A reader who wishes to remain anonymous writes:

This week a gunman opened fire on a music festival using one or more firearms equipped with a bump fire stock, killing over fifty people and injuring hundreds more. In response, Senate Democrats introduced a bill to ban bump fire stocks.

The instinctive reaction from gun rights advocates is to reject any gun control proposals. They cite the Second Amendment’s prohibition against any government infringement of the right to keep and bear arms. They warn that banning bump fire stocks is a slippery slope to greater gun control.

And yet there’s a compelling case to be made for a bump fire stock ban. First, a little history . . .

In 1929, seven Chicago mobsters murdered seven rivals with machine guns. In 1934, Congress responded to the “massacre” and other mob crimes involving “Tommy guns,” explosives and other “dangerous” weapons (e.g. sawed-off shotguns) by enacting the original National Firearms Act.

The NFA was designed to limit the ability of a single civilian to inflict mass casualties — machine guns and bombs being the most dangerous weapons available at the time. An attempt to minimize the damage any one person could cause.

On its face, the law was unconstitutional. In U.S. v. Miller, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the government. A legal precedent was set: the Second Amendment was not absolute and could be restricted.

Almost 70 years later another Supreme Court case affirmed that the Second Amendment was not absolute. While D.C. v. Heller was huge win for 2A supporters — striking down D.C.’s handgun ban — it left the door open for future regulation.

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose

It’s pretty clear that the Supreme Court was referencing the National Firearms Act when they wrote that decision. Handguns are clearly a protected firearm. But the Court didn’t want to open the door to civilian ownership of machine guns, short barreled shotguns, machine guns and other “dangerous” weapons.

With two Supreme Court rulings supporting the idea that firearms ownership can be restricted, the question becomes whether a bump fire stock ban would be legally acceptable.

For that we turn to the Strict Scrutiny test. Under Strict Scrutiny, a law must (A) have a compelling government interest, (B) be narrowly tailored and (C) be the least intrusive method of meeting the government’s interest.

The compelling government interest in this case: the preservation of life and the prevention of further mass murders. The same reason which prompted the Supreme Court-approved National Firearms Act.

Under some theories of government, its purpose is to provide for the security of its citizens — whether from external or internal threats. The same reason governments raise armies, employ a police force and regulates dangerous drugs.

In this case, a government bump fire ban would be an attempt to provide protection for its citizens, outlawing a device it deems unreasonably dangerous. It’s the same concept underpinning the ban on post-1986 machine guns.

Under strict scrutiny, the restrictions must be narrowly tailored. On this test the Dianne Feinstein’s bill falls short. Her proposal bans external devices which increase the rate of fire of a firearm, but it goes further.

As TTAG reported, the bill would ban all modifications which would increase a rifle’s rate of fire — which could include replacement triggers. If Congress amended the bill to simply ban bump fire stocks, the argument could be made that it simply is closing a loophole in an existing set of laws (the NFA) in as narrow a manner as possible.

The final question is one of intrusiveness.

Banning semi-auto rifles would fail this test spectacularly — semi-auto rifles have a clear functional purpose for sporting and self defense use. But a bump fire stock? Every expert (including Robert Farago) has declared that there’s no legitimate purpose for a bumpfire stock — aside from being a “range toy.”

For the same reason that the government is permitted to restrict ownership and use of fireworks– products with no practical purpose — the government would be within its rights to ban bump fire stocks. The potential for harm to the general public is evident, and the potential impact to the everyday life of American citizens if these items were no longer available would be small.

So, the government seems to be legally in the clear to pass a law banning bump fire stocks. But is a bumpfire ban a good idea?

Since the passage of the National Firearms Act there’ve been sparingly few murders committed with machine guns. Fully automatic firearms have been so expensive and their owners so thoroughly investigated that it was nearly guaranteed that only the most upstanding citizens (or at least those with the most to lose from a murderous rampage) would own them.

The development of the bump fire stock has changed things.

While machine guns are still all but illegal, bump fire stocks create firearms with similar capabilities without falling under NFA restrictions. Some see the black swan nature of the Las Vegas mass shooting as evidence that the National Firearms Act protections work. Bump fire stocks tear down that barrier and open the door to future attacks. A ban of these specific items would restore that protection.

Even gun rights advocates might want to allow bumpfire stocks to be banned.

Every time there’s a mass shooting, Democrats gnash their teeth and wail that nothing ever happens to “curb gun violence.” That the evil NRA has a stranglehold on the Republican party. Banning bump fire stocks would be a concession, but a relatively minor price to pay to kill that narrative, make the NRA seem reasonable, and remove the ability for Democrats to use congressional inaction to fuel their base in the coming midterm elections.

A bumpfire ban would be a small sacrifice that helps keep Republicans in power and reduce the possibility of stricter and more onerous gun laws down the road.

The counter argument: “Banning bumpfire stocks won’t solve the problem, criminals will still be able to make them at home.” True. Criminals intent on breaking the law would have no issue breaking one more by building or buying a newly illegal illegal bump fire stock. The argument was illustrated by the San Bernardino attack, where the attackers bought California-legal firearms and swapped out parts to make them into California-illegal “assault weapons.”

But just as the NFA has limited the criminal use of machine guns, a ban on bumpfire stocks would certainly diminish the possibility of their manufacture and use — both of which would incur significant federal penalties.

Let’s face it: bumpfire stocks are a clear circumvention of the National Firearms Act, allowing functionally identical firearms to heavily regulated machine guns with none of the associated protections. Banning bumpfire stocks would simply be an extension of existing policy, closing a loophole to a nearly century old gun law that worked as intended.

238 Responses to The Case for Banning Bump Fire Stocks

  1. Butt, and its a big butt, a 3d printer can make one, you cant stop the signal…what mass shooter wanst on big pharma’s medications? No word on banning big pharma from this poster is there…

    • In 10/20 years anyone can print anything cheaply from their desktop, in plastic, steel, whatever. The lefttards will not stop until their god, the government, has complete control over everyone’s lives. And apparently, moronic republican’s are in the same boat driving the paddles.

      • Truth is: Dems and Reps are two sides of the SAME coin. They look different on the surface, as designed, but underneath that face, they are the same. Regardless of how many other parties exist, these two work together most visibly on not letting anyone else participate. It’s the real reason why Reps give in so easily.

        • Com there is a simple but messy solution. as the founding fathers said, the tree of liberty needs watering with the blood of traitors and patriots from time to time otherwise the tree of liberty withers and dies. right now most countries around the world need patriots to take up arms and make that stand. are there any that have the balls to do what is needed.

    • Most people over 60 have a prescription, probably several. Anyone who has ever had surgery in modern times had anesthesia. That’s “big pharma”.

      The Khmer Rough killed so many, the bodies were never counted. The lowest estimate is one and a half million. Was the Cambodian KR all drugged by Big Pharma?

  2. I’m a “Not One More Inch” guy.

    But one can’t argue that the bump-fire stocks didn’t allow crazy dude to kill and injure many, many more concert goers than a traditionally setup semi-auto..

    The only advantage these dumb-ass stocks have is spray and pray from 300 feet above thousands of people. Which the guy did.

    This could be a tough one to avoid. In the big scheme of the Second Amendment wars, this is not a biggie. But it is giving an inch, which is very tough to swallow, so to speak.

    • Me too. I look and look, but I just can’t find where the 2A says “should not” infringe. Every time it reads “shall not’.

      • The Founders despised tyrannical governments, they also despised mobs and disorder. They wrote that weapons could not be carried in a manner to cause “fear and alarm”.
        Their notion was “Government of the People”, not “Government of I and Me”

        Thus, in 1789 you could own artillery (a cannon). You can actually still own old style cannon, but what type and what you can fire with it are restricted. You can’t have modern equivalents of a cannon, not even a lil’ ol’ RPG. Do you really think the Founders would want everyone in the ‘hood, #BLM, Antifa and your weird neighbor to have an RPG?
        Figuring out what’s changed and what hasn’t isn’t as easy as “whatever I want is obviously right”. You can make a good logical argument that the standard civilian weapon should be an M-16, and every adult should be required to have one. In practice, that would be a disaster.

        The Swiss have battle rifles kept in the village for every adult who passed citizen military training (formerly in the garage/basement/etc), but there’s a great deal of discipline around that practice. More importantly, the Swiss are a disciplined people, with minimal diversity and a thousand years of shared history. You can’t copy/paste much of anything from them to us.

        • OK, so we are not a “disciplined” people. Even more reason for there to be a counter to a goverment made up of undisciplined people.

        • “They wrote that weapons could not be carried in a manner to cause ‘fear and alarm.'” I’m pretty sure I know what you’re talking about, and I’m also pretty sure it wasn’t the founders who said that.

    • This guy was fully prepared, in an elevated position overlooking a tightly packed venue of several thousand people. He could have caused the same amount of casualties with several bolt action rifles with those advantages. I make the argument the bump stock caused less deaths than if he had taken precise, methodic shots from semi-auto, lever action, or bolt action rifles.

      I think bump stocks are silly, but I never advocate banning an object based purely off the perception of what it may or may not have done otherwise.

      • No way Yellow. You can’t beat Physics. Bump fire puts many more rounds within a giant target than one pull, one round. He only had 5 – 10 minutes before the crowd scattered and took cover.

        Guy also used New Yorkreloadsfir added efficiency

        • Come on. Anyone who has some practice and doesn’t care about accuracy can do very quick mag dumps with a standard mil spec trigger. Even faster if they have a lightened pull trigger (Timney, CMC, Rise, etc). And anyone who has used a slidefire knows they aren’t for accuracy. The psychopath was benefited by having a large, tightly packed crowd with no cover and limited exits. He could have likely inflicted similar casualties with semi auto given the conditions of the venue.

        • RE: physics.

          Can you explain, precisely, how a bump fire stock allows a semi-auto to fire FASTER than otherwise possible? It does not cause the action to cycle faster, it doesn’t make the round eject faster, it doesn’t make a new round load faster. a gun with a bump stock can only fire EXACTLY AS FAST as that same gun without a bump stock. If one chooses to fan the trigger or hook a thumb in their beltloop. it may make the rapid triggering EASIER, but it does not make it the gun operate FASTER.

          The same can be said for trigger cranks, because the gun can only fire and reset so fast, and running the trigger faster cannot make the action cycle faster. easier…not faster.

          The same can be said for binary triggers, because the gun can only fire and reset so fast, and running the trigger faster cannot make the action cycle faster. easier….not faster.

          In fact, any law regulating “faster rates of fire” are going to be technically concerned with action weight and recoil spring rates. modifications that actually DO allow the action to operate more quickly. However, that’s going to a hugely tricky path for the ATF to walk. why?

          Define ‘faster’. faster than what? faster than originally equipped? what about parts guns? my 80% could have been built with the fastest possible combination of parts, upgrades would be ‘illegal’…and also impossible. Your 80% was built with slower parts, so is it reasonably illegal for you to possess parts that I can legally have? how do we even determine baselines? Do we give JerryM a box of ammo for every gun and stick a timer on him? again, just because a well tuned lightweight action in a bump stock AR makes it EASIER for me to approach JerryM levels of speed, they do not make the gun FASTER.

        • The trigger finger doesn’t move that fast for very long prior to muscle fatigue. Especially for hundreds if not thousands of rounds. This was an out-of-shape 64 year old. Give me a break.

        • The trigger finger doesn’t move that fast for very long prior to muscle fatigue. Especially for hundreds if not thousands of rounds. This was an out-of-shape 64 year old. Give me a break.
          ——————–
          It’s obvious you don’t understand how bump fire works, without a bump fire stock.
          There really isn’t in trigger finger fatigue as the person is not squeezing the trigger. Basically, you are pushing the firearm as a whole against your trigger finger, that is moving the rifle away from your body, once the sear is released and the round is fired, recoil moves the firearm backwards, and because pressure is applied forward, very quickly after recoil the rifle moves forward again and discharges.
          The only fatigue is the 3-5 lb pressure against your trigger finger that doesn’t move, and the 4-7 lb pressure used by the non trigger arm to apply pressure away from the body.
          The constant recoil against your shoulder is more of an issue, but the same issue exists with bump fire stocks.

        • “… This was an out-of-shape 64 year old. Give me a break….”

          No. You do not deserve a break The murdering scum did a helluva lot of damage for being ‘an out of shape 64 year old’.

          And your arguments against bumpfire stocks are just as ridiculous. Any man with a semi-auto ‘M16’ style/type could have performed the same feat as this scum bucket, especially when the number of bullet injuries is compared to the number who injured themselves jumping barricades or were trampled by the fleeing crowd– which were tha vast majority of ‘injuries’.

          Be thankful this wasn’t the same venue as Matt Bracken described in his ‘Enemies Trilogy’ or there’d’ve been a helluva lot more dead.

        • Yeah, let’s ban Lee-Enfields and Schmidt-Rubins too since even bolt-actions can emulate machinegun fire!

      • Judging by the killers determination, planning and resources /me thinks that if bump fire stocks had not been available the killer would have bought machine guns. Using bump fire stocks was just more convenient.

        • This dude was a multimillionaire, in addition to being a determined Leftist psychopath who was known to frequent anti-Trump rallies. He could have waited a couple more months to pick up registered M16s or a registered belt-fed, or just milled out an AR or AK receiver for full-auto parts. He was found to have signed up for an AntiFa “revolution” on November 7 of this year on the 100th anniversary of the Russian Red October revolution (which was October in Russia because they used the Julian calendar over there).

        • No kidding. Didn’t he wire his
          Friend 100k just before this? He could have afforded a registered m16 lower and 3 heavy barrel uppers to melt as he desired…

    • Making this concession won’t in any way satiate the Gun Grabbers’ hunger to eventually ban everything. We all know that and should not pretend otherwise. They hate guns and they hate us.

      But, if the PR is done well, it can convince the folks in the mushy middle (you know, the ones who swing elections) that our side is reasonable, caring and prepared to adapt our beliefs to fit new facts. We need to show them that we are the good guys and the Grabbers are the intransigent ideologues (and the many calls this week for outright confiscation and repeal of 2A help us to do that). We need to build credibility to by saying”yes, this is a loophole in the NFA that we should work to close in as careful a way as possible” and use that credibility to convince those same folks when it comes to things like taking suppressors out of the NFA.

      • “they hate us”

        And there you get to the root of the problem. Some day the aliens are going to come and read everyone’s minds and discover that the real animus against firearm ownership by the left-wing of the general public (and to some degree public officials) is based on “Well, Republicans are pro-gun… and they’re wrong about everything, so they must be wrong about this, too”.

        The two major parties spend so much time and money trying to convince the public that they’re polar opposites of one another that this sort of tribalism is the inevitable result.

        • Why is it so difficult for you to imagine that what they really have in their minds is a desperate desire to prevent mass shootings? That’s not particularly difficult to empathize with.

        • Acquiescing quickly on a bump stock ban won’t endear us to anyone and won’t portray us as reasonable, adaptable people.

          Fact is, 99% of people had never heard of bump stocks before this week. Having heard now, they’re mortified and mystified:

          “Wait. I thought machine guns were banned decades ago? What??!! There’s a retrofit workaround? Bump what? That’s legal?? Machine gun loophole! Ban it!”

          If we go along with it, the Dems will be emboldened to ban more things. The people will oblige, too, wondering just what other kill contraptions we’ve been getting away with on technicalities. “Assault weapons”, perhaps? They’ll see us as reckless, irresponsible, untrustworthy, and morally complicit in the massacre.

          The smart move is to continue the public expressions of sympathy, while dragging our feet legislatively and waiting for the next Big Story to dominate the news cycle. Then quietly kill this bill.

          The public will be distracted, the Democrats deflated, and this latest 2A attack defeated.

        • @Pseudo,

          I think many civilian disarmament proponents, especially in the public at large and even among elected officials, are perfectly sincere. However, I think they are wrong. I also think those organizing the efforts, pulling the strings, have dark ulterior motives. But in the end motive doesn’t matter. I don’t personally hate all leftists. I have family and friends who are leftists. But I fear the authoritarian world they want to build, whether they understand what they are doing or not.

        • “I think many civilian disarmament proponents … are perfectly sincere.” To be perfectly sincere, they would have to be well informed. One who is well informed on the topic and not stupid cannot be a civilian disarmament proponent.

        • TX_Lawyer: No, it’s possible to be sincere and well-informed and still on the side of civil disarmament, because there’s a third motive (although the ugliest of all the possibilities): Contempt/elitism.

          “I’m perfectly fine with the idea of them ‘letting’ me or my friends have guns, I mean, we’re nice people. But what about those inner-city gangbangers and those racist rednecks?”

        • I haven’t heard that argument. Until that is the argument made, the argument made under that rational would have to include that reasoning in order to be sincere.

        • Pseudo: If that were the case, the usual suspects on the left would have waited at least until SOME facts were out before using every.single.tragedy to push their civilian disarmament campaign and they wouldn’t habitually include suicides in their “gun murders” statistics (or for that matter, count gun murders separate from other murders in the first place).

      • Nancy, Chuck, Dianne, and all their ilk hate us! Like Islam it is perfectly acceptable for them to lie in the furtherance of their goals. Never do anything to show you are a good person for people like that.

        If we let them outlaw bump fire stocks in return for a promise to allow something later, they will laugh in our face. As Paul Simon wrote, “A pocket full of mumbles, such are promises.”

    • Trucks have allowed even more to be killed. So trucks need to be outlawed now too? No calls for banning cars (not in the Constitution) after a homeless woman ran down people on the Vegas strip.
      The bill out there wants to ban anything that mods a trigger for speed. Short reset triggers, two stage triggers, why not springs that could lighten trigger pull? The path anti-second amendment folks are on is clear. No need to assist them.
      There should be no NFA.

      • Beat me to it. If we banned bump fire stocks, the next murderer would be forced to use a truck to run down 22,000 people compressed into a dense area, likely killing and injuring many, many more people. Or a bomb. Or illegally converted full auto rifles. Or crashing a plane into the venue. Or something even more heinous that sane people could not even imagine. In this case it is not inconceivable that had the murderer not had bump fire stocks, he might have devised a more effective method to murder even more people. Legal bump fire stocks save lives!

        • I think we should ban the one common weapon of mass destruction that is common in our society and has killed many, men, women and children. Airliners, jets.

      • Are they going to ban Rubber Bands??? The original bump fire was a rubber band wrapped around the pistol grip and trigger finger. Check it out in search or youtub. in search put in “bump fire with rubber band”

    • The people who are arguing for the ban of anything gun related after a shooting can not be reasoned with. They have an agenda and they will stop at nothing to fulfill it. They lie and wait for a tragedy just to feed off emotions. What you call compromise is a just a small step for them with the end game being registration and/or total confiscation.

      A ban on bump stops does nothing but show anti 2nd Amendment folks we can be pushed towards civilian disarmament.

      For those who do not know, look up how easy it is to bump fire without a special made stock.

    • I reluctantly agree. Bump fire stocks and trigger cranks serve no real purpose, and they rub the hypothetical fence straddler the wrong way. An acquaintance of mine recently posted a video of him firing an AK with a bump fire stock, and its performance was identical to full auto. That alarmed me, and I asked him to take it down (which he did).

      Anyone shooting a firearm equipped with one of these things is going to draw immediate, unwelcome attention from LEOs, and I strongly recommend staying away from them.

      • How many times have these stocks been used to kill people, ONCE. The casualties were so great because the shooter realized the only way he could inflict a large number of casualties, was at a tightly crowded open area with few exits/escape routes to make the people be exposed and vunerable to his fire longer. Same reason the military used heavy machineguns and artillery to stop human wave type attacks to prevent their positions being overrun.

    • I will give an inch for a mile.

      Let’s completely deregulate actual machine guns short barreled rifles short barreled shotguns destructive devices and any other weapons. In exchange the Leftists can have as many restrictions as they would like to on Slide Fire stocks/bump fire stocks as they wish.

    • AND… the NRA is giving that inch once again… they’re coming off recommending a study, but at the same time, pretty much green-lighting a ban on them.

    • “The only advantage these dumb-ass stocks have is spray and pray from 300 feet above thousands of people. Which the guy did.”

      Even then they’re not great at the job. Not to be cold and callous here but the actual numbers suggest that the device is kind of garbage.

      22,000+ targets at ~400 yards. 586 hit, 59 dead. That’s 2.66% hit, 0.27% fatally hit.

      Again, not to downplay the disgusting nature of this event but the stats don’t lie: There were far more effective ways to attack the same venue.

    • “Under Strict Scrutiny, a law must (A) have a compelling government interest, (B) be narrowly tailored and (C) be the least intrusive method of meeting the government’s interest.”

      This is the part that always annoys me. SCOTUS decides that an amendment to the Constitution that says, “…shall not be infringed.” and was written specifically for the citizens to protect themselves from a tyrannical government MAY be infringed by that very government if: (A) the government it was supposed to protect you from and supposed never to infringe decides it’s in the government’s best interest to infringe. so long as (B) They don’t infringe too much, all at one time, and (C) They can’t think of any less obvious way to infringe.

      As great as much of Heller was, that portion is an abomination and SCOTUS be damned, it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

      • completely agree. that part of Heller does give the govt carte blanc to put in place whatever laws they want, constitutional or not. the purpose of the federal govt is to protect the nation as a whole, meaning against outside attackers, eg protect the borders of the nation as a whole, not to regulate the citizens into submission which is what every single law they enact does. i am an australian and i see our govt doing the same only they have gone further down that road and our original constitution and the common law it brought with it (which included the right to keep and bear arms through magna carta, bill of rights 1689 and a couple other famous documents forged through the people rising up and forced on the govt and kings of the day) are completely ignored most of the time unless it suits them to use it against us.

    • I agree henry, not one inch. If ever the phrase “….give them an inch and they will take a mile…” had utility its here. No way, no how; come and take them.

  3. So should we also ban the act of bump firing itself, becuase you don’t need a specialized stock to be able to bump fire? At which rate of fire should it be legal to shoot then? Anything over one round a second an instant felony?

      • He doesn’t have to deny that the stocks made it easier. The antis want to ban methods of speeding up semi-auto gunfire. That’s the whole point of their proposal. And it flat won’t work, which is the previous poster’s point.

        • I see the problem there.

          As a southpaw, perhaps you should be trying to make it work left.

    • Ah, yes. The way to ban “bump firing” without the use of a commercial Slidefire is to ban semi-automatics. That is their goal and is the reason so many will not give an inch on what seems like a hopeful compromise. The Dems will NEVER compromise until all semi-automatics are banned.

  4. Why are we even entertaining this BS? We, as Pro-2nd people, with knowledge and understanding of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, are trying to regain lost ground in a very simply stated Right to Bear Arms, and yet there are people willing to give more to a group of clowns that want an absolute removal of firearms.

    Is this a “They will leave me alone if I give them something”? Or an “eat me last” mentality? Are these idiots willing to give more over just wanting acceptance into the fell good crowd?

    I don’t even understand this crap.

    Anything handed over is just more ground willfully turned over to those that want control. Plain and simple.

    • I’m totally bewildered that this conversation is being entertained, while we have a republican president, a republican congress, and a republican senate. Epic fail. Zero principles. Disappointed.

      • Exactly. NRA runs scared immediately. Trump wants more regulations. These liars are disgusting. The world is full of good and bad and plenty of dangerous things. No banning fast food with our 600,000+ deaths per year from heart disease. Remove everything with possible danger and how much is life with living?

      • The ONLY way this would make ANY sense is if they get the SHARE act, National reciprocity or the Hearing Protection Act passed as a compromise that goes our way. That’s negotiations 101. You don’t give up territory for no reason. We didn’t lose anything after Sandy Hook, and now they want to hand out compromises for nothing in return? Are they insane?

    • Amen brother. You apologists can go fk yourselves. This is the USA. Nothing should be “banned”, especially when one of the amendments specifically calls out that your rights in this area SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED

  5. I’m with Miguel at Gun Free Zone in a willingness to explore “Let’s Make a Deal”.

    Bumpfire stocks are nothing more than a novelty for turning perfectly good money into noise. I’d have to give strong consideration to trading a bump-fire stock ban in exchange for National Reciprocity (to include reciprocity for non-resident licenses), and the removal of suppressors from the NFA. Both effective immediately.

    • >I’m with Miguel at Gun Free Zone in a willingness to explore “Let’s Make a Deal”.

      OK, fine. What do we get in return?

      If we give up bump fire stocks, the antis aren’t going to leave us alone. So if we give them up, I want something in return. Here are some suggestions:

      – End gun free zones on military bases (which the President promised, and failed to do)
      – National CCW reciprocity
      – Allow CCW on Amtrak
      – Reduced restrictions on silencers
      – Reduced restrictions on SBRs and SBSs

      Meanwhile ZeroHedge is reporting the NRA has already signaled unconditional surrender on this.

    • John, what are the chances of us getting anything in return?

      National Reciprocity is the last thing we should trade for. We are going to get 50 state shall issue if we get one more Justice, and we might get that without another Justice. It is also likely that the court will eventually establish a minimum set of standards that any state must accept from another state.

  6. Even if bump stocks were banned he could have just used a front rest to bump fire from. You just hold the buttock with your off hand in prone position and push the rifle forward into your motionless trigger finger supported at the elbow. The guy built platforms going prone would have been easy

  7. You do not need any gimmicky doodad to ‘bump fire’ a rifle.

    A skilled shooter can fire a normal rifle much more accurately and nearly as fast as a one with a ‘bump fire’ doodad.

    A 13-year old kid with a lever gun (based on Civil War era design) can can take out more targets faster than an accomplished shooter with a full-auto Mac-10.

    A simple Smith & Wesson revolver can be fired nearly as fast as a machine gun.

    Granted, reducing violent crime and homicides is a compelling government interest, and legislation focused solely on bump-fire stocks would be limited (unlike the Feinstein proposal that would also outlaw common target triggers); BUT banning these aftermarket stocks will do nothing to reduce violent crime or homicides. In order to pass strict scrutiny analysis, the legislation must be EFFECTIVE in meeting the governmental interest. Banning these gimmicky doodads fails that test. The proposed ban is an emotional reaction – not based on factual social science. Knee-jerk legislation based on feelings is not good public policy that would withstand strict scrutiny.

  8. And yet there’s a compelling case to be made for a bump fire stock ban. First, a little history…

    Don’t give a shit, there is no compelling case. Full auto’s shouldn’t even be illegal. Zero negotiations should be taking place with leftists who seek to ban all guns. Lets first question how they are going to even write the legislation? First off, with practice, you can simulate full auto with just a relaxed hold on your semi-auto weapon. The bump stock improves this with… a spring. Secondly, the entire reason it is legal is because it isn’t a full auto firearm. Your finger is pressing the trigger each time. YOUR FINGER. That meets the definition of a semi-auto. How are they going to write the legislation so it isn’t misconstrued? I can pull the trigger pretty fast with no springs with my own finger.

    Further, moronic republicans with zero principles, allowing themselves to be shamed by the shaming party (Democrats) shouldn’t be attempting to implement any gun control. We don’t ban things because one guy in the history of everything uses that one instrument in an illegal manner. WTF. I’m so pissed off by this author, by the milquetoast effeminate republicans, and the psycho rabid democrats.

    People will find a way to mass murder. Okay?? That is their goal. They need the media to show the world they will never be forgotten in their pathetic measly life of loathing. Banning bump stocks will do nothing at all. It is appeasement – for morons. Culture and people are the problem. No law will stop the murders, and people should get this through their head before possession of everything around them is illegal.

  9. Explain to me how a rifle with a barrel length of 16″ is less “dangerous” than one with 14.5″ long. What about a suppressor?
    How are they dangerous when you can buy them over the counter in Europe? Did it ever occur to you that people circumvent the NFA laws with legal alternatives such as pistol braces and slide fire stocks to show that such laws are total bullshit security theatre for the masses? Think about this before you propose the next “ban”. The fact is that this is all feel good, gotta do something, hand-wringing, political, statist bullshit. We either have liberty or we don’t in this country and need to figure that out quickly. How long before we horse trade a little more “safety” for a little liberty and freedom. No thanks…you can keep your 1984 Orwellian nanny state pipe dream. No compromise for this guy….ever….and I don’t own a surefire stock by the way!

  10. Jesus Christ. It’s a technique wholly independent of any device or tool.
    Somebody explain to these goddamn grandpas.
    If you want to ban a thing just come out and say you want to for the feelz. Don’t insult everyone around you with these long winded asinine diatribes trying to justify arbitrary ignorant reasoning. Take my stock. I’ll bump with just my finger, a rubber band, a board and a peg, a belt loop, some string, a normal stock and grip bolted together, some whittled, filed, 3d printed, milled, honed apparatus of any number of infinite design possibilities or I’ll hollow out your femur and use that.

    Is it that the banning crowd is really this full on tarded out or is it me that’s tarded out? People should be ashamed of proposing such stupid legislation.

    • Bumpfire stock makes it MUCH easier and simpler. Otherwise nobody would buy them.
      Also with regard to 3d printing them, sure that’s possible, but most mass shootings (this one may be an exception) are not carried out by intelligent people with long term planning. Most people don’t have the resources or knowledge to 3d print a functional bump stock.

      • Time renders that argument moot. Technology is not at a standstill and never will be.
        As far as being lazy and stupid I’m pretty sure even the most mentally deficient ape on any street USA can wrap a rubber band around a magwell or just take 5 minutes to learn to do it with just a stiff finger.

        All this media attention and talk of banning is just making anyone previously ignorant of the method now aware of it. That signal, the one that can’t be stopped, just got amplified a million times.

      • Again, you miss the point. The fact that it CAN be done makes their ban moot on arrival. You really only need a shoestring or rubber band to do this. This ban accomplishes NOTHING but depriving the law-abiding, just as all such laws do. In Mexico, where there is every flavor of gun control known to man, drug cartels routinely carry out massacres with real machine guns.

        Not one more inch.

  11. “create firearms with similar capabilities”

    Not outside of the perfect storm that was the Route 91 festival. A huge area for the concert, in close proximity (366yds) to an elevated and isolated firing point that was packed with people shoulder-to-shoulder.

  12. Ok, let’s make a deal. Bumpfire stocks should fall under the machinegun provisions of the NFA, but the Hughes amendment gets repealed. Clearly, the fact that exactly one homicide was commuted with a registered machinegun prior to 1986 shows that NFA regulation is the least intrusive method necessary to achieve the goal stated.

    • So much this. I’m pretty much screaming this at anyone who will listen. Bump-fire stocks are a *direct* result of the Hughes Amendment. While I do not feel they should be banned, they are less controllable and therefore potentially more reckless than an actual automatic firearm. If we are going to have shrieking demons clamour for “public safety” throw these facts right back in their smug faces.

      • Yep, repeal Hughes, and allow all post 86 machine guns, you can get a proper one or register your bump fire, either way… It is still a deal with the devil.

        Any concession that says some guns or parts are scarier and more deadly though also sets the precedent that semi auto guns or black guns or .50 Cal guns are similarly muchly more dangerouserish and common sense would also ban them. I mean if a bump stock will kill the masses, how not laser sights, red dots, 100 Rd or even 30 Rd mags? I don’t know that we want to selectively ban more stuff.

      • The tax did exactly what it was intended to do, double the cost of machine guns to discourage bad guys from buying them. Add to that the background and registration requirements, and you know what? It worked. Sure, you could get rid of the tax now–or increase it to the true market (not artificially inflated) value of a machine gun. The Hughes Amendment bolixed up the market though, such that the tax is essentially obsolete. Nonetheless, machine gun owners are wealth selected–just as the NFA intended.

        • Correction: it stops the *poor* from buying them. It doesn’t do jack to stop someone who ignores the law anyway.

        • Forgive me for being unclear, eliminate the NFA tax entirely for every NFA item. What really bollocksed up the (modern) market was the Hughes Amendment.

    • That murder was committed after 1986 – in 1992 (or so). So there were no murders with legal machine guns before 1986.

  13. There is a primary fallacy to this argument. ‘Range-Toy’ is a legitimate and valid use under the Constitution. Just because you don’t have use for a ‘range toy’, doesn’t mean that you have the right to deny me mine. Under this argument, a semi-auto ban absolutely does pass the test because we are basing this ban on one group’s utility vs another group’s enumerated right. There is absolutely no difference between you saying ‘you don’t need a bumpstock’, and the antis saying ‘you don’t need a semi-auto’. If you think there is, you’re fooling yourself. I would argue that, based on the original reason for the 2A, machine guns also absolutely should not be banned. A modern military squad, the basis of modern, warfare must have a supporting automatic weapon. Therefore militia, to be successful, must have them too.

    The argument could be made to store these weapons in a secure location or to register and control who has access based on health, but an outright ban doesn’t pass the sniff test. And that’s the irony here. Strangely enough, they kind of got it right with the NFA before the Hughes Amendment. People with documented history of good citizenship could obtain a weapon. Those who couldn’t didn’t get one. If not for Hughes, there would likely be no bumpstocks. If they had made it simple to jump the hurdles, all those folks buying bumpstocks could buy and register an actual machine gun, the government could get its pound of flesh, and the would be saw-gunner could get his thrill on.

  14. Okay, bump-fire stocks are a fairly useless range toy, and could be banned to no one’s real detriment. However, what should we demand in return for this concession? The days of “compromise”…i.e. compromising our principles in return for nothing…are over.
    Taking suppressors off NFA? Nationwide right-to-carry reciprocity?

    • The troubles are political optics, the media, and the lack of spine in the GOP congress.

      “The republicans have the chance and are willing to ban the device that helped Paddock to murder dozens of people less than a week ago… and they’re trying to hold that hostage to make guns just as powerful as the one he used easier to sneak sneak into prohibited locations, like schools and courthouses”.

      It’s a lot more prudent to refuse the gun-grabbers entirely than it is to “hold safety hostage”, for better or worse, even if everyone knows that this was an isolated terrible event.

  15. I don’t have my fingers on the political winds here, but look, the Republicans have the house, senate, and white house. There might be some political hell to pay if nothing is done, but at least do it SMART (I know I know, that’s a lot to ask from someone like Paul Ryan).

    I’m willing to give up bump stocks, gat cranks, or even binary triggers, if two things are met:

    1) The language of the bill is very specific (as stated in this op ed) to those above items only. Don’t overreach and ban drop in triggers or reduced power springs.

    2) At least TRY to get a compromise and get either National Reciprocity or the SHARE act passed in conjunction with this.

    Look, I can even live with just having #1 if pro-gun politicians actually TRIED to do both. But if none of them are met, well I don’ know, I think I might as well just listen to Steve Bannon and get more Roy Moores in congress then.

  16. I hear a lot of people digging in their heals but I don’t see gun owners making any progress here. if the Ds need to score that political point to ban the bump stock I’m open to that. My question is what are they willing to compromise to give us gun owners.

    Heres a thought. The bump stock is too close to changing a modern firearm into an NFA firearm for the Dems so lets pull that under the NFA as well. In return, lets drop the Hughes amendment allowing Gun Owners to buy those modern full auto firearms under the NFA.

    I for one would take that deal, wouldn’t you?

      • With pwrserge’s caveat of Federal pre-emption, I actually think this to be a fairly good compromise. There’s a really good argument to be made that, due to developments in weapons technology, the very “military use” test defined in Miller suggests the Hughes Amendment is de facto too close to a ban on items in common military use to be supportable (also suggests that Miller renders aspects of any AWB unconstitutional, but that’s a different discussion). And any law outside the NFA framework prohibiting “rapid-fire devices” is very likely to run into the same legal issues in that several other devices which function like the militarily far more useful burst group would inevitably be banned alongside the fairly useless bump stock.

        I don’t think the anti’s know what kind of can of worms they’re opening…

    • Where do get the sense that the gun control crowd would be willing to make a deal? It may be impractical to take the ‘no compromise’ position but I haven’t seen any willingness, at the federal level, for compromise from the anti-2A crowd. Remember that, for many of them, their ultimate goal really is complete civilian disarmament.

      • “. . . I haven’t seen any willingness, . . . , for compromise from the anti-2A crowd.”

        Good point. Now, then, it seems obvious enough that we can choose between two tactics:

        1. – We can be intransigent; or,
        2. – We can invite the Antis to the bargaining table with the expectation that they will refuse to bargain.

        Do we want to APPEAR to be intransigent? Or, does it make more sense to maneuver the Antis into a position where THEY appear to be intransigent?

      • Sure they have been compromising. They haven’t jammed (or tried) to jam anything down our throats for several years.

        Let the progs run on platform of more gun control. Sure way to pickup more Senate seats. And if some RINOs are primaried there will be turnover in the ranks of GOP Senators win win

      • A Republican in a Republican controlled chamber introduces a bill regulating bumpfire stocks and giving us whatever*. A Republican controlled committee passes it. Depending on the chamber, either McConnell or Ryan schedules it for a vote.

        The Democrats are then faced with voting against regulating bumpfire stocks or voting for a rollback of gun control.

        *Specifics don’t matter for the above demonstrative purposes, but I’d suggest (1) eliminating the tax requirement as part of the NFA, (2) preempting state laws banning anything that complies with the NFA, and (3) repealing the Hughes Amendment.

        The great thing about (2) would be that if you wanted an AR in California, it would have to be an NFA item.

  17. If we could get a Bill that is VERY NARROW (i.e. EXTERNAL DEVICES) I would have to agree. I think the “Bump Stock” is an Abomination…I wouldn’t buy one if it was $5.00!

  18. “their owners so thoroughly investigated”

    Yeah, I’m gonna call a giant BS on this. I’m completely convinced that the “comprehensive NFA item background check” is probably nothing more than NICS check, with a bunch of manual data entry to slow it down, which is why it takes 9 months.

    If it IS an actual FBI background check, reference it’s probably the same awesome investigation that lead them to give the thumbs up to the muslim Pulse nutjob. meaning, if your clean, your gonna pass. If your not, baring the obvious disqualifiers, to quote the desert combing scene in Spaceballs, “we aint fount shit”.

    Background check = security theater. And if you DO have an accurate list of the “super dangerous”, buy a backhoe and some quick lime so the rest of us don’t have to suffer such stupidity. Don’t let them freely associate with the rest of the citizenry. Tired of being the quality control system for the justice systems parole department.

    • You are 100% correct. The FBI check is nothing more than NICS and running fingerprints just like many states CCW permits.

  19. This is just another form of “white knighting”. A plan is a plan when it has clearly defined, well thought out, evidence based objectives. Anything else is just emotion and feels. 2nd amendment “white knighters” are just trying to soothe hurt feelings. Go do it on some feminist’s pages.

    Not one inch. Not one. The liberals will soon get distracted by some other shiny object and soon forget their gun related outrage of the week.

    PS: maybe your lady will let you see your testicules on your birthday…..

  20. I agree with your thinking.

    Buuuuuuuuut I also don’t think machine guns should be regulated.

    So I think giving in here is just making the uphill battle we already have harder. How are we ever going to make progress on suppressors if we give in to nonsense here..

  21. SO. . .

    For every POS out there that abuses a right, we give up one?

    F dat.

    The “government” (your ahole neighbors who needed a job) protect you from “gangsters” by becoming them. Again, F dat.

    GET RID OF ALL THE POS MF’s IN THE WORLD, then come for my bump-fire. I’ll “let you have it”.

  22. “The NFA was designed to limit the ability of a single civilian to inflict mass casualties”

    No, it was designed to limit the people’s ability to stop a tyranical government. This was proven true in 1942 when slavery was returned to the US.

  23. I agree. This is something that’s at best a toy and at worst a super easy way to kill a crowd super fast. Not even considering banning them makes us look like the stereotypes that the left paints. Sure, people can make them but passing a superficial law does more good than harm to our cause, IMO.

  24. One HUGE problem. The case referenced, US v. Miller. The supreme court basically had a default judgement to the US because Miller could not show up due to the cost of travel. Here it is right from the Wikipedia article linked, “Neither the defendants nor their legal counsel appeared at the Supreme Court. A lack of financial support and procedural irregularities prevented counsel from traveling.”

    Given that, I don’t believe that the matter is settled. Also given that the NFA only prohibits people who obey the law from doing the wrong thing, it did not stop criminals from acquiring them as they had in the past.

  25. One HUGE problem. The case referenced, US v. Miller. The supreme court basically had a default judgement to the US because Miller could not show up due to the cost of travel. Here it is right from the Wikipedia article linked, “Neither the defendants nor their legal counsel appeared at the Supreme Court. A lack of financial support and procedural irregularities prevented counsel from traveling.”

    Given that, I don’t believe that the matter is settled. Also given that the NFA only prohibits people who obey the law from doing the wrong thing, it did not stop criminals from acquiring them as they had in the past.

  26. The compelling government interest in this case: the preservation of life and the prevention of further mass murders.

    Yeah, but this is a bull shit statement. The same argument could be used to ban fertilizer, large trucks that drive fast, pesticides that could be dropped into city water towers, and an epic and vast expanse of other subjects, objects, and possessions.

    It’s bull shit. Mass murder and murder in general is a cultural and people problem. Unless you implement 1984 style government regulations, you cannot stop it with “law.” It must be stopped by another means.

      • Wild guess, you’re the anonymous author/reader.
        Let’s just ban everything that lacks utility. We can all sit silent in caves eating rodents.

      • Oh ok! So we are going to legislate on the basis of needs! Right? Needs! The USA a place of freedom??? No. A place of needs, with only practical important things allowed! We should have this applied to all things in life – Do you need it?!? Is it practical? Important?

        Aside from your argument that we should ban everything that “could” be dangerous that isn’t practical or important, Bump fire stocks have a practical purpose – they are a range toy, that when used legally, have no victims.

        You know what else doesn’t have a practical purpose? Cigarettes, Alcohol, Cigars, skydiving for fun, bungee jumping, hang gliding, boxing, football, MMA fighting, gambling, twiddling your thumbs, and pea-knuckle.

        We shouldn’t be banning things on the basis of opinion whose legitimate use has no victims.

        • This issue of recognizing “needs” as distinguished from “rights” is worth considering.

          In 1934 there was NO ONE – apart from Hiram Maximum’s son (Hiram Percy) who saw a “need” for a firearm silencer. Just because one kid – just one – found his dad’s inventions annoying was no reason to allow just anyone to own a firearm “silencer”.

          It has taken many decades for ENT doctors to explain to us that the difference between 160 db and 130 db is permanent hearing loss.

          Do we recognize how long it might take for a “want” to turn into a “personal safety device”? In the context of the exact same legislation: NFA’34!

          I do not undertake to anticipate how a bump-fire stock might make a comparable leap from a son’s toy (Hiram Percy) to a safety device. So, I’m also pretty sure my Congressman won’t have any more prescience than I have.

      • Neither do high capacity magazines. Lets ban those too! You do not “NEED” 75 or 100rd drums.

        You do not need a pistol grip on your rifle. It really isn’t necessary. It isn’t important, not very practical either. It works great without it. Lets get rid of pistol grips. Other features too!

  27. Replace guns or slide fire stocks with alcohol in the opinion piece and see if it holds up. It doesn’t. As a matter of fact I think we tried it already.

    I’m with one of the other commenters on a previous post. We need to either start a peaceful succession process to divide the country into blue and red states or we need to just get on with civil war 2.0 and see who wins. I’m sick of the politicians and leftist ruining what this country was founded on.

  28. Nope, you don’t get a ban. There is no crime epidemic utilizing bump-fire stocks. None. Zero. Eliminating bump-fire will affect no crime whatsoever beyond this outlier case. There’s not even a crime epidemic using the AR platform in general. Handgun and stabbing homicides vastly outweigh rifles and shotguns per the FBI.

    This is just another “BAN SOMETHING!” attempt to look good for their constituents and offer another inroad to ban something else more substantial. And they can go f*off because of it.

  29. “Banning bump fire stocks would be a concession, but a relatively minor price to pay to kill that narrative, make the NRA seem reasonable, and remove the ability for Democrats to use congressional inaction to fuel their base in the coming midterm elections.”

    They will take a little piece here and another piece there until they get what they want. Whether bump stocks should be banned or not is a discussion that can be had on its own but don’t believe for one second it will put any kind of stop to further attempts to take away 2A rights.

  30. Is being a “range toy” (recreation) not a legitimate purpose?

    When we put recreation and amusement outside the parameters of “practical use/purpose”, we enter into dangerous territory…..

  31. As much as I hate it (I hate anything that restricts a constitutionally protected right or removes individual choice), Anonymous TTAG Reader has a good point.

    Bumpfire stocks are not a hard thing to give up; they’re pretty useless, really. So if the only real “do something” cost is that they go away, well, not much lost.

    And if it makes the NRA look reasonable to the public, that’s a win. Not that we should expect the prohibitionist crowd to give any ground because of it — they hate all of us, want total control, and will stop at nothing — but a PR win with fence-sitters would be nice.

    And if the Republicans aren’t totally feckless, maybe this could turn into a legitimate compromise for once, with both sides giving up something to get something else they want even more (yeah, the spineless R’s would never pull it off, but a guy can dream).

  32. In this case, a government bump fire ban would be an attempt to provide protection for its citizens, outlawing a device it deems unreasonably dangerous.

    Yeah, a piece of plastic and a spring. I wish you guys could listen to yourselves. I guess they will extend this to “constructive possession.” And all manner of other ATF games. Banning bump fire stocks in which your finger is what is pressing the trigger, is a grave mistake.

  33. For the same reason that the government is permitted to restrict ownership and use of fireworks– products with no practical purpose…

    Yeah, another mistake. A mistake with no victim, with a crime against the government itself.

  34. If “bumpfire stocks are a clear circumvention of the National Firearms Act”, is bump firing WITHOUT these stocks (as people have been doing for decades) also a circumvention? Would the writer also advocate for banning bump firing without the use of a trigger pull assist device like a bump fire or slide fire stock?

    • MFs wanna come down on your asses with the full faith and credit, power and might, of the Federal Gov’t. Not giving a flying F that, should THEY wish to ‘establish new guards’ for themselves (per Paragraph 2nd of the Declaration of Independence) they’d be reduced to eating sh_t with a spork, so you know their means and goals are bs and nefarious, and anyone spouting that crap has to get imprisoned.

    • Yes, you see exactly where this is going. It opens the door to banning semi autos.

      California is already on it with a bill that will make it so you can’t even change the trigger.

  35. SPOKEN LIKE A TRUE ANONYM-ASS LAW STUDENT.

    Read the 2nd Paragraph of the Declaration of Independence.

    When the loss of rights causes the rest of us to chuck what’s left of America (and that’ll be war-answered, not us starting a war) you won’t be able to find a hole deep enough to spout-off law in.

  36. The Republicans will compromise (cave) for something that they want.

    Not necessarily what anyone else wants. Seen it too many times.

    The anti-gun folks are not going to stop…EVER! until the 2nd Amendment is dead.

    Nope, not one inch.

  37. Since the passage of the National Firearms Act there’ve been sparingly few murders committed with machine guns. Fully automatic firearms have been so expensive and their owners so thoroughly investigated that it was nearly guaranteed that only the most upstanding citizens (or at least those with the most to lose from a murderous rampage) would own them.

    In other words, only the rich can own them, just the way Democrats like it!

  38. If they are intent on a ban of these devices, why not make a deal for something? Ban bump fire stocks in exchange for national reciprocity and suppressors.

  39. Here’s the other thing – now that this POS murderous a-hole has shown that it can be done, there WILL be copycat mass shooters also using bump-fire stocks. Given all the media attention, it’s practically inevitable. And so those who defend them will be painted as the most awful, depraved folks every time that happens.

  40. There are a lot of things wrong with the Miller decision from a procedural standpoint (Miller and his lawyer did not show up for the argument in the Supreme Court and Miller was dead before the decision was released — the case should have been dismissed as moot). That being said, I think the important takeaway from Miller is this:

    “In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a ‘shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length’ at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense.” United States v. Miller, 374 U.S. 174, 178 (1939).

    I infer from this, that the real test for the bump stock (or other items that fall generally under the definition of “arms”) is whether it would have “some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia.” Is it, or would it be, part of ordinary military equipment? Would it contribute to the common defense? Given the discussion above (“it is a just range toy”, etc.), I think a case can be made that the bump stock is not protected by the Second Amendment.

    I seem to be in the minority in my views on Miller, but it has always seemed to me that firearms that do not have a relationship to military use have less or no protection under the second amendment: Your M-16/AR-15 clone may be more protected than your very expensive dove-hunting shotgun or that .22 squirrel rifle. The Second Amendment is about militarily useful arms, not hunting equipment. I understand that one can argue that anything that contributes to the development of marksmanship skills bears a relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, but that argument may prove too much. If I had my druthers, I would lean toward an interpretation of the Second Amendment that protects primarily the acquisition of currently useful military arms.

    One other thing to remember is that Miller was not a plain possession case, it was possession without having registered and paid the tax on the shotgun. When the NFA was enacted, it was after careful consideration by the then-attorney general of whether an outright ban on machine guns, etc. would be permissible under the Second Amendment — the conclusion was that it would not be. That is why the NFA was drafted to impose an extremely high (for the time) tax on possession, in order to deter acquisition or retention of the regulated weapons.

    • Wrong. A modern rifle squad is typically supported by suppressive automatic fire. Since Hughes took away real machine guns, faux-auto is all that’s available to modern militiamen.

      • The 1986 Hughes Amendment has nada nothing zilch sip to do with the correct interpretation of a 1930s Supreme Court case that really says (outside of its dicta) that a tax on machine guns (not a ban) is not unconstitutional. moreover, the Hughes Amendment did not ban machine guns or make them illegal. It merely banned sales of machine guns manufactured after the effective date of the statute. You can still own and transfer any machine gun manufactured prior to that date. I can’t really see how that is unconstitutional either; the Second Amendment does not protect arms.

        • “I can’t really see how that is unconstitutional either; the Second Amendment does not protect arms.” ?

  41. But just as the NFA has limited the criminal use of machine guns, a ban on bumpfire stocks would certainly diminish the possibility of their manufacture and use

    A bit harder to 3D-print a machine gun, or carve one out of wood.

  42. That the evil NRA has a stranglehold on the Republican party. Banning bump fire stocks would be a concession, but a relatively minor price to pay to kill that narrative, make the NRA seem reasonable, and remove the ability for Democrats to use congressional inaction to fuel their base in the coming midterm elections.

    ???@!? All we ever do is make concessions. We have been making concessions for a hundred years. To a democrat, “compromise” means me giving up the status quo, to move in their direction. This absolutely will not remove the ability for democrats to use congressional inaction! In fact, they will use Congressional action this time for congressional action next time. They will say – you did it last time! You should be doing it again!

  43. I bet banning bump fire stocks isn’t a small sacrifice to the owners and employees of Slide Fire or Bumpski or any retailer that deals in these devices. What do we ban when the next mass shooting occurs? Semi auto weapons, mag fed weapons, weapons with sights, weapons with barrels? Where does creeping incrementalism stop? Give not one inch to gun grabbers, let them lose again so that they will stop trying. The more they grab the more people buy, you would think that they would have learned that by now.

  44. “A bumpfire ban would be a small sacrifice that helps keep Republicans in power and reduce the possibility of stricter and more onerous gun laws down the road.”

    Whoever the little Jim Zumbo/David Petzal/Dick Metcalf wannabe is that wrote this cowardly surrender piece needs to look at history, because you sound just like all of the other little snakes who buckled at he 1994 AWB in hopes of “preventing more onerous laws”.

    The little putz who wrote this crap should turn in his guns, and vote democrat right now, and never call himself a person of the gun again.

    F&$@#*^ traitor.

  45. A bumpfire ban would be a small sacrifice that helps keep Republicans in power and reduce the possibility of stricter and more onerous gun laws down the road.

    Ah yes! The defeatist approach! We should sacrifice a little now so that we sacrifice less later. How about we sacrifice none at all??

    • Exactly. And for the record TTAG shouldn’t even give this worthless waste of space legitimacy by posting his sellout plan.

      The little turncoat should have been met with the scorn which he so rightfully deserves.

      If he wants to sell out there is about every single other news outlet he can go to.

  46. “It’s the same concept underpinning the ban on post-1986 machine guns.”

    Go ahead then. Explain that “concept.” Explain how a machine gun manufactured after 1986 is more dangerous than one manufactured before then. Otherwise, your argument falls on its face.

    However, I think arguing 2A protection for bumpfire stocks is a tough sell. They aren’t even practical for military use, let alone self-defense. That’s not saying a ban on them would make the world a safer place. But such a ban would most likely hold up in court.

  47. This piece is dangerously wrong.

    Simple fact: Bump-stock or not, these rifles fired one round per individual pull of the trigger.

    If we concede that bump-stocks make semi-automatic rifles just as illegal as fully automatic rifles under the NFA, it’s gonna take about 10 seconds for the gun-grabbers to make the trivial case that “we’ve outlawed semi-automatics with bump-stocks, they ALL only fire one round per trigger pull, therefore, ALL semi-automatic firearms should be banned per the NFA.”

    Mark my words.

    • You are absolutely correct.
      Which political party has always pushed for more gun control laws/restrictions?
      Which political paty wants to start eliminating “due process” and ban people on the no fly list from buying firearms?
      A member of which political party created an Executive order to have any person on Social security or treated by the VA deemed incapable of handling their finances or diagnosed to have PTSD put on the prohibited list for buying firearms with no hearing or notice?
      Which political party screams bloody murder about that executive order being rescinded?
      Which political party wants background checks done for ANY transfer of a firearm, including loaning to a friend for hunting and when it is returned?
      Which political party has organized groups attacking people that don’t agree with them or whom support their opposition party/candidates?
      Which political party manipulated the election of their presidential candidate and the national debates to help their chosen candidate?
      Now which political party acts like the NAZI’s did?
      And we should compronise with them?
      Doing the same thing over and over, expecting different results in the face of the same thing happening in every previous instance is suicidal as well as insane.

  48. Lost in all of this debate is the personal wealth of the shooter. Sure it’s easy for the average joe to acquire a bump fire stock, but if bump fire stocks were banned forever this guy absolutely had the time and finances available to acquire no-kidding machine guns. If both bumps and machine guns were impossible to get, he had more than sufficient resources to acquire high explosives (ala McVeigh, and in my opinion could have made the attack much more deadly).

    At the end of the day, what legislation can possibly prevent a MILLIONAIRE from gaining the weaponry needed to wreak mass murder?

  49. So, this will probably be deleted like most of my comments. I’m gonna get a little raw and real with people. 58 dead victims is 0.26% of 22,000 concert attendees. 500 wounded victims is 2.27% of 22,000. Work that out to a national population which is apporx. 320 million, those numbers are even smaller.

    This Las Vegas attack was more than just what someone used to inflict the carnage. It was clearly a tactical advantage of the attacker and this is more concerning to me than what he used. Do not fool yourself into thinking they just want to ban a bump-fire stock.

    • Yup! You got a point. Which should we worry about:

      1. – the mechanical action of the instrument that can inflict lethal violence;
      2. – tactical advantage; or,
      3. – the combination of 1 & 2?

      Setting aside, for just a moment, #1, is there anything we can do to avoid #2? Can we eliminate venues with large crowds? (Nope). Can we eliminate the opportunities for tactical advantage over venues with large crowds? (Nope). Well, then, any instrument that can inflict lethal violence on a large number of victims (before they could escape) is a serious threat. Since we can’t do anything about #2, we have to address #1.

      Let’s lay-out the instruments according to their relative ability to inflict a large number of casualties in a highly populated venue before they could escape. Machineguns, bump-fire, semi-auto, pump, lever-action, bolt-action, . . . single-shot rifle, double-barreled shotgun.

      Now, here is the exercise: Argue the rationale for drawing the line between any pair of these ordered instruments. Is bump-fire enough less-dangerous than a machinegun? Is a bolt-action enough less-dangerous than a lever-action? Why, in such a position of tactical superiority, even a marksman with a single-shot rifle could kill “too many” people. We are reduced to accepting that only the double-barreled shotgun and a revolver present a “tolerable” risk of public safety in the context of a tactical superior position over a large crowd.

      If there is any rationale to the “slippery-slope” argument then here it is. Once one admits to the ability of a man of ill-will to find a tactically opportune position over a large crowd, then just about all firearm action types are – arguably – “too lethal”.

      We can afford to suffer the next lunatic who might emerge from our general population of 320 million. The next one might not come for 10 or 20 or 50 years. We can NOT afford the risk that a jihadist organization won’t reproduce this patter of attack. We “must do something” to deal with a very realistic – albeit still hypothetical – argument for what MIGHT happen.

      It seems to me that this is where logical reasoning takes us; so, we need to be prepared.

      That said, it’s equally obvious that a jihadist organization is well equipped to supply themselves with firearms of any action-type they might desire. Congress could outlaw all action-types excepting double-barreled and revolver and the realistic – albeit still hypothetical – remains the prominent viable threat.

      If that’s so, then we have to return to #2. What, if anything, can we do to harden heavily-populated venues with counter-sniper measures?

  50. 80 years ago was automatic weapons, suppressors, and short barreled rifles and shotguns (they wanted more but failed). 30 years ago was new automatic weapons. Twenty years ago was new modern sporting rifles and mags with capacity more than 10 rounds (automatically repealed 10 years ago). Today will be bump stock, they may try msr’s, or Sig braces, or tripods, or high cap mags, whatever they can get.

    Now let’s step back and ask if society will be safer for it? How much liberty are YOU willing to give up for an illusion of safety? Did society become safer than before these overreaching from the state? What will they want next year? What happens when they want to ban steak knives? Rental moving trucks? Fertilizer? It’s security theater and a facade of safety, behind the back drop is an oligarchy siphoning of our money, criminals who don’t care what laws are put and will get what they want, and the mentally disturbed who slay with no rhyme or reason.

  51. “…And yet there’s a compelling case to be made for a bump fire stock ban.”

    No. There is not.

    To what other things in life would you like to apply this ‘legitimate need’ idea? Do you legitimately need an automobile that can travel at speeds in excess of the speed limit? Do you legitimately need an automobile.

    This Nation is built upon the Rule of Law. One of the core tenants of that idea is one called ‘Due Process of Law.’ You do not, ever, get to limit the freedoms and liberties of Citizens because a criminal did something wrong.

    The criminal used Bump-Fire stocks. So what. Restrict his freedoms, not everyone else’s

    • agree completely and in this case his freedoms have been TERMINATED permanently although by his own hand. shame he did not simply do that in the first place rather than terminating others liberty in the process

  52. Can you really call the stock really useless when someone just used one or more to such great effect?

    IMO a ban is not the answer.

      • Word. It always amazes what a bunch of pussies most gun owners really are. They all talk so tough about the spirit of the founding fathers, fighting tyranny, blah blah blah. Oh but we can ban the bumpski, cause that’ll appease the left. What a bunch of fags.

  53. NFA (all-but) banned machine guns… because 7 mobsters scumbags killed 7 rival mobster scumbags hahaha how does that even happen? Sounds like things worked themselves out to me.

    In the case of this murderer in Las Vegas, I think it is a clearer case for such restrictions. The author laid it out pretty clearly. The arguments against in the comments are weak and invalid. The writer approached it from a practical legal perspective. The responses against are almost entire based on principle arguments. Unfortunately these are two very different things which rarely align.

    • The OP knows nothing about the St. Valentine’s Day massacre and nothing about the NFA or U.S. v. Miller. There were only four assassins involved, of whom three were shooters, two with Thompsons and one with what was probably a 10 gauge shotgun. Second, the Massacre was just another incident in an on-going gang war that included New York as well as Chicago, to say nothing of the number of bank robbers armed with automatic firearms, including Clyde Barrow, Machine Gun Kelly, George Nelson, and so on. It is not like the Congress shed any tears fro six dead gangsters, a mechanic, and an optometrist who liked to hang out with gangsters; it was the broader issue of crime during the Depression and Prohibition that compelled the administration to act.
      Third, the NFA was not and is not a machine gun ban, it is a taxing statute with a registration and background check requirement. It does not make machine guns illegal or take them away from anyone who owns them in compliance with the law; it merely makes acquisition more expensive (and more transparent to authorities). Comply with the law, you can own them. The Supreme Court conclude that the law was constitutional, and its decision concluded that the law does not infringe on the right to possess “military grade” firearms. So how OP gets from that to “the NFA was unconstitutional on its face” completely escapes me.
      Since his thinking is so wrong right out of the gate, I cannot trust that he says anything else worthwhile.

      Hey, just make the bump stock subject to the NFA, and we are eliminate all of the slippery slope loss of constitutional rights issues that are raised by a ban. I am done here.

      • Was not one of the reasons the founding fathers went to war with the british excessive taxation (which at the time was about 3%) (Boston tea party) and how much are you taxed today. to my mind that reeks of being unconstitutional in and of itself because of that fact.

  54. If they want the bumpfire stocks they can have them, provided PoTG get something tangible in return. Open the registry, reel in the ATF (basically make it so that the Congress gets to define the law, none of this wishy washy crap around shit like 7N5 and Sig Braces), strengthened protection for travelers (prosecutions of places like NJ that railroad travelers) , national reciprocity and a lot of items I am forgetting.

  55. But just as the NFA has limited the criminal use of machine guns, a ban on bumpfire stocks would certainly diminish the possibility of their manufacture and use — both of which would incur significant federal penalties.

    The old “gun control works!” argument.

    Let’s face it: bumpfire stocks are a clear circumvention of the National Firearms Act, allowing functionally identical firearms to heavily regulated machine guns with none of the associated protections. Banning bumpfire stocks would simply be an extension of existing policy, closing a loophole to a nearly century old gun law that worked as intended.

    Which shouldn’t’ have been made illegal in the first place. Seven gangsters killing seven other gangster is not an argument to put in place federal level legislation forcing law on the entirety of the US because some east coast and west coast democrats are emotional about it, likewise with 59.

    I completely reject the notion that the people of the US is something to be “managed” or “nannied” by their government. Laws should be implemented to maximize freedom and punish those who create victims of others. My ownership of a range toy absolutely should not be something punishable by the state because they were offended by my ownership of it.

    • And they have NO practical or important purpose! Cars and fertilizer. Those have a practical purpose. High capacity magazines? NOPE! You do not “NEED” a 75 or 100rd drum. You do not “NEED” a 60rd magazine. Ban them! – and bump stocks too!

      /Sarc

  56. https://twitter.com/Phil_Mattingly/status/916003948531785728

    Stop. Giving. Money. To. The. N. R. A.

    How many times must we teach you this lesson! Every single time I tell people they tell me the NRA has “changed” despite all evidence to the contrary like their support of the 2013 renewal of the Undetectable Firearms Act despite it now effecting existing guns (the reason they gave for supporting it) and utter lack of of condemnation of existing laws.

  57. I quit reading after he said the nfa deserves to stand the 2nd is for the people to have better arms then the government period if you are too stupid to know what was written down simply stated I care less what your opinion is I don’t think the government should regulate drugs either but hell what’s freedom… war is peace

  58. Let’s face it: bumpfire stocks are a clear circumvention of the National Firearms Act, an already unconstitutional law. But maybe we should just give them one more small slice of the cake, you know, because they won’t come back for more. Stop giving up your rights because they will never stop trying to take them!

  59. NRA release just now:
    ” 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.”

  60. Just a question, has ttag been sold to someone? It seems like the content of this site has changed dramatically recently.

  61. next they will ban shooting guns faster than pulling the trigger once every 2 seconds. this is all ridiculous.

  62. I think that RF did a fantastic job on the CBS video, and that bump fire stocks are stupid and just a range toy, BUT, I’m in the “not one more inch” crowd. Incrementalism is real folks, your watching it play out now

  63. I disagree just on principle, never compromise and especially not with those who are never willing to give something back in return. I know compromise now means a slow surrender as opposed to actually giving and receiving something in return. If compromise actually meant the pro gun community could gain from banning bump fire stocks I would be interested. Ban bump fire stocks and in return we get national reciprocity or short barrel weapons removed from the NFA.

  64. So when some high roller opens up with a Barrett .50, or uses a Mossberg shockwave (a clear end around the NFA), or if a suppressor gets used in a crime, how does your case for banning stuff stand up then?

    What about U.S. made “compliance parts”, as in 18 USC SS922R? A clear end around the import ban right?

    Is TTAG going to advocate against California gum owners in their serial plethora of mechanical and appliance workarounds to the AWB there? All end arounds.

    ANY honest gun enthusiast will admit to you that suppressors aren’t about hearing protection.

    They are about because they are cool, and we want them. Go ahead, admit it, this is the TRUTH about guns right?

    Stop playing the “Mine good, yours bad” game. We have been sparring with the fudds for years like that. No the rest of the firearms community is playing that game, and it’s a losing proposition, EVERY TIME.

    Now “admin” has has his own personal sensitivities stimulated, and he’s looking at someone to throw under the bus. And he’s run across more patsies than he envisioned I’m sure.

    • You might think silencers are cool. I don’t, they serve the same practical purpose car mufflers do and from what I have heard at the outdoor range I shoot at, they are about as effective as a quieter than the average Harley Davidson motorcycle muffler but not as much as the mufflers on my Goldwing. That is regarding silencers on deer rifles. I still hear them with ear muffs on, but they aren’t as loud as rifles without silencers and they add cose to a foot, to the length of the rifle.

  65. No. No more compromises. It’s not nineteen thirty four. We can’t pretend that if we just give them a victory they will go away. We’ve spent eighty years compromising, and all we’ve gotten for it is more extreme demands next time

  66. Who do we blame for the bump fire stock? William Hughes and Charles Rangel of the Democratic Party! For 50 years there was a legal way for a law abiding citizen to by or make a machine gun. The BATF and local law enforcement was kept in the loop, and there was no need, and NO MONEY in coming up with a work around. Comes the ’86 machine gun ban, prices for pre-86 guns go through the roof, and now there’s a market for, and money to be made from, a work around.
    Since the passage of the NFA in ’34, there have only been a couple illegal uses of registered full auto weapons (the one I know about was a cop using a department issue weapon to murder his wife. No law that still leaves guns in the hands of law enforcement would have stopped that one). The NFA was working fine, so Hughes “fixed it” for us. Thanks Bill.

  67. trade bumpfire stocks put onto NFA for suppressors being taken off NFA

    sound like a good “compromise?”

    • It’s government. There won’t be any compromise. Things will come from us, and go to them. Money, freedom, or something else. In this case, freedom. The way they are talking now – it looks like full capitulation. Did they consider a federalism approach and leave it to the states or local regions? Nope. Blanket federal government nonsense. The ATF and federal government laws shouldn’t exist at all. Those should be left to the states.

  68. I have a bump fire stock that I received for Father’s Day a few years back. It’s definitely a range toy, but a fun one at that.

    I propose that they add a bump fire stock ban to the HUSH or SHARE acts, or to national reciprocity, or combine all 3 acts into one.

    We give a little, they give a little. Take suppressors off the NFA, add bump stocks to the NFA. I can live with that.

  69. Y’all are killing me. No one arguing against the author in the comments seems to grasp or want to take it on from the perspective used. You know, like a real debate!

    “For that we turn to the Strict Scrutiny test. Under Strict Scrutiny, a law must (A) have a compelling government interest, (B) be narrowly tailored and (C) be the least intrusive method of meeting the government’s interest.

    **The final question is one of intrusiveness.** <<<THIS is KEY!

    Banning semi-auto rifles would fail this test spectacularly — semi-auto rifles have a clear functional purpose for sporting and self defense use. But a bump fire stock? Every expert (including Robert Farago) has declared that there’s no legitimate purpose for a bumpfire stock — aside from being a 'range toy.'"

    You keep saying the Second Amendment doesn't speak to a need. Actually, it does. It says "A well regulated militia being *necessary to the security of a free state*, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

    The need is protecting the free state. Simple. I'll give you that this protection of the free state includes protection of ones own property and family. That seems a rational extension of logic. We should never give an inch on that!

    Let's take this a step further. Is a ban on bumpfire stocks the least intrusive approach?

    Anyone with actual military service will tell you full auto is extremely limited in it's use IN COMBAT. Suppressive fire is by far it's most common use, which is really just intended to get heads down. This murdering coward in Vegas had unsuspecting innocent people shoulder-to-shoulder in a mass like friggin live stock. When have you seen troops line up for battle like that since the Red Coats? So all of you purporting that highly unreliable bump/slidefire as a replacement for a true SAW? Yeah friggin right guys. Even if they did run reliably under stress (which they do NOT!) very few ARs have barrels up to the heat of SAW type use, and no provision to swap barrels. The actual use for combat is non-existent. You would be much better off with a reliable semi auto!

    In this way, if we are really and truly honest with ourselves, banning bumpfire stocks and similar commercial products for this purpose seems to pass the least intrusive test. That was the main point of the author here. And you all seemed to have missed it entirely.

    I wish our politics in the modern era were as simple as basic principles behind the amendments, but anyone with any real legal knowledge knows this is fantasy. We live in a litigious society. There have been numerous cases on guns before. We can't undo that. We only must live with what we are stuck with now.

    In the bigger picture of political debate I honestly see the value of the absolutists. You all are needed to keep the extremists on the other side which would love us all to be entirely disarmed and trapped in a nerf cushioned world at bay! Please, don't take my comments or this article as an attack on your beliefs. Rather take it as a reality check moment and time to really put our politic hats on.

    If the NRA and the Republican party/Cons can score a few quick points with the general public by sacrificing bumpfire stocks it would not be the biggest political chip to cash out. As of right now, the MSM is doing an excellent job demonizing the NRA, Republicans, Conservatives, and anyone that disagrees with them. This would take one piece of low hanging fruit out of it. Remove one attack from their side in the debate. Give a little here, and we have BETTER ground to stand on. This would give us more freedom to dig our heels in when it really matters.

    I am quite confident this fight about semi-autos will be back. Unfortunately. THAT is the fight to not give an inch on. Commercially produced plastic bumpstocks? Not something worth being absolutist on. Especially when, as has been said many times, you can replicate the effect of these stocks with your hands, a belt loop, some wood, etc. That should NOT be outlawed, under any circumstance. Only commercial stocks that are a direct swap on. The issue of limited intrusiveness is the key. THAT is what we all must keep in mind here.

    Flame me if you want, but I come as a friend which is fighting with you. I will be nothing but absolutists to the gun grabbing leftist idiots. But I think it might not be the worst idea to really talk this through in a reasonable way amongst ourselves. Like it or not, this is a political debate. We need to be cunning and outsmart the Dems and the "Progressive" liars that wish to exploit tragedy. Let’s get something for this! remove/repeal the Hughes Amendment? Something!

    • The author is correct as to the legal realities. I’m not so sure about the political realities. “A bumpfire ban would be a small sacrifice that helps keep Republicans in power and reduce the possibility of stricter and more onerous gun laws down the road.” This is where the author is wrong, and you get that. “Let’s get something for this! remove/repeal the Hughes Amendment? Something!” If all we get is appeasement, I don’t see the point. Appeasement never works.

      I’m 100% against concessions. Actual compromises are different. We have to get something if we give something. Also, that something should be more valuable.

  70. Whatevere dipshit wrote this article is completely clueless as to reality AND history. First of all, the NFA was primarily about banning machine guns and handguns. Explosives and silencers were ancillary bs add-ons along with the vestigal SBR, SBS, nad AOW classifications once handguns were stripped out.

    Second, it has NOT been confirmed tha bump-fire stocks were used yet. So everyone jumping on the ‘ban’ wagon needs to STFU and stop waving thr bloody shirt.

    Third, the FBI does not thoroughly investigate or vet jack-shit. They run a damn NICS check and the submitted fingerprints. That’s it. It takes so damn long because of government bloat and inefficiency.

    Fourth, the post-1986 ban on new automatics is not based on them being “unreasonably dangerous” The POS William Hughes (may he rot) slipped in the amendment at the last second with the bs lie that “machine guns have no sporting purpose”. “Sporting purpose” has NOTHING to do with the 2nd Amendment. The Hughes Amendment also never passed a vote in the House. Charlie Rangel just said it was and did NOT allow a count of the votes. It could to be repealed on that ALONE if Congress had a spine.

    Fifth, bump-fire stocks are a *direct* result of the Hughes Amendment making new full-autos nigh impossible to obtain. If one was used to commit this massacre in my home town, it is the POS William Hughes who is to blame for it!

    /end rant

  71. My theory: In any policy conflict the side with the greater power, first military, and then legal, and far lastly ethical will win the contest. Right and wrong will play little to no part in the decision. Each side for the moment has the same military power. Legal power is a popularity contest among those casting the votes – judges and legislators in their own environs. Write and wrong are only important considerations to most individuals, not to the political machinery.

  72. it would be nice if the NRA and everybody else who are tripping over themselves to cave on this would just for a single solitary second say let’s wait and see how the investigation plays out first

    WE DONT EVEN KNOW IF HE EVEN ACTUALLY USED THOSE

    WE DONT EVEN KNOW IF HE EVEN DID IT YET

    WE DONT EVEN KNOW IF HE ACTED ALONE

    WERE FINDING OUT MORE EVERY DAY ABOUT MULTIPLE SHOOTERS FROM MULTIPLE LOCATIONS AUDIO SOUNDING LIKE BELT FED MACHINE GUNS

    THIS JUST HAPPENED FOUR DAYS AGO

    STOP IT

    SLOW DOWN

    the left is all about their agenda

    and we’re falling for it

    man up people

    you’re not acting like the people we need to be able to count on if we were to actually face a significant civil disruption event

    bunch of sheeple

    IF YOU CANT STAND UP TO DEMOCRATS ON LEGISLATION WHAT WILL YOU BE ABLE TO STAND UP AGAINST

    I DONT GIVE A CRAP IF ALL ITS GOOD FOR IS A RANGE TOY

    DEMOCRAT POLICY KILLS 2700 BABIES EVERY SINGLE DAY IN AMERICA IF YOU CANT HAVE THE BACKBONE TO STAND UP AGAINST THESE PEOPLE FOR WHAT WE THINK IN LIGHT OF WHAT THEY SUPPORT

    *YOURE ALL WORTHLESS COWARDS*

  73. You know what we need!?? We need more laws of course. But not only that, we need some laws that legislate how fast people are allowed to shoot their semi-auto rifles and pistols.

    Are you shooting your gun too fast out in your back pasture, bump firing, or binary triggering, or just holding your gun in a relaxed manner, or maybe you are just too well trained at firing fast with a semi-auto. We need some legislation for this. And we need to make it a felony too – so you can no longer own guns.

  74. Dear “reader who wishes to remain anonymous”. GFY!
    Dear TTAG. You put your stamp of approval on this by your publication of it and your former articles’ statements. You are the weakest link.

  75. I would like to wait until the ATF comes back with some results. So far, I’ve heard there were 23 firearms in the room. I’ve heard that 12 of them were equipped with bump stocks. I’ve also heard that “some of the weapons found in the hotel room were fully automatic”, per the office of Rep. Adam Schiff of California.

    At some point we will know how many shots were fired from which rifles. The bump stock equipped rifles might have fired all of them. Or none of them.

    Either way I would happily trade a bump stock ban for relaxing the suppressor red tape and getting national recognition of carry permits.

  76. Do bumpfire stocks make sense? No. Hell no!
    But did banning anything ever work? Did government control ever save a life? Does a right need to seek the sense of anything that it protects if it is there to protect a whole bunch of things out of principle? If we can ban bumpfire because there is no practical purpose for most people i want to ban the whole idea of communism, nothing good ever came from it and it does not make sense either. F**k the freedom of speech, only my government aprooved, correct oppinion matters anyways. If we ban small things that aid a little in killing 60 people, we can definetly infringe on a right that killed 100 million the last century.
    And that is why you do not give a inch, not even the diameter of an atom, when it comes to non-negotiable, absolute rights.

  77. All banning bump fire stocks will do is likely increase the number of killed in any attack.
    Bump fire makes aiming near impossible. Any action that will result in a potential increase in deliberate aimed fire will increase the number killed in an mass shooting.
    Plus, the murderer had a pilot license. Simply loading his plane with gasoline and crashing it into the concert attendees would have resulted in many many more deaths and injuries.

  78. Add a bump stock ban to the National Concealed Carry reciprocity bill and put it to a vote. Who says we can’t make a reasonable compromise on gun control?

  79. No such thing as “compelling government interest.” Just for starters.

    In any case, there seems to be some serious inconsistency here. If these bump things are of no practical use, mere range “toys,” easily manufactured or improvised, less effective than controlled single semi-automatic fire… and I forget some of the other stuff…

    Sounds like banning soap bubble pipes would make more sense. Which is zero.

    No compromise, no “deals” and no bans of anything.

  80. Not one inch. This is the time to push back, HARD. Get state and federal LE after left-wing politicians and pundits for crimes against the Constitution. Make it very clear that their actions will no longer be tolerated, and neither will leftism in any form. They have become domestic enemies and should be treated as such.

  81. I have NO plans wading through these endless comments. NEVER agree with a leftard and never grant power to the gubmint it DOES NOT constitutionally possess!

  82. What sucks is that if a ban on these goes into effect, it won’t just stop with forcibly withdrawing them from retail distribution channels – it will almost certainly include making people who simply possess them into criminals – something I DO NOT support…

  83. Trade bump stocks for suppressors, knowing that triggers such as the fostech echo, and franklin armory binary triggers now make these bumpfire stocks obsolete. They are far easier to control, and the early versions of the franklin armory trigger could actually go faster than the gun could run. Simply make sure that the bill ONLY bans stocks and not triggers.

  84. A bump stock is only a gimmicky range toy, indeed, is only a thing at all, because it’s a workaround to the government’s unconstitutional infringement on the Second Amendment: a practical ban on private ownership of select fire firearms.

    Sure, nobody would willfully outfit a military fighting force with this contraption. They would, however, arm their combatants with select fire weapons. As virtually every, if not every, nation’s military does wield select fire and full auto weapons, arms featuring this ability ipso facto have a military use. Thus, they’re in line with the Miller decision.
    The people do have an individual right to bump stocks and banning them would be unconstitutional.

    What the government has accomplished via the Hughes Amendment of the devlishly misnamed Firearms Owner Protection Act is twofold:

    First, they have hobbled the human right to bear arms by stunting the supply of automatic firearms at 1986 levels and further imposing financial and bureaucratic hurdles to ownership.

    Second, they have denigrated the People’s admittedly pathetic attempt to reclaim a form of exercising this right through bump stocks, by contemplating banning the devices under the Act’s auspices. Well.

    The government may not ban a type of exercise of a right based on its limited usefulness (or uselessness beyond being a range toy), when it was the government’s own unconstitutional action that drove exercise of this right into such a clunky corner.

    It’s equivalent to government forbidding blacks from obtaining a quality education consistent with citizenry in a free republic, then using that condition to justify further infringement upon their rights by denying them the right to vote for being illiterate and too poor to pay a poll tax!

    It’s immoral, unconscionable, and unconstitutional. There is no case for banning bump stocks.

  85. So, rather than speak in theory, let’s speak in terms of practical implementation:

    1. What is the definition of “rate of fire”?
    2. What is the acceptable “rate of fire” for semiautomatic rifles?
    3. What is the statutory definition of “bump-fire device”?

    Regarding #1:

    NFA only deals with number of discharges per trigger pull. In order for ATF to deem “bump-fire stocks” to be legally regulated under NFA, this definition would have to change.

    “Banning”, however, presumes new legislation, which, if DiFi’s bill is representative, would refer to “rate of fire” as number of discharges per unit of time, which is an entirely different definition from what currently exists in NFA.

    Which brings us to #2:

    What is the acceptable “rate of fire”, in terms of discharges per minute, for semiautomatic rifles?

    Mechanically, the cycle rate is likely in the hundreds (600 rounds per minute? 1,000?). I would assume that anyone who picks up a random, stock AR15 could fire at a rate of one round per second (60 rounds per minute) with almost no effort. Someone trying to fire quickly could easily double, triple, or quadruple that rate. So, we’re already up to about 250 rounds per minute.

    So, the issue would likely then boil down to mechanically increasing the “rate of fire” (in terms of discharges per unit of time), which brings us to #3:

    How does one statutorily define “bump-fire device” without causing all manner of arbitrary and mundane things to fall under the definition?

    • They coul simply set a maximum rate of fire, regardless of means achieving it, just like many ranges prohibit rapid fire or even just double taps. Mind numbingly stupid and ineffective, even by D.C. legislation standards? Of course, but this was never about rate of fire or crime prevention to begin with.

  86. Will my arm fall under a bump stock ban? As a righty, my right arm increases the rate of speed to release a projectile versus my left arm.

  87. There is NOT any valid argument to be made for banning bump stocks. For if there was, then each and every technical advancement made in firearms since the flintlock days must also be banned for the same reason. Self contained cartridges – “OMG, they let people reload faster and mow down vast numbers of people”. Bolt actions, semi auto actions, you name it and you can apply the same BS argument

  88. My greatest concern in the bump-fire debate is that the PotG will splinter into 3 groups who will cease to cooperate on anything. Diehards want to stonewall; those concerned about the image of the gun community will want to quietly cave-in; the third group will want to bargain something with little practical value for something with far more practical value.

    This situation looks very much like the splintering of the distillers, winemakers and brewers. They would not hang-together so they were hanged collectively.

    The Antis have us where they want us: splintered. The NRA might loose a critical amount of support with insufficient take-up by any of the other 2A groups. We may lose whatever clout we need to sustain our tenuous power to slow/stop legislation moving through Congress. Were that to happen, the slippery-slope would be greased by our own tears.

    What we all ought to be thinking about is what strategy might we agree – however reluctantly – to pursue as the LEAST BAD of our available alternatives?

    Or, let’s just give up now and throw in the towel! Let the Democrats resume their control over both chambers of Congress – then take the White House in 2020 too. (That loss by default is too painful to think about.)

  89. “a concession, but a relatively minor price to pay to kill that narrative, make the NRA seem reasonable, and remove the ability for Democrats to use congressional inaction to fuel their base in the coming midterm elections.”

    “Kill their narrative?” By giving them what they want?

    Our opponents will never concede that the NRA is “reasonable!” They already call us terrorists!

    “Congressional inaction” is a feature, not a bug. ‘Do something, anything’ is their imperative, not ours!

    Oh, and never forget: They HATE us, and they DESPISE the kind of people who attended the LV concert. Never EVER forget that when you feel like reaching your hand out to them,

  90. Meh. I honestly don’t care if they ban them. It’s not a gun, or a factory part of any firearm sold that I know of. It’s an accessory, and one which most gun owners, and probably most AR owners, really have no interest in.

    For me, political reality trumps ideology in this case. Throw the wolves a bone for them to gnaw on until the hysteria dies down. We have bigger fish to fry.

  91. “… kill that narrative.” Ha! Never happen.

    I absolutely think that bump-fire stocks should be traded for some “common sense” de-regulation. National reciprocity is not bad, but what about those damn 7 round mag. limits, or extra taxes and background checks for ammo purchases?

    I know that these are state regulations, but we DO have a constitution with an interstate commerce clause. Use it. Kill those regs nationwide. Of course, it may not pass congress, but then we could correctly claim that the left really doesn’t care about bump-fire stocks, since those other regs are so stupid.

  92. And,

    This is how divide and conquer works. On one side we have the “eh who cares bump stocks suck” crowd and on the other side we have the people who want their rights.

    What’s particularly distasteful are is the people who want to give away other gun owners rights so they can get rights that they want. Yeah. Thanks! Just help yourself to my rights.

    Just keep in mind the people who lose their rights will be sure to return the favor later on. If this passes I’ll destroy or turn in my bump stock. I’m out a couple of hundred bucks. No biggie. But keep in mind many of us will vote against a group that did not have our best interests in mind. Do I care about your gun rights anymore after you decided to help yourself to mine as a political bargaining chip? NOPE!

    Do you really want fellow gun owners battling politically against you as you are doing to them?

  93. A couple of points.

    First, the obvious omission that the original NFA didn’t actually “ban” machine guns, simply made them more expensive and difficult to obtain in the form of a tax.

    Second, by accepting and applying the standards used in U.S. vs Miller it should be obvious to anyone that machine guns can’t actually be banned as they are in common use and necessary for the military and therefore the militia… pretty much invalidates the Hughes Amendment and makes it unconstitutional. Even the U.S. attorneys in the Miller case accepted that the 2nd Amendment protected military arms, and as did all the Courts and government prior.

    My, how far towards Communism we have fallen…

    • The whole NFA except for maybe the part about “guns that don’t look like guns” is unconstitutional because large-caliber guns, short-barreled long guns, silencers, and machineguns are all very, very, very useful for military and civilian defensive purposes. US v. Miller was decided by sheltered, elitist New York Republicans who thought that bolt-action rifles were the absolute cutting edge of military weapon and that everything else was “uncivil,” and handguns should only be allowed to those who could afford permits (and buy a commission). I recently looked through a Constitutional reference book from just before the AWB sunset in 2004, and it was full of BS from 150 years ago to the early 1980s decided by conservative Republican judges across the country. All of these judges upheld bans on handguns and everything else under the sun, and the Brady Bunch and VPC and their friends used this as precedent to keep state and local handgun bans and AWBs in place and claim that the 2A was only to protect state government militias and then even place restrictions on the militias and their members. Trust no one. Do not give an inch.

  94. 1) Bump fire stocks have never been used for a crime prior to this event, as far as we know.

    2) Bump fire stocks are TOYS for people who like to shoot firearms faster, exactly the same as collectors of fully automatic firearms.

    Banning an object used for a one-off crime is stupid. It deprives law-abiding people who use them legally of their entertainment.

    There is a little notion called “freedom” which everyone who proposes banning these devices fails to recognize. People have a right to do what they want provided THEY don’t hurt someone else. The fact that a criminal uses the same object as those people to do a criminal act does NOT justify depriving those other people of their freedom to use that object.

    Not to mention the obvious slippery slope which occurs when you start banning things people “don’t need.” That SAME argument has been used repeatedly by the anti-gun crowd to demonize semi-auto pistols and semi-auto rifles and magazine with greater than 10 rounds.

    People don’t NEED a car that goes faster than 55mph, but we don’t ban them even though it might save thousands of lives every year when people exceed the speed limit.

    People who who propose banning an object because people don’t “need” it are part of the problem. That includes the NRA who apparently is caving in in order to avoid further negative press. I get that people want to “make a deal” but there IS NO deal to be made. Ban one object on this basis and you’ll end up with no Second Amendment eventually.

    It’s that simple.

  95. No need for a bump fire stock. You can use a rubber band for the same effect. Youtube has many such videos explaining how to use a rubber band for bump fire.

  96. I’m sorry but I am not willing to cede ground without equal rights, reciprocity.Whether you agree or not the ATF Technical Branch approved the bump fire. People are running around throwing out explanations and definition that they have no clues about. Giving in just makes them more aggressive and hungry. No surrender, never quit. Reciprocity now.

  97. The shooter was wealthy, which enabled him to buy more guns than a normal person. Ban wealth to stop gun violence. The shooter was a gambler, which could lead to mass shootings as this case proves. Ban video poker to stop gun violence. The shooter was an old white guy, which…

  98. Does anyone even realize you dont need a slide fire stock to bump fire? This is the problem with people trying to regulate items they have no clue about. If so inclined this madman could get the same rpm out of a regular semi auto AR! The level of inaccuracies about tactics,hardware,capabilities,and danger is laughable. Just this morning I had to listen to some moron say the perp was shopping around for tracer rounds 2 weeks prior, and it really wouldn’t make a difference if he used them because he wouldn’t be able to see them at night time. Apparently this reporter has no idea what a tracer is, or what they are for. They would have worked for and against him, he could confirm where his rounds were hitting, but people could also see where the rounds came from.

  99. “And yet there’s a compelling case to be made for a bump fire stock ban.”

    The hell there is, you gutless fucktard.

    Chew a cactus and die in a fire.

    • Any semiauto including handguns can be bumped fired with just your finger.
      They know this.This is a back door to a semiauto ban !!!
      If bump firing devices are bad then all bump firing is bad!!!
      Everyone who wants to keep their semiautos better wake up and start fighting.
      They could start passing the law with in days.

  100. The gun grabbers are coming!!! The gun grabbers are coming!!!
    Back door semiauto ban in progress!!!
    Say no to the bump fire ban!!!! If bump firing devices are bad then all bump firing is bad!!!
    Any semiauto can be bumped fired (including semiauto handguns) with out special stock!!!
    WAKE UP!!!!

  101. You guys are really naive to think you can negotiate with these people. If you think they will stop at bump stocks you are sadly mistaken. Once you allow the precedent to be set further legislation will be easier and easier.

    Do you enjoy shooting? Like your AR? The same argument against bump stocks can be made about ANY semi auto weapon. “Why do you need to shoot that quickly”, “These aren’t used for hunting”, “They serve no real purpose”, “Why do you need more than 5 rounds in a magazine”. These are all questions you are going to hear in the next round where they want to outright ban assault style weapons. Back in the day grandfathering was a thing. These days they don’t care. They will ban them outright leaving you to turn them in or destroy them yourself. They sure as heck aren’t going to give you a payday on your cheap AR after the ban for it to end up in the hands of “criminals” with money in your pocket.

    Perhaps the ATF was setting the stage. They sanctioned bump stocks because of the eventual outrage that they would cause further allowing them to grab semi automatic weapons. “They are too easy to modify into full auto we have to protect the public” would be their argument. Bump stocks prove their point. A cheap piece of plastic and you have full auto firing.

    What are you going to do when the time comes to turn in your “illegal” AR? If you let them have an inch they will take a mile no matter what you think. The NRA does not have our best interests in mind. They are too concerned with public opinion and preserving rights for gun snob collectors with big money rather than the “little guy”. Remember that gun you paid all that money for was illegal not that long ago under the original assault rifle bill.

  102. total bullshit… none of you even knows how to shoot a single AR in semi auto or full auto as compared to using a “bump stock” get to know your weapons and lets move on… a BUMP STOCK does NAWT turn a semi automatic rifle into a AUTOmatic rifle… far from it …. have any of you shot any or both of each??? A bump stock actually makes it harder to shoot an AR15 with accuracy… a bump stock is a recreational add on that is nawt a fully auto.. If I have a fully automatically AR (15) or so… like an M4 carbine.. when I shoot it in single round mode… it behaves exactly the same when in full automatic mode… and it can in auto unload all 30 rds of mag in just a few seconds… BUT…. a BUMP STOCK is NAWT like an automatic trigger…. NO WAY… it changes the entire configuration of firing the weapon… you have to learn how to use the forward non trigger arm how to pull the stock of the weapon back to your body. Most people that put a bump stock on the gun cant even fire one single round safely the first time they shoot, they can even shoot themselves…

    lets have the media stop sensationalizing this tool..

    lets make them prove the words..

    even the “experts” dont know how this tool works… so lets have the real experts come forward..

    using the “bump stock” changes the entire dynamic on how to shoot…

    so get to know your facts first..

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *