.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice