possible legislation to ban bump stocks

[Sam1911]

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?

Yes. Because the tool used was functionally identical to every other semi-auto, detachable magazine firearm in existence.

Do you realize that you can bump-fire WITHOUT a stock like this? People do it all the time. The stock just makes it a little bit easier. If language can be written to effectively ban these devices, it would absolutely have to also outlaw a disastrous range of things -- and probably things we DO, like bump-firing, not just the devices themselves. I understand that you really don't know much about the tech involved, so you're going to have to trust me on that.

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.

Utterly ridiculous reasoning, if you stop and think about it.

The shooter fired for 10 minutes. He had a total of 72 minutes before law enforcement entered. He could have kept going for an hour and 12 minutes. You really thing these bump-fire devices made his act worse than it otherwise would have been? Of course not. You can fire A LOT of rounds with a semi-auto firearm in 10 minutes. You can fire a very VERY high number in an hour and 12.

The only conceivable way to support your argument of passing laws that would (might) make mass killings less deadly would be to outlaw semi-autos and maybe all repeating firearms.


Some people, including some gun owners, have historically been fine with that. So, it doesn't surprise me to sniff whiffs of it here.

 

[mikechandler]

As long as we won't give an inch, even when it is in the spirit of the existing law... we can forget about a national CCW permit.

If anything these last 8 years should have taught us all is that if you can not work in a non partisan way on legislation, it is as meaningless as the next changing of the administration.

 

[mikechandler]

Okay I am out of here. I have said my piece:

The bump fire stock is a piece of dangerous crap. I would rather trade it for something like a national CCW permit.

Over and out

 

[Sam1911]

So you believe that the existing regulation of fully automatic weapons is an infringement of your basic inalienable rights,

I do, indeed.

...and you should not have to comply with it?

I am a law-abiding citizen and comply with the law. And I work to change it for the better when and where I can. I do hope to see the NFA struck down in my lifetime.

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

Arms and armaments are different things. We'll restrict our discussion here to the firearms as wielded by men.

To quote one of our founders, Tenche Coxe (delegate to the Constitutional Convention):
"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress has no power to disarm the militia. Their swords and every terrible implement of the soldier are the birthright of Americans."

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

I know exactly why it exists. And that's a shameful period of american legislation.

 

[AlexanderA]

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 this is why the Feinstein proposal isn't going anywhere. She always proposes things like this after every shooting incident, and she has a losing track record going back decades.

What we should really be concerned about is the ideas of the Republican senators. Already at least four of them have said that they are "considering" action on bumpfire stocks. Remember that a bill on this cannot pass the Senate unless at least 12 Republican senators are on board. (But that's not beyond the realm of possibility.)

Let's look at the silver lining. Depending on what these Republican senators do, we could end up having an open registry, and the de facto repeal of the Hughes Amendment. As I've said before, this is the best opportunity for such a repeal in 30 years.

 

[Sam1911]

And this is why the Feinstein proposal isn't going anywhere. She always proposes things like this after every shooting incident, and she has a losing track record going back decades.

And every time there's a shooting that makes the news we see an appalling number of gun owners flock to the forums to give up their rights, drop their drawers, and beg the antis to just whip us a little.

 

[Analogkid]

"a bump-fire device, or any part, combination of parts, component, device, attachment, or accessory that is de- signed or functions to accelerate the rate of fire"

Whole slew of crap other than just a bump fire device.
Indeed a slippy friggen slope in this *proposed * bill.

Not ONE inch!

 

[taliv]

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?

i absolutely believe that the NFA act is a unconstitutional infringement of my basic inalienable right. the current enforcement reality is what it is, but it is wrong and i feel no ethical responsibility to comply with it, only a practical one, as i could spend years in jail if caught.

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

no, obviously none of the things you mentioned are covered by the 2A and never have been.

 

[ATLDave]

The subject under discussion are devices that create the equivalence or near-equivalence of full-auto fire. Or, rather, they do create full-auto fire except under the (poorly written, as we all likely agree) specific language of the NFA.

Unless we're talking about Feinstein's particular proposal, which is grossly overbroad and probably covers trigger jobs and replacement recoil springs! The number one goal ought to be to prevent that kind of nonsense, IMO.

 

[2ifbyC]

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.

Your position suggests these “toys” circumvent the existing laws on fully automatic weapons. Then why is there a need to request something of value in return? When have liberals given anything? Their demands are only for their way with no compromise.

As previously stated; the real issue is not about bump stocks. Included in this banner are forearm grips, flash suppressors, and “silencers”. Next, the floodgate will open: “Deeper” background checks, ammunition/gun limits, gun show “loophole”; a never ending litany of restrictions.

The only good news I have heard from the oval office/majority is that now is not the time to talk about gun control. We won; put that to our advantage.

 

[Fine Figure of a Man]

I find it very troubling that nearly 20% of the members of gun forum are willing to give up rights because they are not personally affected or, worse yet, believe another gun law is the answer.
Even more disturbing are those who think it is wise to trade one right for another.

 

[coloradokevin]

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.

Please understand that we can't "safely" give up anything. We've been there before, and it hasn't worked. I've been paying attention to gun control issues since the early 1990's, and I not-so-fondly remember the lunacy of the "assault weapon ban" years. So many people back then talked about how AR-15's had no sporting or hunting use, and how people would only own one for the sake of killing; it was apathy on our side that allowed that ban to be put into place. The ban itself did nothing to make the weapon any more or less dangerous, but banned aesthetic parts of the rifle, and greatly hindered the development of that firearms platform. Now, as we sit here some 13 years after the expiration of the ban, we've found that the AR-15 platform is arguably the most popular rifle platform in America. It is used for sporting purposes, target shooting, competition, hunting, self-defense, etc. Though NONE of those issues are truly related to the intent of the 2nd Amendment, that once-banned rifle platform is still used for just about every conceivable purpose.

I don't believe we should give up anything. I don't owe something to the anti-gun movement just because some lunatic used a device for a terrible purpose. Whether or not you or I see a personal need or purpose for a bump stock is irrelevant, because neither you or I would use one to start killing innocent civilians from a high-rise hotel. Just because someone does something terrible with an item doesn't mean that the solution is to ban such an item. If that was the case we'd better start looking into banning box cutters, because they were used to kill 3,000+ people on September 11th, 2001.

As for Senator Feinstein, she has openly admitted that she would support an outright ban on guns. The fact that she wants to use political timing to ban a firearms accessory is nothing new, or novel for her. She's never been about "common sense", and she defines the slippery slope. But, the fact that prominent Republicans are now discussing this issue should be of concern to gun owners who actually value our freedoms:

http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/05/politics/paul-ryan-bump-stocks-gun-control/index.html

 

[Carl N. Brown]

Bump fire can be accomplished by holding the gun so that the hand holding the forearm holds tight and presses the gun forward against the trigger finger with that hand gripping looser. So no holding a semi-auto with two hands.

Malum prohibitum laws obeyed by the law-abiding cannot affect acts that are malum in se by people with bad intent.
I refuse to go along with the mindset that gave us prohibition of alcohol, witches hanged in Salem, and other nonsense.
These laws do no good, but take funds away from programs and policies that do appear to work.

 

[Rocketmedic]

I'd gladly trade every semi automatic firearm we've got, including my own semi-autos, for those people to be back, living. Manual actions are fine, I doubt many of those who invest the time to master those are mass killers.

The Newtown kids would have been in seventh grade this year. The Columbine kids would have been their parents. The folks at Aurora, Pulse and Rte.91

 

[stonecutter2]

I have no problem having bump fire stocks banned. They turn a semi-auto into basically full auto.

If they don't make it so they're illegal, expect every nutball in an incident to have one of these for max casualties from now on.

It's a shame, it was fun to shoot with, but it's essentially full auto fire with no regulation whatsoever. The fun's over when 500+ people get mowed down like that. Game over.

 

[TomJ]

You have to look at not just the legislation being proposed, but the intent, integrity and track record of the people proposing it. If we were dealing with people who were honest and who's only intention was addressing the bump stock, we could have that conversation. Unfortunately we're dealing with people who will lie to get what they want, which is a ban on private gun ownership. Based on their track record, if bump stocks are banned we can then expect them to expand that ban on additional products or guns. If they can't do it legislatively they'll do it through activist judges.

 

[Sam1911]

I'd gladly trade every semi automatic firearm we've got, including my own semi-autos, for those people to be back, living.

Laudably sentimental of you, but utterly pointless. And the sort of fuzzy, maudlin statement that enables people to abandon logic and cling to pointless "feel good" laws destined to do nothing except reduce freedom. You can neither legislate ultimate safety nor compromise those people back to life.

 

[Sam1911]

I have no problem having bump fire stocks banned. They turn a semi-auto into basically full auto.

Full-autos are not and should not be illegal nor should they be as heavily regulated as they are.

If they don't make it so they're illegal, expect every nutball in an incident to have one of these for max casualties from now on.

Because illegality stops people from being able to kill people? Because people who would commit mass murder care that an item they might make with a few dollars worth of parts is illegal?

It's irrelevant anyway, because the guy didn't need a bumpfire stock nor full-auto to do what he did. Not at all. Could have produced the same effect with 'most any semi-auto rifle. He had 7 times more time to fire than he used. Bumpfire didn't make him appreciably more lethal.

The fun's over when 500+ people get mowed down like that. Game over.

If our rights were up to those of us with such shallow commitment to our rights and seeming complete inability to understand the technical flaws with these arguments, it would indeed be "Game Over."

Fortunately, it is NOT game over.

 

[TomJ]

I'd gladly trade every semi automatic firearm we've got, including my own semi-autos, for those people to be back, living. Manual actions are fine, I doubt many of those who invest the time to master those are mass killers.

The Newtown kids would have been in seventh grade this year. The Columbine kids would have been their parents. The folks at Aurora, Pulse and Rte.91

The flaw in this is that you're blaming guns for the actions of people who were intent on committing acts of evil. As we're seen in London, Paris, Boston and so many other places, people intent on committing these acts can commit mass murder using cars, bombs or any number of other weapons. It's unfortunate that evil has always been with us, but we know for a fact that banning guns does not help, as it's already been done and has failed.

 

[Mitlov]

You have to look at not just the legislation being proposed, but the intent, integrity and track record of the people proposing it. If we were dealing with people who were honest and who's only intention was addressing the bump stock, we could have that conversation. Unfortunately we're dealing with people who will lie to get what they want, which is a ban on private gun ownership. Based on their track record, if bump stocks are banned we can then expect them to expand that ban on additional products or guns. If they can't do it legislatively they'll do it through activist judges.

Unfortunately, that sentiment is true of ANY bill before Congress by EITHER party. If we opposed every bill being moved forward by congresspeople who are shady and two-faced, we would literally oppose every single bill in Congress. I think you do, in fact, get to look at just what is in this particular bill. And I have zero problem banning bump-fire stocks. They may or may not make illegal massacres worse—I think in the right circumstances, like firing rapidly into a tightly-packed crowd before people can flee to cover, they do make the massacre worse—but their only positive utility is “the lulz while destroying some watermelons.” Fastest cost-benefit analysis ever.

 

[Rio Laxas]

“In the aftermath of the evil and senseless attack in Las Vegas, the American people are looking for answers as to how future tragedies can be prevented. Unfortunately, the first response from some politicians has been to call for more gun control. Banning guns from law-abiding Americans based on the criminal act of a madman will do nothing to prevent future attacks. This is a fact that has been proven time and again in countries across the world. In Las Vegas, reports indicate that certain devices were used to modify the firearms involved. Despite the fact that the Obama administration approved the sale of bump fire stocks on at least two occasions, the National Rifle Association is calling on the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) to immediately review whether these devices comply with federal law. The NRA believes that devices designed to allow semi-automatic rifles to function like fully-automatic rifles should be subject to additional regulations. In an increasingly dangerous world, the NRA remains focused on our mission: strengthening Americans' Second Amendment freedom to defend themselves, their families and their communities. To that end, on behalf of our five million members across the country, we urge Congress to pass National Right-to-Carry reciprocity, which will allow law-abiding Americans to defend themselves and their families from acts of violence.”

https://home.nra.org/joint-statement/

Great, even the NRA is signalling they might be willing to throw in the towel. I have no use at all for a bump fire stock, but it is annoying to me that there are Republicans in control of the House, Senate, and Presidency and we are still looking at further restrictions, while the HPA is abandoned. Figures.

Sources familiar with the NRA’s thinking note that federal law prohibits semi-automatic weapons from being turned into automatic weapons. Some would argue that’s effectively what bump stocks do, by allowing a semiautomatic to mimic the action of an automatic. And the NRA would like the agency to re-examine that question.

The NRA is suggesting the administration revisit a 2010 ATF decision, made during the Obama Administration, that allowed the sale of such accessories.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/...mp-fire-stocks-comply-with-current-law-243500

While I can understand the NRA not wanting to risk poorly written legislation, I think that encouraging the ATF to rule against bump fire stocks encourages them to even more loosely interpret federal law in the future.

 

[Sam1911]

Oh....that is sad, sad, sad.


There have been a few time, a VERY few times, when I've considered cancelling my NRA membership. And this is one of those times.


I know it's just political maneuvering most probably intended to sound appeasing while expecting nothing at all to ever come to a real piece of legislation, but it is LOW. And sacrifices much for a questionable short-term gain.

 

[stonecutter2]

Full-autos are not and should not be illegal nor should they be as heavily regulated as they are.

I never said full auto was illegal. I said bump fire stocks should be banned. As far as whether full auto should be heavily regulated or not, your opinion is just fine...but it is an opinion. And I do respect it. It would be nice to afforded the same respect.

Because illegality stops people from being able to kill people? Because people who would commit mass murder care that an item they might make with a few dollars worth of parts is illegal?

Because it enables someone to wreak mass havoc within a limited timespan. It's the rate of fire that let him sling that much lead so fast, and the bump fire stocks made it super simple and easy to do.

It's irrelevant anyway, because the guy didn't need a bumpfire stock nor full-auto to do what he did. Not at all. Could have produced the same effect with 'most any semi-auto rifle. He had 7 times more time to fire than he used. Bumpfire didn't make him appreciably more lethal.

The time he spent shooting shows that he was pretty darn lethal with the shots he got off. Enabled by bump fire stocks. It's basic throughput. Whether he needed them or not is irrelevant. He used them, on all of his rifles, as far as I've read. In the time he spent shooting, he would never have gotten off as many shots shooting semi-auto with the same casualty rate. When you're flinging lead like that so fast man, it's just no bueno.

If our rights were up to those of us with such shallow commitment to our rights and seeming complete inability to understand the technical flaws with these arguments, it would indeed be "Game Over."

Fortunately, it is NOT game over.

Shallow commitment? Man, you make a lot of assumptions here. And that is a problem. There are no technical flaws in more bullets in short period of time = more damage, is there? It's basic fact.

Don't like my opinion, hey that's okay. You don't have to. But insulting others through assumption is also not necessary. I thought this was a discussion?

God bless.

 

[BigBore44]

I honestly cannot believe what I’m reading by some on here.

“I’d gladly give up every semi-auto I own to have those people back, alive.”

Are you serious!? All you’re willing to give up, is your freedom. You won’t save a single life by giving them up, unless you’re a potential “mass shooter” and want to disarm yourself. But if it makes you feel like you’ve accomplished something helpful, great. Just don’t expect me to follow.

Just heard a guy on the radio say he had no problems giving up bump stocks because he didn’t own one so it didn’t affect him.

Please people. Try and replace your emotions with some logic. Banning bump stocks won’t stop something like this. Stiffer background checks won’t either. They already banned murder. Yet here we are. It’s utterly impossible to legislate against evil. Where there’s a will, there’s a way.

 

[TomJ]

Unfortunately, that sentiment is true of ANY bill before Congress by EITHER party. If we opposed every bill being moved forward by congresspeople who are shady and two-faced, we would literally oppose every single bill in Congress. I think you do, in fact, get to look at just what is in this particular bill. And I have zero problem banning bump-fire stocks. They may or may not make illegal massacres worse—I think in the right circumstances, like firing rapidly into a tightly-packed crowd before people can flee to cover, they do make the massacre worse—but their only positive utility is “the lulz while destroying some watermelons.” Fastest cost-benefit analysis ever.

There are functions of the government that are necessary, such as building roads and bridges, the military, coming up with a national budget, etc. We obviously need them to fulfill those obligations and therefore can not oppose every bill, something I never suggested. There are bills which are not necessary, but which someone believes are beneficial. The proposed ban on bump stocks falls into that category. Those bills we can refuse to consider, if we're so inclined. Like I said before, if this was only about bump stocks it would be a conversation I'd be willing to have. Unfortunately I don't trust either party to be honest with us right now, so it's hard for me to listen to someone like Feinstein and her cronies.