Why isint burst fire legal?

[Maxwell]

Bit of late night booze-induced wondering about nfa rules here.

So far as I know, single shot and semi-automatics are generaly still legal in most places. Full-automatics, are at best, heavily restricted.

Ok, I can see a glimer of reasoning how a weapon which can stream fire for as long as its capacity allows can be seen as too dangerous for the civilian-militia type person.

What about if the gun only fired a two shot burst?
The muzzle dosnt travel very far between two shots. It wouldnt be much more dangerous than what already exists in the form of shotguns or semi-autos bump fired with light triggers.

If two, then why not 3?
Its a standard trigger group of many military weapons. A cross between ammo-conservative but still better than just one shot. A downright militia minded middleground for modern war.
It also makes weapons of smaller "safer" calibers more effective. Something like a 3 round burst .22lr rifle could be realisticly handy for hunting while not exactly being a lethal street sweeper.

What do you suppose the chances are that burst firing weapons could be argued as different from full-autos?
There by needing different (fewer) restrictions?

 

[Lone_Gunman]

Its not going to happen considering that anti-gunners control all branches of our government.

 

[Dionysusigma]

Name one gun control law that makes sense.

 

[Zundfolge]

Stop trying to apply logic to the NFA.

Most of the NFA was written by a bunch of "city folk" and "college boys" who learned about firearms from Hollywood.

The 1934 NFA was a failed attempt to ban handguns and any sort of effective firearm (by effective I mean combat effective). It was also put in place to give jobs to the Revenuers that where going to be made unemployed by the end of Prohibition, and lastly it came to be because our government feared that the fire that started in 1917 in Russia was going to engulf the entire planet and they wanted to keep themselves safe from...us.

 

[Trebor]

Not going to happen. Anything that fires more than a single shot per pull of the trigger is considered to be a machine gun. Don't expect that to change.

 

[mordechaianiliewicz]

while i agree, unfortunately, there are many laws on the books more important for getting rid of.

We should go after the '90 Import Ban before trying to change the legality of burst fire. Shoot, we need to get politicians from saying all the gun control on the books is good, but no more. It's a loosing strategy

 

[Maxwell]

Well, Im not exactly looking for it to be restriction free, just not considerd as dangerous as a full-auto.

Also thinking of new weapons like metal storm, that have bullets pre loaded into the barrel and fire multiple shots at once by an electronic trigger. Or the G-11 that fired so fast, 3 would feel like one and not vary far from the original aiming path.

What sets apart a rifle, with two bullets on one squeeze, from a shotgun shooting two smaller slugs from one shell?
Its still one trigger pull for two projectiles.

 

[Dionysusigma]

Full-auto is not dangerous. A gun with a bulged barrel is.

 

[M2 Carbine]

Name one gun control law that makes sense.

+1

 

[Azrael256]

Name one gun control law that makes sense.

Wasn't there a law in some small town in Alabama (or somewhere thereabouts) requiring every household to have a firearm of some type?

 

[Maxwell]

Full-auto is not dangerous.

I know that and you know that, but its considerd dangerous because the publics only knowledge of full auto comes from movie stars dual wielding belt fed machine guns as they leap from rooftop to rooftop.

The difference on the target side between a 3 round burst .22 "hunting pistol", a beehive pistol, and a shotgun are not that big. Theres also a fuzzy technical line some of the new stuff can exploit.

Many antis are already very weak on understaning the mechanics of guns. So personaly I think its a good place to drag the argument to when your trying to prove how pointless their legal ideas can be.

 

[Standing Wolf]

Name one gun control law that makes sense.

The Second Amendment, which is supposed to control government's desire to disarm the commoners.

 

[dracphelan]

Wasn't there a law in some small town in Alabama (or somewhere thereabouts) requiring every household to have a firearm of some type?

Nope, because it is a choice. It is the right to keep and bear arms, not the requirement. I personally don't like the idea of someone who dislikes/fears firearms being required to own one. This would be an open invitation to accidents.

 

[stevelyn]

while i agree, unfortunately, there are many laws on the books more important for getting rid of.

We should go after the '90 Import Ban before trying to change the legality of burst fire. Shoot, we need to get politicians from saying all the gun control on the books is good, but no more. It's a loosing strategy

No. Going after and gutting "sporting purposes" from the GCA '68 is the most important as it is the subjective and arbitrary clause that allows the Import Ban to stand, and gives the monkeys at BATFEces the power to declare any firearm they choose to be non-importable based on undefined criteria.
Getting rid of "sporting purposes" would have the effect of turning a lot of laws and regs into bad memories.

 

[Taipei Personality]

Wasn't there a law in some small town in Alabama (or somewhere thereabouts) requiring every household to have a firearm of some type?

Kennesaw, Georgia, 1982. The law was passed in response to the Morton Grove, Illinois ban on handgun possession. The law was written such that it required every head of household to maintain arms and ammunition, unless they couldn't afford it or didn't want to.

Explanatory article at: http://newssearch.looksmart.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n15_v46/ai_15729634

 

[HankB]

Name one gun control law that makes sense.

Well, I don't have a problem with the restrictions in place that prohibit retail sales to certain people like little children, illegal aliens, or the inmates at an insane asylum . . . beyond that, I'd have to think really hard . . .

 

[Maxwell]

Well, I don't have a problem with the restrictions in place that prohibit retail sales to certain people like little children, illegal aliens, or the inmates at an insane asylum . . . beyond that, I'd have to think really hard . . .

Illegals, children, actively violent criminals and the insane are still finding weapons. If your not relying on the shopkeepers disgression, then the paperwork and background checks needed to sort out one group from another only becomes a hinderance for everyone else.

It reminds me of the newly advertised security station for one subway, which will likely prove to be a hassle for most... meanwhile the would be terrorists and criminals will just board that train at an unsecured stop a quarter mile up the road.

 

[Wiley]

Burst fire is full automatic. One pull of the trigger fires more than one shot.

But it's like talking about magazine capacity: 10 is OK, 11 is for mass murderers .

 

[horge]

Name one gun control law that makes sense.

The Second Amendment, which is supposed to control government's desire to disarm the commoners.

Amen to that, SW.

 

[JohnKSa]

When you can tell me why a shotgun with a 17.95" barrel should be illegal while one with a barrel of 18.00" inches is just fine, I'll answer YOUR question.

To paraphrase a quote from "O Brother, Where Art Thou?" "Maxwell, it's a fool that looks for reason in the chambers of the legal system."

 

[jamz]

Name one gun control law that makes sense.

No hunting within city limits with a centerfire rifle?

(I call it a gun control rule because it limits what you can do with a firearm)