IMI Systems Quote of the Day: Regulating Bump Fire Stocks Out of Existence Via the Courts – Enter to Win 1000 Rounds of IMI 9mm Ammo

Some want to ban bump fire stocks via the courts rather than the legislature.

“We as a society have decided that guns should be allowed and extensively regulated. The legitimate uses are deemed to outweigh the risks of misuse. The dangers of bump stocks are far greater. Rapid-fire capability isn’t protected by the Second Amendment. Using a ‘full auto’ rifle for self-defense would be like using a cannon.” – Steve Chapman in Another way to ban bump stocks [via chicagotribune.com]

ENTER TO WIN 1000 ROUNDS OF IMI 9MM AMMUNITION


Click here for more information about IMI System Ammunition

Entries will be added to TTAG’s mailing list and shared with IMI Systems

comments

  1. avatar Drake_Burrwood says:

    The Second amendment includes up to and including, current military issue personal arms.
    And the closest related weapon to the assault weapon set on full auto is the shotgun loaded with buckshot.. one trigger pull a burst of projectiles any one which can take down a full grown human.

    1. avatar The Punisher says:

      Actually that’s not even true. It goes beyond “personal arms”.

      Private citizens in the revolutionary period owned “gunships”. They had multiple cannons on them and could be used for naval battles.

      The 2nd amendment is only limited by what the person wants to own and can afford to own.

      And yes – before someone replies with, “so you’re saying joe-blow should be able to own a tactical nuke?” My answer is sure, why not?

      If the US government, Russia and other nation states own nuclear weapons – and we sure as heck can’t trust them – then by all means a private citizen should be able to own a nuclear weapon or weapons as a self defense weapon. Mutually Assured Destruction could very well be a valid self defense plan. Who am I to say otherwise?

      1. avatar Pip boy 3000 says:

        Personally, I think a light nuclear exchange in my neighborhood would be kinda cool.

        1. avatar ATFAgentBob says:

          I need a Fat Man now… with the Experimental MIRV mod.

        2. avatar strych9 says:

          Fat Man with MIRV… shit I just want a bump stock mod for my Railway Rifle.

        3. avatar The Punisher says:

          It’s easy to make light of, but honestly when one thinks about it, I don’t even think nukes would exist in a world that didn’t have giant behemoth governments bankrolled by taxed (read: stolen) loot from their “citizens”.

          But they do exist and if we’re scared about Kim Jong Un having them or Iran or whomever then what do you think the rest of the world thinks about the U.S. – you know the only country to actually drop atomic weapons on people?

          We’re the psychotic empire, not the good guys, folks. We style ourselves as the standard-bearers of freedom and liberty, but in reality we are just the new Rome.

          So in light of that, if some billionaires want to own nukes I say go for it. What reason would Mark Zuckerberg have to nuke anyone? Because they refuse to use Facebook? Sure, go ahead and vaporize your potential userbase. Seems like a sound plan. Maybe Jeff Bezos wants to nuke people who don’t want to use Alexa and buy from his website? Again, great business plan, let’s kill our market and irradiate the land.

          Normal people, i.e. most non-governmental critters, aren’t psychopathic or suicidal. But government attracts all manner of psychos and sociopaths because of that draw of authoritarianism and power. And we think THOSE people should be trusted with nukes…we live in upside down land!

        4. avatar strych9 says:

          “We style ourselves as the standard-bearers of freedom and liberty, but in reality we are just the new Rome.”

          Not to be hyper argumentative here but Rome (both the Republic and the Empire) actually, on balance, did a hell of a lot of good. Yes, Rome did bad things and mistreated people. It went to war for reasons that might not have met it’s own religious standards (Rome had serious religious rules and qualms surrounding going to war, qualms it sometimes ignored and rules it sometimes bent). But, like the British Empire after it Rome also did a ton of good things in the areas it influenced and the areas in conquered. After it killed a fuckton of people…

          Rome was a very complicated creature that varied a lot over the 989-1962 (depending on how you count) years it existed. It was not some evil entity nor was it a benign one. It had it’s ups and downs over it’s history and in reality was a hell of a lot nicer in some regards than many of it’s enemies and it’s predecessors.

          That certainly could be argued for the USA too.

      2. avatar Drake_Burrwood says:

        You are falling for the Authoritarian language and thought that Lack of “right” equals BAN..
        The whole point of having private ships and Cannon.. allowed for quick expansion of the Navel forces.
        The difference between Right and Non is a little bit of added fringe [ment] not ban.
        +++XB=3~<

      3. avatar Rugbylaw1 says:

        Finally, intelligent and sensible. I am so tired of the commentary about “our forefathers didn’t intend on protecting an AR15.” YES THEY DID. If our government has it to subjugate us, we should have it to remove them from power. “ the people,” remember?People forget the fundamental reason for the 2nd Amendment…self defense from our government.

    2. avatar Georgia Bob says:

      In context, the Second Amendment, along with the Militia Act (1792 with the more modern versions – current 10 US Code SS311) and the writings of those who wrote, debated, and presented the first 12 amendments to the US Constitution (10 were quickly ratified and became the Bill of Rights), is a comprehensive argument for personal use of “state of the art” weaponry, both for personal defense and military use. Our right to keep and bear arms cannot reasonably be limited to second rate “home defense” firearms and still comply with the intent of 2A. So, absolutely, the current laws (NFA-1933. et al) restricting access to fully automatic firearms, rocket and grenade launchers, even simple explosive fragmentation devices are a clear infringement upon a constitutionally guaranteed right.

      The 1933 law actually recognized the shaky ground of gun control by restricting access through “taxes” instead of voiding the right of personal ownership. Those same socialist (they called themselves Roosevelt democrat) legislators also added other unconstitutional laws through similar “workarounds,” like Social Security “tax,” and WPA (Work Progress Administration) instead of “public aid payments.” The “benevolent dictatorship” of FDR instituted a host of constitutionally questionable laws, rules, agencies and policies through such twisted acts. Unfortunately, once in place it is almost impossible to eliminate these “public good” laws or institutions. A staggering number of such morally bankrupt “benefits” have since been legislated into our society (everything from welfare, SNAP, and public housing, through Obamacare) all failing the simple test of the Founder’s intent for a constitutionally limited government, and almost all creating additional self destructive sub cultures who will always vote for whoever promises more benefits to that sub group.

      We now live in a representative republic blending socialism and constitutionally limited government into an almost unstoppable creep towards total federal control. The limits our founders placed upon the national government have been almost completely overwhelmed. The Second Amendment attacks/defense are only a part of a larger internal conflict between government control and constitutional limited government. The only question remaining is whether a coming “benevolent” government by elite leaders like Schumer, Warren and Soros will succeed in disarming and subduing informed citizens or whether the coming struggle reapplies limits on federal power.

  2. avatar Shire-man says:

    Nothing quite like basing an argument on a opinion stated as a fact. Inverted strawman?

    1. avatar Ing says:

      Begging the question — that’s the rhetorical term for this particular logical fallacy.

      The entire gun control enterprise is a vast exercise in begging the question. Never mind proof; the specific question doesn’t matter. Let’s all assume this is the answer and talk about it instead.

  3. avatar Dr. J. D. says:

    Interesting he mentions cannons, which were privately owned during the Revolution and after, as well as almost certainly being covered by the 2nd Amendment. Kind of undermines his whole spurious argument.

    1. avatar Anymouse says:

      Cannons that don’t use fixed ammunition aren’t firearms or destructive devices. In most jurisdictions, they can be owned/transferred/made/sold without any registration, license, or background check.

      1. avatar Mark N. says:

        If a cannon is AOW under NFA, doesn’t that mean that they can be owned as long as you get a stamp? I do believe so. I’ve certainly seen them being fired in videos shot in the US.

    2. avatar Drake_Burrwood says:

      Black powder cannon where for the most crew served weapons.
      Which the Supreme Court way back stated meant it wasn’t an individual weapon.. so no actual Personal Right.

      It was just back then they didn’t leave puddles (not yellow) in Glee at taking crew served weapons from people who might need them.
      Unless time of war, invasion, insurection, and Enforcement of laws of the Union.

  4. avatar MiketheHopsFarmer says:

    Ummm wasn’t part of the reason the British marched on Lexington and Concord to capture the privately held cannons and powder stores? So you might be a bit off in your analogy, sir.

  5. avatar Andrew Lias says:

    Actually, the M4 is the musket of our time if you consider the historical contexts of the second and the people it was meant to arm. With the good parts in it.

  6. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    “Rapid-fire capability isn’t protected by the Second Amendment. Using a ‘full auto’ rifle for self-defense would be like using a cannon.” – Steve Chapman

    The Second Amendment DOES cover rapid-fire. In addition to the plain language and intent of the Second Amendment itself, reference the 1939 U.S. Supreme Court decision United States v. Miller which protects firearms that our military uses or that would be useful to our militia.

    As for the utility of a full-auto rifle, it is an extremely useful feature if attackers are overrunning you at close range. And note that people can legally own cannons, which could also be important for self-defense and militia activities in certain circumstances.

    Having said all that, our rights are sacrosanct, period. If our government should only honor rights when our rights have “utility”: who gets to define “utility”? And what is a correct definition of utility?

    1. avatar The Punisher says:

      In the immortal words of the latest Budweiser commercial, “Dilly-Dilly!”

    2. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

      ‘who gets to define “utility”?’

      Da gubmint. Duh.

  7. avatar paulr says:

    This is exactly what I have been talking about. In the 1st paragraph of this article, the author all but admits defeat even before making his argument. The NRA should keep its collective mouth shut instead of giving the anti’s a pinch of hope by suggesting bump stocks should be “regulated”. And all of us should stop arguing with people who have already made up their mind and who have already have conceded defeat. There can be no negotiation if we refuse to negotiate.

    After all, as someone once said, “…if you sit down to negotiate for something you already have, you have already lost”.

    When they talk about bump stocks, we should talk about expanding CCW. When they talk about universal background checks, we should talk about arming more and more women so that they will be able to defend themselves. Concentrate on what we want vs what they want. We have the upper hand and we should act like it. Offense not defense.

    If you ever feel the need to negotiate, start with this philosophy: not one inch. Not one step back. Ever.

  8. avatar RockThisTown says:

    “Rapid-fire capability isn’t protected by the Second Amendment.”

    Shhhh . . . don’t tell Jerry Miculek.

  9. avatar ATFAgentBob says:

    Ok this author is even dumber’n me. See crew served weapons ( cannons, machine guns, and the like) were privately held and privately purchased up until sometime after Teddy Roosevelt charged up San Juan Hill under cover fire provided by a number of Colt “Potato Diggers” that were bought for his unit by a well to do family whose son was serving with him. Actually it was fairly common for the rich folks of the time to buy their local militia, National Guard, or other military unit better weaponry than was issued by the military. Hence the large numbers of Henry and Sharps rifles that saw service during the Civil War. Those were never adopted for military service but well to do soldiers or well to do families would frequently purchase such arms for themselves and/or their relatives.

    Now for full auto. It really wasn’t all that long ago one could order any gun they wished right out of Sears and Roebuck and have it mailed to their house. Full auto, semi auto, high power, it didn’t matter if you could pay the price you could get the gun. After prohibition started and pearl clutching newspaper headlines soaked in blood and savagery started to scare the bejesus out of the population at large as gangsters fought brutal wars against one another over the now profitable illegal alcohol trade that the first calls for gun control were ever uttered. This would later lead to the NFA which would attempt to tax machine guns and short barreled weapons (SBR and SBS) out of existence. If it weren’t for Bonnie and Clyde, Al Capone, Machine Gun Kelly, and others we mat never have had an ATF or NFA, but since the press went nuts reporting on literally anything other than the failure of the economy and FDR’s New Deal at assuaging the hardships and strife of the common man’s everyday life the NFA passed with relatively little opposition.

    http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/National+Firearms+Act+of+1934

    1. avatar Joe R. says:

      It’s a dumbing down of America. It’s akin to the raise in the drinking age. Too many people are raised waiting around for the ‘gov’t’ to let them know when they have become an “adult”. It never happens. The gov’t just says they are NOT one until long after they are.

    2. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

      ‘…as gangsters fought brutal wars against one another over the now profitable illegal… trade…’

      Some things never change. In fact I bet there’s a lot more bloodshed now than then.

      1. avatar Drake_Burrwood says:

        More Prohibition Economies.. More blood… More Prohibition Corporate Militias fighting wars over territories and logistic chains.. and more Law abiding Militia men Women untrained and disarmed to improve profits.

    3. avatar painlessbob says:

      “[during Prohibition]…the first calls for gun control were ever uttered.”

      Nope. Try April 18, 1775. Serious infringement has been going in the U.S. for on a LONG time. The next big increase in stripping people of their God-given right to self-defense, esp. against tyranny, was in the 1800s pre- and post-Civil War. These mostly were racist laws that aimed to keep blacks, freed and otherwise, disarmed. Good article about this: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/516676/posts

  10. avatar Joe R. says:

    The SChitcago Tribune is FAKE NEWS.

    AND THE SECOND AMENDMENT IS FOR PROSECUTION, BY INDIVIDUAL OR GROUPS OF U.S. CITIZENS, OF THE 2ND PARAGRAPH OF THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE. THEREFORE YOU NEED PARITY OF ARMS WITH THE GOVERNMENT THAT YOU ARE REPLACING, AND YOU NEED THEM WITHOUT NEEDING TO ASK ANY AHOLE WHO IS BEING REPLACED FOR THE PERMISSION TO HAVE THEM.

    Simple logic MFs.

    1. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

      Might want to turn up your hearing aid.

  11. avatar MDH says:

    According to the website at the following link, http://heyjackass.com/category/2017-stats/, year to date (2017) there have been at least 529 firearm related murders just in the city of Chicago which has some of the most draconian and anti-constitutional gun laws in the US. This month alone 33 have been murdered, and as of this writing it is only the 19th day of the month

    That is roughly the equivalent of one Las Vegas attack/massacre every single month. Every single month….. Next month will be no different, or the month after that.

    Passing unconstitutional laws, disarming the law abiding and attacking the fundamental constitutional rights of all Americans has absolutely the opposite effect of deterring crime. Such measures serve only to embolden, and make more powerful those for whom the rule of law has become a devastatingly effective tool to render others (their victims) defenseless.

    This applies equally to Chicago’s murderous criminals, and to the leftist political and media hacks who empower and enable them.

    1. avatar Curtis in IL says:

      “Chicago which has some of the most draconian and anti-constitutional gun laws in the US.”

      Because of the state preemption written into Illinois’ Concealed Carry statute, Chicago has “shall issue” concealed carry (albeit with significant cost, wait and bureaucracy). The Illinois State Police have issued thousands of concealed carry licenses to Chicago residents.

      No magazine limits, hollowpoint bans or bullet buttons. No “approved list” of firearms you can buy, nor gun registration. None of the restrictions common on the right and left coasts of our nation.

      It’s not exactly Vermont, but gun owners in Chicago have a lot more freedom than in most of the highly populated cities in the U.S.

      It’s time to quit holding up Chicago as part of our narrative that gun control doesn’t work, because Chicago doesn’t fit the narrative.

      1. avatar Mark N. says:

        +1. It used to be, but it ain’t no more.

      2. avatar MDH says:

        Chicago is what it is, Curtis. Glad you are making progress in IL.

  12. avatar Ogre says:

    Don’t tell anybody, but reenactors own a lot of muzzleloading artillery that can still turn people into hamburger at effective ranges out to a mile or more, if loaded with the right ammunition. None of this is regulated. One of my friends owns a replica 18th c. 3-pounder battalion gun. It weighs about 1,000 pounds and requires a crew of four to drag it around (we usually don’t have a horse), but one person can successfully load and fire it if necessary – just takes longer. Effective range: 800 yards against formations of troops. Point blank range is 100 yards. Shot choices included solid iron shot, grape shot and case shot (both of which act like buckshot against attacking forces). Only disadvantages are slow rate of fire (3-4 shots per minute if the crew is properly trained), the black powder propellant, the smoke from which gives away the gun’s position, and they are difficult to operate in wet weather. Cost for the gun: Somewhere south of $5k, depending where one gets the cannon tube and who makes the carriage. In other words, people can afford them if they want one. When they made the movie “Gettysburg,” they assembled over 100 reenactor-owned cannons (6 and 12-pounders), and they fired about 90 of them in battalion for the Pickett’s Charge scenes. I’m told they could hear the rumbling in Philadelphia. I’m not bringing this up because I think people are going resist crime or the government with such implements – actually, that’s pretty far-fetched. But it is an example of some of the unregulated stuff that’s legally out there in private hands which would make lefty libprogs’ heads explode if they knew it.

    1. avatar Drake_Burrwood says:

      Shhhhhh…….. Ac..Grapshot..hooo…

  13. avatar John says:

    We don’t know if any of the firearms reportedly found in the room were even fired. Did anyone actually use a bumpstock?

    There has been no definitive statement by law enforcement what rifles were used, what caliber was fired, how many rounds, or from what locations. We don’t even know for sure that the announced perp, now conveniently deceased, was involved in any way. (other than as a crime scene prop, anyway) No evidence has been presented that he carried any of that stuff up to the room, even.

    And the author wants me to support back door banning a range toy? Does that mean I have to support judicial back door banning anything he doesn’t like? Anything and everything that anyone expresses a passionate dislike for? That path leads to banning everything.

    1. avatar Xanthro says:

      Did anyone actually use a bumpstock?
      —————————————————-
      On one of the videos I’ve seen, it’s pretty clear that either a bumpstock or mechanical trigger pull was used. The rate of fire is too low to be full auto, and too consistent between shots to be bumpfire technique.
      Bumpfire technique the rate of fire tends to increase as the sweet spot is locked in, a bumpfire stock has a very distinctive gap between rounds, as it’s the same travel every round.

  14. avatar MarkPA says:

    Let’s suppose that all the arguments posted above are TRUE, and plainly so. WE see things so clearly.

    Nevertheless, at the same time, the arguments don’t fit in a 140 character Twitter message. Therefore, by definition, the arguments will fail to register with the uncommitted voter.

    The simplest and most straight-forward argument is the one – if any – that might prevail. That argument is – I think – that “bump-fire” devices are so easy to make that it is futile to attempt to regulate or ban them. Anyone committed to mass murder will have no difficulty making or finding a bump-fire device. How can we gun-control belt loops or rubber-bands?

    1. avatar Justin h says:

      The government did ban 14 inches of string and a keyring as a device to build auto fire on a gun.

  15. avatar PeterK says:

    I’ve been wanting a cannon actually.

    Not for home defense mind. But then, what I do with my cannon doesn’t concern you.

    1. avatar Gralnok says:

      I wouldn’t mind having a cannon on the back of my car. No more tailgaters!

    2. avatar Mark N. says:

      For years I’ve wanted to park a Civil War cannon under the oak tree at the corner of my lot. Light it off on July 4 and New Year’s Eve (no projectile, just a pound or two of powder and a wad.)

  16. avatar Nanashi says:

    Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American

    1. avatar Jim Bullock says:

      ^This^

  17. avatar Ralph says:

    Odd, isn’t it, that the same people who claim that 2A applies to muskets also claim that it doesn’t apply to cannons and barrels of gunpowder.

    Yet the battles of Lexington and Concord were fought over a cannon and barrels of gunpowder.

  18. avatar skiff says:

    Rhode Island Battery B reenactors brought the cannon that is displayed in the State House to Gettysburg for the filming of the movie.

  19. avatar tmm says:

    Yea, I reject his initial premise, and that’s just for starters.

  20. avatar Jim Macklin says:

    ” Rapid-fire capability isn’t protected by the Second Amendment”

    Nothing else need be known, this idiot writes for the Chicago Tribune.

  21. avatar Mark says:

    I thought one of these might be fun a few years back. Then why would I need this what a waste of ammo.
    Now I am seriously thinking about it again and getting another gun for it.

Write a Comment

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

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email