possible legislation to ban bump stocks

[jmorris]

Personally, if I were a "deal" kind of guy I would say we could put them into the registry for free right now, on the contingent that the registry is now open again. Other than that, no.

If they said I was not compassionate or ignoring an "epidemic", I would then introduce legislation banning alcohol and motor vehicles, separately of course because there are still more non alcohol related automobile deaths per day that with it but combined it's still close to 30 a day, at best, every day, for years. Not unlike magazines and semiautomatic firearms. If they support my proposed legislation, I'd take another look at theirs.

 

[taliv]

if we're trading, i think we need to take a longer term view

move bump stocks to NFA in exchange for 3 mandatory credit hours of NRA safety and firearm knowledge curriculae for every 5th and 9th grade student nationally in order for schools to keep their federal funds.

 

[jmorris]

This is what it boils down to though, they will take anything they can get and build from there. It is also important to understand people we elect to be on "our side" only say to be on our side so we elect them, then do little to nothing proactive to help "us".

I think they see it as maybe loosing our support next time they need a large voting block.

Like after Clinton's AWB, we give them the President, the House and Senate and they do nothing except sit.

I suppose it's not unlike other issues they promise but fail to deliver on. I see another swing in our future, just like the last examples we have had, when they don't deliver.

I guess I have to give it to the Democrats, they will take any bite they can get to achieve there goal. Like water wearing granite, you can be as strong as you want but if you can't stop the erosion, it's only a matter of time.

I am beginning to see (OK, have for some time) the GOP like a dead beat dad getting their kids excited about the trip they are going to take this weekend, then not showing up....

 

[Hokkmike]

Effectual or not the Congress has to give the appearance of doing something.

 

[Elkins45]

Put bump fire in the NFA registry, and in exchang we get to open up the machine gun registry again. That's a compromise I can live with.

 

[taliv]

I guess I have to give it to the Democrats, they will take any bite they can get to achieve there goal. Like water wearing granite, you can be as strong as you want but if you can't stop the erosion, it's only a matter of time.

i'm not really clear what you're talking about. firearm rights are arguably stronger now than they have been at any time in my lifetime.
the Democrats have accomplished nearly nothing outside CA, IL DC and NY/NJ. They're getting smoked everywhere.
concealed carry wave, expiration of AWB, castle doctrine wave, stand your ground wave, etc. heck every session there are gun rights bills passing in state legislatures relaxing carry requirements etc.
the only thing they managed to accomplished under obama was record gun sales every year

 

[hdwhit]

Hokie_PhD wrote:
Imagine if the [legislators] had to be able to explain the whole law to us before it could be signed by the president.

Well, then its a certainty we wouldn't have 26 U.S.C. 41.

 

[JohnBiltz]

I think most of you are being very short sighted. Las Vegas has shown the way. This is not going to be the only time a bump fire or binary trigger gets used in an active shooter incident. Its going to become the norm.

Defending it is a losing position. There are countless videos of them being used and they are going to undercut any defense of the triggers. To anyone watching those videos they are going to be seeing a machine gun because it is a machine gun. It may not mechanically be a machine gun. But it looks like a machine gun, sounds like a machine gun and in effect it is a machine gun. Its not something defensible. Anyone defending it on TV is going to look like an idiot. All they have to do is pull up a Youtube video and its over.

I'm pretty much a don't give up an inch when it comes to guns. This is a fight not only not worth fighting but one that is going to hurt us in the future.

 

[Crawdad1]

No dog in this fight but I will always remember what was said when the 'AWB' went in, Sarah Brady came out and said, "What a great victory but this is only the beginning." No, until they give us something in return. And something that makes the left hurt. So something big.

 

[VA27]

I'd gladly NFA the bumpstock in exchange for removing suppressors, SBR and SBS from the NFA.

 

[george29]

I voted to throw them the bone but let's make them beg for it for a few years and then "compromise."

 

[AlexanderA]

The problem for me is the language of the bill.

That's just it. We have no idea what the legislative language is going to be. With Sen. Feinstein currently spearheading this effort, it's guaranteed that she'll come up with something stupidly unenforceable. However, with Republican Senators such as Cornyn, Perdue, Thune, and Johnson expressing interest, there's hope for something more reasonable.

Personally, if I were a "deal" kind of guy I would say we could put them into the registry for free right now, on the contingent that the registry is now open again. Other than that, no.

Put bump fire in the NFA registry, and in exchange we get to open up the machine gun registry again. That's a compromise I can live with.

Exactly. This is the best opportunity in 30 years for getting rid of the Hughes Amendment.

 

[FROGO207]

I am also for not giving an inch as giving up more rights is what it will actually happen. Now if there might be an actual compromise so that BOTH parties get something then maybe. It seems the meaning of compromise represents something other than as defined in the dictionary to a typical Democrat though.

 

[WrongHanded]

Gun owners need to be seen as more pragmatic about gun control. So where laws truly make sense, they should be considered. Restricting or banning bump stocks isn't going to effect the practical (legal) application of any firearms. They serve no useful purpose and I think we can all do just fine without them.

Yes. I understand the argument of "give them an inch and they'll take a mile." But how about creating an image of the average gun owner being a little less concerned with his or her individual rights, and a little more concerned with public safety. I think many of us are keenly aware that many non gun owners think we're all 'Bubba the racist gun nut'. Stupid, stubborn and selfish, and just itching to shoot someone. Well this is one compromise we can all make painlessly. And the Republicans could write and pass their own version of it for clarity of effect, and so they look like they're making a choice for public safety.

It would make us all look very reasonable. And it would provide stronger backing behind the arguments for not restricting semi-autos or magazine capacities, simply because we can be seen to draw a line; "No. Those things have merit. The bump stocks has none. Ban it!"

That is my perspective.

 

[tarosean]

I'm interested to know whether folks here feel this is something we can safely give up,

You'e not going to have a choice.. BATFE can write a letter outlawing them in the blink of an eye and any other device added to legal arms. (think Atkins Accelerator, shoe strings, etc.)

Any political posturing and future laws is is nothing but pandering.

 

[taliv]

i absolutely disagree 100% with wronghanded's perspective. that was the approach that was tried in the 80s when even the NRA was all about hunting and didn't care at all about the 2A or black rifles etc. and Ruger made stupid comments about nobody needing more than 10 rounds, and colt made semi auto bolt carriers and a shelf and jacked up pins in their lowers. etc.

there is absolutely zero value to be gained from attempting to appease gun banners. they won't stop at any line and will use any minor victory to attempt to convince politicians that they can vote against guns and get reelected. it doesn't matter how many inches you give or how much you compromise, they will still paint you as the enemy and think of you as a racist nut

and this entire country should be focused MORE on individual rights and less on public safety.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

First, the rampage killer owned bump fire stocks, took suitcases of guns to his hotel room, had almost 2 dozen firearms by most accounts.

While I have seen in the news stock photos of bump fire stocks (not actual evidence photos of the guns used in the shooting), I remember the 2017 Congressional ball foeld shooting where the media posted stock photos AR-15s and said if the demon AR-15 had been banned after Sandy Hook, this shooting would not have happened. Then it turned out the weapon used was not the demon AR-15 or the Satanic AK, but an SKS "the poor man's deer rifle".

In the ten minutes of active shooting, it is still not known what the Vegas shooter used. They mention rifles on tripods but does a tripod allow the free recoil required for a bumpfire stock to operate?

The 2015 Paris attack included multiple assailants and was an organized terror attack. Still, it included attacks on a concert and theater and restaurant with automatic weapons in France with stringent Euro gun control. Over control just makes the black market more widely supported, people.

My local police study these things; there has been training and policy in place to deal with an active mass attack at the Heritage Days or the Fun Fest. Has been for years. Just like we had armed School Resource Officers in schools before Bill Clinton suggested the idea in 1999. Fun Fest includes a last day concert and fireworks display: 25,000 people in the football stadium. The police are on vigilant lookout until everyone goes home. I am willing to bet they have eyes on all the high rise apartments with line of sight to the concert field. They do scan the social media for any talk of violence. But very few local people believe banning guns from the law-abiding will really impact crazies or spree killers or terrorists. The LE resources are better spent on targeting bad people with bad intent.

Billions for gun control which CDC 2003 and NRC 2004 found had had no measurable benefit, but sparse help for David Kennedy's Ceasefire which seems to work.

 

[FL-NC]

No. Give them nothing. They have demonstrated a lack of willingness to enforce existing laws, or to punish criminals. Its past time for good faith gestures from feinstein and her kind.

 

[grampajack]

Effectual or not the Congress has to give the appearance of doing something.

If we had a Democrat controlled government then there would be a case for that. However, the republicans are in control right now and their motivation should be to please their voters, who overwhelmingly do not want more gun control. What seems to be happening though is that they fear their deep state cronies more than they fear the American people, which can only mean the cronies have more control over elections than we do.

 

[Rocketmedic]

I think that it's incredibly tone deaf to defend machine guns to the point of demanding more of them.

 

[Dan Forrester]

I’d say bring them under the prevue of the NFA as machine guns which would create a convenient excuse to repeal Hughes and re-open the registry.

The entire reason why we have such a thing as bump fire stocks today is because of the Hughes Amendment. If you effectively outlaw something (post 86 machine guns) people will come up with a work around. Its similar to the way Marijuana was made illegal and now you have synthetic marijuana as a work around.

I think one of the most underestimated aspects of the gun control debate is American ingenuity. Americans in general and gun owners in particular like to tinker with mechanical devices. Thats why we have things like bump stocks, auto gloves, arm braces, etc.

Dan

 

[TJ AK-74]

Only trade I'd be interested in would be banning bump fire stocks outright in exchange for full repeal of 1934 NFA and 1968 GCA. Since that'll never happen, I'd consider adding them to registry in exchange for removing Suppressors, SBS, SBR, and AOW from registry and repealing Hughes Amendment. Bump fire and full autos are useless to most people, but doesn't mean we should give up even more rights to make people feel a little safer.

 

[Demi-human]

Why must I give up my rights to make other humans feel safe? Are they not rights? Am I not a citizen too? Do I deserve less protection of my rights because I am NOT in hopless fear of my life every day?
If a country is unable to make law that controls a madman, how is it falling on it's self to make law to control men that would not do this?
I can bump fire my AR on the belt loop of my jeans, time to ban belt loops? I can also do it from my pocket, time to ban pockets? I have also seen a very large man bump fire a nineteen eleven pistol from his chest, so what do we ban? Nineteen elevens, fourty-five auto, pistols as a whole, rotund humans? Ban fun?
Start a bullseye match that only uses liberal coke cans-filled-with-concrete, until someone drops one on their foot then that will be banned ?
When tragedy strikes the first thing is to deem the nieghbors criminal?
When will we stop letting them force us bend?



I have no answers. Save for one, resist.

 

[Solomonson]

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.

They're a toy, not a tool so I could care less whether they get banned or not -- and it's not a matter of throwing anyone a bone. What does offend me is that vat of sewage Feinstein is getting political gain out of this.

Let's see if the brain-dead politicos can see far enough to focus on things like binary triggers which also increase the firing rate of ARs.

 

[DeepSouth]

I can think no reasonable/logical reason to agree with a bump stock ban of any sort.

Then again I am a person believes freedom should be our priority, not “feeling” safe or some other nonsense.