Sacrifice Bump Stocks to save Silencer bill?

[Aim1]

i'm starting this thread because I don't want to hijack anyone else's threads and this is a different OP. Apparently the NRA, president, White House, and everyone else is ready to ban bump stocks. I have no interest in a bump stock but I would worry about the NRA and other pro-gun groups ok with banning certain items every time there could be a mass shooting.

House Speaker Paul Ryan pulled the SHARE Act (with Hearing Protection Act included) from being heard almost immediately after the Las Vegas shooting. Many have said it's better to pull a bill if you know that it's not going to pass which is probably better than a defeat.

I believe that after a short time the scrutiny on the 2nd Amendment will die down and it could be a chance for the SHARE Act to once again be up or a vote.


Do you think that by sacrificing bump stocks the GOP thinks it could preserve a chance for the SHARE Act (with HPA included) to pass and be signed into law by the president?


** I know that everyone wants to say suppressors but most people know them as their original name, silencers.

 

[DPris]

No.
Denis

 

[sequins]

RINO Ryan strikes again. I'd gladly take that trade, but we're just going to lose both and gain nothing. I heard the NRA supports the ban full stop as well. LaPierre is a phony.

 

[JohnKSa]

The silencer act was dead before the Vegas shooting. The idea that it can be revived now is crazy talk.

 

[mjsdwash]

there's no 'middle ground', no compromise, just a continuing push. We were supposed to be satisfied with only banning those horrible NFA items... then we were supposed to be accept a ban on 'non sporting' arms, then background check, then open bolts, then machine guns, then scary looking rifles, lifetime bans over misdemeanor crimes, then we were supposed to be happy with 10 round limits on magazines, then we were told a few years ago if we accept universal background checks the gun control push would end, then the Supreme Court ruled you can loose lifetime gun rights over a traffic violation. It won't end until double barrel shotguns, and bolt rifles with 5 round magazines are all that's legal. "Common sense gun control" is about banning everything but those two types. After a few years of bans, people will turn in all their scary guns, and eventually they'll just stop making ammo, and those bolt rifles and shotguns will be wall decorations in our Utopian block houses. Banning bumpstock is a guarantee that Silencers will not be deregulated, and will give fuel to a new Republican backed era of gun regulation.

 

[MachIVshooter]

Why are so many in our camp so ready to appease, to capitulate every time a tragedy happens?

It would have to be an actual compromise; we get suppressors deregulated, they get their bump stock restriction/ban. Passed on the same bill with language that precludes line item veto screwing us over. Otherwise, not just no, but hell no.

 

[1911 guy]

When, in the history of politics, have you ever given up something and gotten anything return?

It is the nature of government to consolidate power to itself. There is no compromise, it is only concession. This is why the gun control debate and decision making must not take place in Washington. It has to be won in an exchange of ideas and giving factual information to the average guy on the street. We complain about Nancy Pelosi and her ilk. But in reality, that dystopian view and disconnect from reality define our entrenched leadership on both sides, not just the left. Do you really want them calling the shots? If you don't win the war in the minds of your friends and neighbors, we've lost.

 

[JohnKSa]

It would have to be an actual compromise; we get suppressors deregulated, they get their bump stock restriction/ban.

Even that is dangerous depending on how and how carefully they define bump-fire stocks. There's serious potential for unintended consequences for all semi-auto firearms.

 

[JO JO]

Even that is dangerous depending on how and how carefully they define bump-fire stocks. There's serious potential for unintended consequences for all semi-auto firearms.

I agree give up nothing once they start they will not stop, we are only one election away from fighting to keep any gun rights , just because we have it good now with low prices,ammo and components everywhere, this can very easy change next election so I agree don't start giving in now, drop your guard and you get punched every time

 

[BigBore44]

I don’t need a silencer. I don’t need a bump stock. But I’m not going to give up the right to have either, to have the other.

 

[MachIVshooter]

Even that is dangerous depending on how and how carefully they define bump-fire stocks. There's serious potential for unintended consequences for all semi-auto firearms.

Obviously I wouldn't accept anything that doesn't very specifically and narrowly define them. That language would be pretty simple:

"Any firearm stock or stock assembly that is designed and intended to facilitate rapid fire with semi-automatic firearms by allowing the firearm to recoil independently of or within the shoulder stock"

The designed and intended verbiage is very common in federal firearms statutes, and safeguards things like standard adjustable stocks and upgraded triggers.

I don’t need a silencer. I don’t need a bump stock. But I’m not going to give up the right to have either, to have the other.

If we can get something useful out of letting them have something more or less useless, I'd go for it. There is the immediate payoff, and it also creates a precedent for that real compromise in the spirit of the Websters definition.

 

[jmorris]

I have no interest in a bump stock but...

So you think selling out your "friends" is going to get you the results you want?

Yeah, you can forget about the HPA for now, keep dividing your community and you will loose ground you think is already covered.

 

[Hypnogator]

It would have to be an actual compromise; we get suppressors deregulated, they get their bump stock restriction/ban. Passed on the same bill with language that precludes line item veto screwing us over.

I have a better idea! How about a bill to ban bump stocks in exchange for repealing the 1986 Hughes Amendment, allowing new full auto firearms to be sold again in compliance with the 1934 National Firearms Act! (We can work on reducing the burdens of that act later on.)

 

[BigBore44]

That language would be pretty simple:

There in lies the fatal flaw in your premise. Verbiage is rarely simple. Personally, I thought “...shall not be infringed.” was pretty simple.

 

[Aim1]

So you think selling out your "friends" is going to get you the results you want?

Yeah, you can forget about the HPA for now, keep dividing your community and you will loose ground you think is already covered.

lol. I like how you left out rest of the quote. Especially the part where it says I'm not ok with them banning gun things whenever something bad happens.


Good one!

 

[hdwhit]

Aim1 wrote:
Sacrifice Bump Stocks to save Silencer bill?

It's not a choice that's on the table.

You can only negotiate with someone who had something you want in exchange for something you already HAVE.

The silencer bill is far from enacted, so trading a pie-in-the-sky bill for an already vilified device offers the other side nothing.

Bump-fire stocks may well be banned. Even President Trump is suggesting the ATF may want to review it's prior ruling on their legality. But nobody is going to trade your acquiescence on banning something that is about to be banned anyway for a bill whose passage was never certain in the first place.

 

[hdwhit]

BigBore44 wrote:
Personally, I thought “...shall not be infringed.” was pretty simple.

Yeah, and then you came to discover that your understanding of the phrase was meaningless and the Constitution means what the "nine old people" on the Supreme Court say it means.

 

[DPris]

There is no trade involved, and the GOP has absolutely zero strategy in anything relating to gun control.
Denis

 

[Fine Figure of a Man]

There is no trade involved, and the GOP has absolutely zero strategy in anything relating to gun control.
Denis

Or anything else it seems, unless capitulation is a strategy.

 

[P5 Guy]

I say let them have bump stocks for full repeal of ALL federal firearms legislations.

 

[JO JO]

why do you guy's think that they will give us anything , they may trick us with fancy legal words that later they say the small print says anything semi auto or no more that 10 rounds, they are NOT going to give us anything ! They are after total gun bans and not our friends, I do not have or want a bump fire stock but why open the door form the gun haters to come in , again they are NOT our friends !

 

[Frank Ettin]

RINO Ryan strikes again. I'd gladly take that trade, .....

Is anyone actually offering the trade? Where are the votes to pass such legislation? For that matter, where are the votes to pass the SHARE Act?

Politics is the art of the possible.

 

[BigBore44]

Is anyone actually offering the trade? Where are the votes to pass such legislation? For that matter, where are the votes to pass the SHARE Act?

Politics is the art of the possible.

When Pelosi openly states she hopes this leads to a slippery slope, I think we know what they (those with the power to actually legislate) are hoping is “possible”.

 

[JeffG]

I think the effect of letting bump stocks go will be: "As long as we are at it..." We will have a difficult time stopping the antis after that.

 

[JO JO]

Exactly once the door is open......