possible legislation to ban bump stocks

[Elkins45]

If you can compromise a right then it's really more of a privilege, isn't it? If we give up bump fire (as silly and worthless as it is) then we need to get something in return. People talk about gun owners being unwilling to "compromise" but it's only a compromise if both sides get something.

Getting to keep your guns isn't getting something.

Emotions are running high and the opposition voices are once again calling to repeal the "outdated" 2nd Amendment .
Banning bump stocks could be the least of our worries.

How does one repeal an amendment? By the same process used to adopt an new one, right? I don't see 35 of the states being on board with this. How many blue states are there anyway?

 

[Sam1911]

Emotions are running high and the opposition voices are once again calling to repeal the "outdated" 2nd Amendment .
Banning bump stocks could be the least of our worries.

If it didn't happen after Sandy Hook when the opposition held many of the reigns, it isn't likely to be a serious worry now. The press is already saying that exact thing.

 

[GBExpat]

I understand exactly what you're saying. I just seriously doubt that the majority of Americans agree. And that is, as I see it, the real issue. 'No compromise' sounds great, but it's never that simple.

Problem is that a "compromise" involves both sides giving a bit. The Antis are only interested in taking.

 

[Shanghai McCoy]

If it didn't happen after Sandy Hook when the opposition held many of the reigns, it isn't likely to be a serious worry now. The press is already saying that exact thing.

I shall trust your optimism then Sir...

 

[wojownik]

Problem is that a "compromise" involves both sides giving a bit. The Antis are only interested in taking.

Agree, and hence the entire text of the Feinstein document is about banning. Not "restrict" as in merely categorize as NFA. Not "ban" as in offer compensation to those who own legally purchased property that the government would suddenly outlaw.

And the other side of the aisle seems incapable of thinking outside of the box. A counter-proposal, to "restrict" something (not ban), but also add in additional protections to firearms owners as a quid-pro-quo. Make it a felony for any government employee to collect data on individual firearms owners (i.e. an anti-registration clause). Make it a felony for any government employee to retain records longer than that specified in current law.

And curtailment of individual or private sector activity must be accompanied by a similar or greater restriction on government activity. That's a simple premise. And one which many sitting Congressmen had essentially subscribed to in their election campaigns. They must be reminded of that.

 

[yokel]

Proponents of these regulations and restrictions attempt to substitute things for people, but this approach won’t wash. It is the human moral will that saves us from violence, not the presence or absence of weapons and their various devices and modifications.

We should reject utterly the absurd notion that these things are the cause of violence!

Anyone who is serious about controlling violence must recognize that it can only be done by rooting violence out of the human heart. We must somehow recapture the noble view of humans as capable of moral responsibility, and self-restraint. Purify the heart and we will not have to worry about the misuse of weapons.

The salient point is that any so-called bump stock ban will do nothing to stop ghastly mass shootings.

 

[Fine Figure of a Man]

I understand exactly what you're saying. I just seriously doubt that the majority of Americans agree. And that is, as I see it, the real issue. 'No compromise' sounds great, but it's never that simple.

Part of the reason for having elected representatives is to protect the republic from the fickle masses.
Sadly today, the majority of our representatives in both parties care more about the next election than principals and issues.

 

[wojownik]

As a semi-related thought, what about the possibility of civil action against the manufacture of the bumpfire products that were used. I am NOT advocating this. I am merely discussing the possibility that the "bumpfire issue" may meet an end as the manufacturers are sued out of business, even if the Feinstein ban fails. While firearms manufacturers and dealers have immunity under the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, PLCAA does not cover accessory manufacturers. (I don't think I'm blurting out anything that 1000 lawyers are not already looking at).

 

[WrongHanded]

Problem is that a "compromise" involves both sides giving a bit. The Antis are only interested in taking.

A true statement. But again, it's the middle ground I'm thinking of. So the Brady Bill put heavy restrictions on fully automatic weapons. Then someone comes up with a way to make a semi-auto mimic full-auto. To defend such a mechanism - which is intended to circumvent the law - in the wake of the LV shooting, is not likely to be seem as reasonable by the majority. The only defense for not banning or restricting these devises (which to a layman look like they make a rifle into a machine gun) seems to be based on little more than fear of the domino effect upon our gun right. I think doing so would only result in a more negative view of gun owning Americans. Which in turn may well result in more people being willing to go further with gun restrictions.

Conversely, coming out against bump stocks draws a firm line that demonstrates a collective sense of compassion and pragmatism on our part. I do not see it as opening a flood gate, but as drawing a line in the sand in an unexpected place. I think it shows us as reasonable, and in doing so adds weight to the arguments for keeping semi-autos, high capacity magazines, and to deregulate suppressors and legalize constitutional carry.

But we all have our opinions. I'm aware that mine is in a minority on this forum. I appreciate everyone remaining polite and civil, and I have little more to add.

 

[Arizona_Mike]

Overturn the Hughes Amendment opening the machine gun registry. Have an amnesty for people with bump stock to register (with the fee waived). Remove silencers from the NFA while you are at it.

Mike

 

[Mosin Bubba]

Honestly, after years of "ban all handguns", "ban all military-style weapons", "ban all semi-automatics" - "ban bump stocks" is so mild of legislation as to almost be laughable. I think it's a huge win for our cause.

With a Republican Congress and President, I don't think this bill is going anywhere, and even if it did pass the impact of the bill on shooters would be very minimal. Even if you NFA'ed bump stocks, I think most people who want them would still end up buying them.

 

[ponchh]

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me

I don't own a bump fire but to say you will trade them for what you want is the same as me saying that I live in the woods, all these shooters are in the city so let's just outlaw all guns inside the city limits. Would be fine with me, wouldn't effect me at all.

 

[Tommygunn]

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—0
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me

I don't own a bump fire but to say you will trade them for what you want is the same as me saying that I live in the woods, all these shooters are in the city so let's just outlaw all guns inside the city limits. Would be fine with me, wouldn't effect me at all.

~~~Reverend Martin Neimueller.

 

[mikechandler]

We can make up any wish list we like, but in the end if they are banned there will be a grace period to turn them into local authorities, and thereafter if you are caught with one the penalty will be the same as being caught with an auto-fire seer. There is no way the registry is going to be opened on these, or that all current bump stock owners will be grandfathered in. And while reasonable use exists for suppressors, what reasonable use case exists for any device which purposefully circumvents existing laws?

Let's be honest about this: If you had a choice between a true M16 lower on the shelf for $400, or a $300 "bump fire stock" you wouldn't get the bump fire stock. The only reason you want one to begin with is because you can't get the M16 lower without paying thousands of dollars and going through a ridiculously drawn out and expensive process.

When I first saw one at a local store all I thought was it was a disaster waiting to happen. I have seen too much stupidity at ranges and the walmart mentality of too many gun owners to believe devices that circumvent the stricter regulation of fully automatic weapons should be sold no differently than a can of soup.

Call me a traitor - a traitor with TWO safes full of guns - but I think it was just an accident waiting to happen, and now it did.

 

[JohnBiltz]

I think I will point out that a bump stock is not a gun, its not a gun part like a magazine. Now some one will say this is lawyering the discussion, but that is exactly how it got around the NFA to begin with.

 

[Rocketmedic]

So you're honestly proposing that the gun owning American community should go with a message of "yeah, my range toy that mimics fully automatic fire functioned exactly as intended and was used to kill fifty-eight innocent people and wound hundreds more at a concert, and the guy who did it was totally legal and normal and indistinguishable from the rest of us, so we want to keep the ones we have and make it legal again to produce and buy real purpose-built machine guns that put more rounds downrange more accurately and aren't gimmicks"? Is that really the message we want to send? Do we really want the next mass shooter to pull a Call of Duty with a legally-purchased new-build SAW?

Talk like this is how the gun community isolates itself and alienates a lot of Americans. The fact is that assault rifles and things that offer easy delivery of large volumes of fire on targets are inherently more dangerous than weapons that do not offer that capacity in the hands of an evil person- and there is no existing constitutional way to identify these people or prohibit them from obtaining these weapons prior to use. If we make it harder to obtain these particularly deadly weapons, maybe the next mass shooting won't be as massive.

 

[mikechandler]

If we make it harder to obtain these particularly deadly weapons, maybe the next mass shooting won't be as massive.

And that should be especially easy when it was something that only existed as a way to circumvent existing regulations, and in doing so made something even more dangerous than the original item, the full auto lower, which is at least controllable and has selective fire. I can't believe anybody would be fighting to support it.

Here's my advice:

We use this as leverage for a national CCW permit. We give an exchange - we accept a ban on devices that circumvent existing regulation of full auto weapons, and they give us a national CCW permit.

And it's an easy give for us, because come on, the bump fire stocks are crap toys at best.

 

[taliv]

rocketmedic,

the fact is that anyone can pull a semi auto trigger almost as fast. So what are you going to do when the next "totally legal and normal and indistinguishable from the rest of us" gets almost the same body count from an unmodified AR15? support banning all semi-autos?

the reality is the magazine capacity in this case contributed as much or more to the rate of fire than the bump stock. so what are you going to do when they call for nationwide 10 round limit to mag capacity and confiscation of all 60-100 round magazines and drums and belt-fed uppers?

 

[2ifbyC]

The liberals in Congress have one major advantage over conservatives – unity. They would walk through the gates of hell at the beckoning of Pelosi and Schumer.

We unfortunately do not have strong leadership. Therefore, we must remain united. Give no more and let your representatives know that any further breech of the 2nd Amendment will result in their ouster.

The issue is not about bump stocks. It’s about the confiscation of all firearms and the repeal of our RKBA. The liberals are uncompromising on many issues, e.g., abortion. We should be uncompromising on more gun control. Let’s strongly enforce the laws that are in effect. Use that as the barometer for prevention of violent crimes.

 

[mikechandler]

rocketmedic,

the fact is that anyone can pull a semi auto trigger almost as fast. So what are you going to do when the next "totally legal and normal and indistinguishable from the rest of us" gets almost the same body count from an unmodified AR15? support banning all semi-autos?

the reality is the magazine capacity in this case contributed as much or more to the rate of fire than the bump stock. so what are you going to do when they call for nationwide 10 round limit to mag capacity and confiscation of all 60-100 round magazines and drums and belt-fed uppers?

Which is exactly why we give ground on the bump stock in exchange for something more valuable, like a national CCW permit.

The bump stock is a crap toy that is impossible to make a reasonable use argument for. Unlike large capacity magazines. So use that to our advantage and let them scapegoat something that we already knew was just circumventing the spirit of the law.

 

[mikechandler]

The liberals in Congress have one major advantage over conservatives – unity. They would walk through the gates of hell at the beckoning of Pelosi and Schumer.

We unfortunately do not have strong leadership. Therefore, we must remain united. Give no more and let your representatives know that any further breech of the 2nd Amendment will result in their ouster.

The issue is not about bump stocks. It’s about the confiscation of all firearms and the repeal of our RKBA. The liberals are uncompromising on many issues, e.g., abortion. We should be uncompromising on more gun control. Let’s strongly enforce the laws that are in effect. Use that as the barometer for prevention of violent crimes.

A failed argument - the existing lawful regulation of fully automatic weapons was being circumvented by these crappy toys. We're not giving up anything of value we legally and lawfully use - we're simply acknowledging that Obama did a crappy job with the ATF on this one.

And we ask for something of value in return.

 

[taliv]

hat is impossible to make a reasonable use argument for.

our differences are fundamental. i do not believe RIGHTS require any reasonable use justification.

we do not say you have to have a reasonable use argument to practice you religion, or to assemble in public, or to speak your opinion

 

[Analogkid]

Jesus.. I can't believe the amount of Sunshine patriots here.

The bill as it is written will effectively ban any trigger modification no matter what it is or what it is on.
Got that binary trigger.....felon
Got that lighter trigger in your old bolt action....felon
Fat pad on trigger for comps or running plates.....felon


Don't give a dang inch. This isn't just about some goofs bump stock.
There is a whole bunch of stuff that can be affected by the wording of that bill. This is how this crap starts. No offer to compromise. They aren't going to compromise with your wants anyway.

 

[mikechandler]

our differences are fundamental. i do not believe RIGHTS require any reasonable use justification.

we do not say you have to have a reasonable use argument to practice you religion, or to assemble in public, or to speak your opinion

So you believe that the existing regulation of fully automatic weapons is an infringement of your basic inalienable rights, and you should not have to comply with it?

The government regulating fully automatic weapons, bombs, nuclear devices, anything you desire to have in armaments is infringement?

I'd suggest you more carefully examine the reality of the law and why it exists.

 

[mikechandler]

Jesus.. I can't believe the amount of Sunshine patriots here.

The bill as it is written will effectively ban any trigger modification no matter what it is or what it is on.
Got that binary trigger.....felon
Got that lighter trigger in your old bolt action....felon
Fat pad on trigger for comps or running plates.....felon


Don't give a dang inch. This isn't just about some goofs bump stock.
There is a whole bunch of stuff that can be affected by the wording of that bill. This is how this crap starts. No offer to compromise. They aren't going to compromise with your wants anyway.

Straw man arguments. No such bill exists.

All that is being suggested is banning devices that convert weapons into simulating fully automatic fire by adding an external device.