White House Petition to Reverse Bump Stock Ban

[FL-NC]

I don't believe in compromise on the 2nd Amendment (or much else not directly related to marriage ) and I'm always conscious of the slippery slope but I really don't think we have a leg to stand on with the bump stock concept. Let's be honest, it was designed to work around regulations regarding machineguns. I'm surprised it was ever allowed in the first place but it was fine until the Las Vegas shooting. It was a dangerous game to be playing in the first place. I think this is one issue where we have to concede and it has nothing to do with emotion or guilt.

"Working around regulations" that the government is so eager to create, with the help of lawyers and regulatory agencies, is how business is done, regarding virtually every law, regulation, etc. These things are created with words, which have definitions, by lawyers. What is the difference between "working around" and being compliant? Take a look at tax laws. Every year, your tax info, and the tribute you owe, is handed to another regulatory agency, which must be in compliance with these laws, and you better pay that tribute, or you will be penalized in various ways: interest/fines (vig), confiscation of assets, or incarceration). A good accountant or tax attorney will minimize the amount of this tribute by knowing these laws, created with words, that have meanings, while still being compliant.

 

[il_10]

Just a point of order on the Philosophy end of things, using a logical fallacy may mean the argument itself isn't valid, but its use doesn't necessitate the conclusion's being wrong.

So, "slippery slope" may be a poor way of arguing against the current ban's structure in se, but it's also true that this ban's structure opens up a new vehicle for banning other items that didn't exist before. It's easy to surmise that this new vehicle for banning items would be used in the future for banning items.

 

[dogtown tom]

Normally I would agree, but in this case the occupant of the White House is directly addressed in the petition. I would like to see him respond to 100K signatures.

Well, by definition a "White House petition" is directly addressed to the occupant, that's kinda the point.
White House petitions are for those to lazy to contact someone who cares.....your Congressman. Getting correspondence from your constituents carries much more weight than the silliness that is a White House petition.

Anyone who believes a White House petition will lead to change hasn't been paying attention.

 

[cheygriz]

Just a point of order on the Philosophy end of things, using a logical fallacy may mean the argument itself isn't valid, but its use doesn't necessitate the conclusion's being wrong.

So, "slippery slope" may be a poor way of arguing against the current ban's structure in se, but it's also true that this ban's structure opens up a new vehicle for banning other items that didn't exist before. It's easy to surmise that this new vehicle for banning items would be used in the future for banning items.

There is no logical construct for that argument. That would almost seem to fall into "post hoc, ergo propter hoc."

 

[Tommygunn]

The "slippery slope" is a fallacy. Just like appeal to authority, and post hoc ergo propter hoc.

No logical basis for it.

Of course, "Chicken Little" is not about logic!

A little research reveals "the slippery slop fallacy" happens when a series of considerations or events, or beliefs, lead to a ridiculous conclusion.
If the conclusion is not ridiculous, it is not fallacious.

That a bumpstock ban enacted in the manner this one has can lead to other bans of like mechanisms is not ridiculous. The law and policymakers depend upon something called PRECEDENT. New laws and regulations that are proposed are often examined and compared to older, similar laws to see how they worked out. If a court takes a decision about a matter and issues a judgement, that becomes precedent as a matter of stare decisis.
If a bumpstock ban is allowed to stand, the method it was enacted will be used again. As I said, P R E C E D E N T.
"Those who forget history are forever doomed to repeat it's mistakes," George Santayana.
"Logic is the beginning of wisdom, not the end," Mr. Spock.

 

[cheygriz]

Your logic is fallacious!

 

[Tommygunn]

No, it is not.

I don't understand why it should be so difficult to believe if bumpstocks are allowed to be banned by fiat, then the dot gov can use the same method for other devices. It seems a simple enough concept to me.
It's not like it's quantum theory, which actually IS hard to understand.

 

[cheygriz]

No, it is not.

I don't understand why it should be so difficult to believe if bumpstocks are allowed to be banned by fiat, then the dot gov can use the same method for other devices. It seems a simple enough concept to me.
It's not like it's quantum theory, which actually IS hard to understand.

If you say so, Tommy!

 

[Tommygunn]

Oh, I do verily sayeth so.

 

[Kevin5098]

Well, by definition a "White House petition" is directly addressed to the occupant, that's kinda the point.
White House petitions are for those to lazy to contact someone who cares.....your Congressman. Getting correspondence from your constituents carries much more weight than the silliness that is a White House petition.

Anyone who believes a White House petition will lead to change hasn't been paying attention.

If the issue was impending legislation I would contact my congressman as I have in the past. This was an administrative ruling made at the direction of the occupant of the White House which changes the meaning of duly enacted legislation. This, more than the bump stock itself is the important issue. I realize that the petition will change nothing except perhaps signal the President that there are folks out here paying attention.

 

[Texas10mm]

I don't believe in compromise on the 2nd Amendment (or much else not directly related to marriage ) and I'm always conscious of the slippery slope but I really don't think we have a leg to stand on with the bump stock concept. Let's be honest, it was designed to work around regulations regarding machineguns. I'm surprised it was ever allowed in the first place but it was fine until the Las Vegas shooting. It was a dangerous game to be playing in the first place. I think this is one issue where we have to concede and it has nothing to do with emotion or guilt.

"Working around regulations" that the government is so eager to create, with the help of lawyers and regulatory agencies, is how business is done, regarding virtually every law, regulation, etc. These things are created with words, which have definitions, by lawyers. What is the difference between "working around" and being compliant? Take a look at tax laws. Every year, your tax info, and the tribute you owe, is handed to another regulatory agency, which must be in compliance with these laws, and you better pay that tribute, or you will be penalized in various ways: interest/fines (vig), confiscation of assets, or incarceration). A good accountant or tax attorney will minimize the amount of this tribute by knowing these laws, created with words, that have meanings, while still being compliant.

Craig, the bump stock wasn't a way around the regulations on machine guns BECAUSE it wasn't a machine gun. All the bump stock is is a method to increase the rate at which one burns though ammo. Same with a binary trigger, a semi-auto, a lever action, a pump, a bolt action, a revolving action, a double, a cartridge firing arm, a cap fired muzzleloader, and a flint fired muzzleloader. All of these increase the rate of fire over a matchlock.

Where do YOU draw the line?

Bump stock = one action of the trigger, one shot. Semi auto rifle = one action of the trigger, one shot. If we let me regulate the first one out of existence it won't be long before they try and do the same with the second.

You can look at it one of two ways.

Everything not expressly forbidden is legal, or nothing not specifically allowed is illegal. I prefer the first system. It's what this country was founded on.

 

[.308 Norma]

perhaps signal the President that there are folks out here paying attention.

Oh I think he already knows that.

 

[BigBore44]

Bump stock = one action of the trigger, one shot. Semi auto rifle = one action of the trigger, one shot. If we let me regulate the first one out of existence it won't be long before they try and do the same with the second.

Yes! This is just a step towards the banning of semi automatic weapons. Why can people not see this? I don’t even think Trump has thought this one through.

If an accessory can make a semiautomatic rifle fire “full auto”, they now can ban that accessory. Then when that doesn’t work because you don’t need more than a belt loop to make a semiautomatic rifle fire “full auto”, the next logical course of action is to eliminate the ability of the weapon itself, with or without external influence, to achieve that cyclic increase in rate of fire.

I will say I think it’s a long ways down the road before that happens. But if there was a perfect first step towards the elimination of semiautomatics, this would be it.

Don’t own a bump stock. Don’t even want one. To me they’re almost completely worthless. I like to make my shots count. But that doesn’t negate the fact that they were legal two weeks ago and now they aren’t. And no law was passed to do it.

My concern is hindsight. I don’t want to look back on this 10-20 years from now and think “Damn, we really should have fought that harder”.

 

[Kevin5098]

Craig, the bump stock wasn't a way around the regulations on machine guns BECAUSE it wasn't a machine gun. All the bump stock is is a method to increase the rate at which one burns though ammo. Same with a binary trigger, a semi-auto, a lever action, a pump, a bolt action, a revolving action, a double, a cartridge firing arm, a cap fired muzzleloader, and a flint fired muzzleloader. All of these increase the rate of fire over a matchlock.

Where do YOU draw the line?

Bump stock = one action of the trigger, one shot. Semi auto rifle = one action of the trigger, one shot. If we let me regulate the first one out of existence it won't be long before they try and do the same with the second.

You can look at it one of two ways.

Everything not expressly forbidden is legal, or nothing not specifically allowed is illegal. I prefer the first system. It's what this country was founded on.

It should be noted that the definition of "machinegun" has been reinterpreted to include bump stocks (and similar devices). In other words,bump stocks are now considered firearms by the ATF.

 

[CraigC]

The bumpfire stock is absolutely a work around. Personally, I don't think any of it 'should' be illegal and would prefer the NFA and GCA were repealed. However, as of right now, it is the law of the land and I don't see a logical argument against banning bumpfire stocks. They essentially create a machinegun where none existed. IMHO, they played too close to the fire and got burned. It's an indefensible position to take.

All of which has nothing to do with the effectiveness of full auto fire. The problem is the perception of full auto fire, the popular notion that one can mow down thousands of nuns or girl scouts at one time, coupled with the fact that full auto is illegal without a huge collector premium and a $200 tax stamp.

 

[luzyfuerza]

An evil person used something that is not a machine gun to murder innocent victims. For political purposes, a politician decided to call a bump stock a machine gun, even though it does not meet the written, legal definition of a machine gun, and he instructed the regulatory state to bow to this fallacy. The regulators, absent any change in the statutory definition, nevertheless followed these instructions.

Due process would require that Congress change the statutory definition of "machine gun" (currently found in 26 U.S.C. § 5845(b) "Any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger") to include bump stocks. With that action, this regulatory change could have been consistent with the principles of our nation. Without it, the actions of the politician and of the regulatory state become completely capricious.

Nothing could prevent a future gun-grabbing chief executive from unilaterally using the same process followed in this case to outlaw any firearm or firearm accessory which is now legal but which he or she believes should no longer be available.

The conclusion in this case is abhorrent, but the process used to reach it is worse; it violates due process protections, and opens the door to similar, more despicable actions in the future.

 

[Browning]

We should know by now that those White House petitions have no effect whatsoever.

The media tactic of discouraging conservatives from action isn't going to work any better on a gun forum.

 

[jmorris]

Yes! This is just a step towards the banning of semi automatic weapons. Why can people not see this?

Why would that be, we already know the definition.

26 U.S.C. § 5845(b)

For the purposes of the National Firearms Act the term Machinegun means:

• Any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger

And we all know how difficult and complicated a job it is to convert one to fully automatic fire.



And ^ that IS a machine gun because the ring becomes the trigger, not just a way to help some bump fire...

Oh, yeah “by a single function of the trigger” means different things to different people. Guess it’s like Clinton’s "It depends upon what the meaning of the word 'is' is.“ BS

 

[psyopspec]

This is one better left alone. In 1994 people were pulling their hair out over the AWB. It didn't ban anything, and in the long run led to more gun rights than before. Let them have the bump stocks and lets see where this goes.

If by “them,” you mean the Administration and NRA who actively and tacit;y supported the measure, I am indeed concerned about where this goes. Also, you and I had very different experiences WRT the AIWB; you might be mistaken in your recall.

 

[AlexanderA]

The bump stock ban is indeed very bad, but a White House petition is not the way to go about challenging it. The courts are about the only viable way to do this. Contribute to a lawsuit.

If bump stocks can be banned by fiat, with no compensation, as "machine guns," there is nothing to prevent semiautomatic rifles, such as AR-15's, from being banned by the next administration in the same way.

The NRA has made a fatal mistake in acquiescing to this. This error ranks right up there with their acceptance of the 1986 Hughes Amendment. Things like this, once done, cannot easily be undone.

 

[DeepSouth]

The bumpfire stock is absolutely a work around.

And who gets to decide this, and therefore ban such items?

Is the arm brace a workaround?
How about a Taurus Judge?
How about every AR or AK styled rifle made during the 10 year “assault weapon ban”?
Maybe the Mossberg Shock wave & Rem Tac-14?
Maybe every semi auto, since they can be fired as fast as some full autos?


Let’s face it another way to say “work around” is “gun (or accessorie) designed to comply with the law as written”

BTW: the answer to my original question is, the government. I’m not ok with that.


Do we really need to allow the banning of these intentionally legally compliant guns?

 

[Sebastian]

Let’s face it another way to say “work around” is “gun (or accessorie) designed to comply with the law as written”

This. Complying with the law is not a work around. It is literal compliance. To reference the "spirit of the law" is the same thing as saying that the law didn't mean what it said and didn't say what it meant. But apparently for some reason it is up to those who wish to comply with it to voluntarily further handicap themselves by complying with that which is not a law.

 

[HuckFinn]

For those people who do not see a logical argument against the bump stock ban, are you ok with those of us who can bump fire a semi-auto by just using our trigger finger? You see bump-firing does not require the use of a bump stock....The only way bump-firing a semi-auto can be successfully banned is to ban semi-autos and that is what a lot of us are worried about, particularly those of us on the left coast.

 

[DoubleMag]

Over a week since last post, thanks for kicking the bed for wake up call. Alas, such as in the working world, some will keep hitting that snooze button...don't wanna petition...don't wanna call....write....seepy...ZzzZz....

 

[John_R]

One third of the Colonists were ok with the British confiscating their guns and quelling rebellion. It was complying with the law, as it was written, after all. Good thing they were overruled. Good thing Rosa Parks didn't seek a work-around to comply with the law as written.