The effort to ban bump fire stocks will not be good for gun rights.

Reader JP writes:

I don’t particularly care for bump fire stocks. They’re silly, waste expensive ammo, decrease control and accuracy, and have absolutely no practical purpose. That said, their existence and legality cause no harm to me so I refuse to sit while they’re demonized and regulated.

Now the NRA and other pro gun rights groups as well as several manufacturers have come out in favor of regulation (and therefore legislation, as much as they might claim otherwise). They’re signalling to squishy Republicans and blue dog democrats that it’s OK to pursue such, and so now we have a Republican-sponsored bill in the House that’s so poorly worded that I fear for the future of gun rights.

The bill states that any device that increases the rate of fire of a semi auto rifle is illegal to either own or produce. Since words mean things, if you go by this language, it actually wouldn’t affect anything at all. Because rate of fire on a semi auto rifle is mechanically limited by how fast the gun can cycle. Nothing can change it short of changing the gas system or spring weights etc… Certainly no external device could affect it.

However the intent of the law is clear, and if the intent of the law is how it’s applied, it will lead to serious trouble for gun owners. Not only bump stocks, but binary triggers, crank triggers, and even basic lighter competition-style triggers could be outlawed because they’re modifications that let you pull the trigger faster.

Want to take your gun to your favorite gunsmith and have him install a 4.5lb spring to replace your 8lb stock trigger? Illegal. Have him stone the surfaces for a smooth even break? Illegal. And our champions of gun rights have given lawmakers carte blanche to do it.

But really this is just the tip of the iceberg. Already there are videos out there with guys good enough to outrun bump fire stocks. So what happens when the other side points out that since a semi-automatic firearms can fire that fast without any aid, obviously semi-autos are the real problem?

What’s more, they’d be right, and our side won’t have an argument to counter them (aside from the Second Amendment, but since when have they ever cared about that?). And that’s because we’ve already ceded the position that bump stocks are bad.

I’m not one to panic over possible legislation, but I dont see this going anywhere good. There are entirely too many supposed “good guys” in Congress who only vote our way because they rightly fear the political wrath of their constituents and our lobbying groups, and we’re voluntarily giving them permission to leave the reservation and join their buddies on the other side of the isle.

Forgive my pessimism, but I don’t see how this ends in a net win for freedom.

81 Responses to Reader: We’ve Painted Ourselves Into A Corner on Bump Fire Regulation and More Gun Control

  1. I agree with JP and still have no idea why NRA caved so early on the “bump fire” conversation. Since they are not in the business of regulating anything, why would they suggest a certain product SHOULD be regulated? Additionally, before NRA opened their mouth, the anti’s were all but beaten. Sure, they leaped on the Vegas shooting to push their agenda but it had the feel of just going through the motions. Many of them freely admitted that “nothing will happen” because of the big bad gun lobby. Now however, they are emboldened by NRA’s backward step.

    JP is also right when he says that “squishy” republicans took NRA’s statement as a green light to come out in favor of regulation. Now the dems and grabbers are full of life going after bumpstocks, hi cap magazines and, of course, universal background checks.

    I’m still with NRA but can we get back to a “not one inch” philosophy?

    • When an article or a person starts with what amounts to, “I’m a gun owner, but I support gun control…” you know the article or comment is bullshit.

      But still a fun read or listen too just to see the amount of mental-midget gymnastics s/he needs to pretend that subverting the 2nd Amendment is constitutional…Someone who simultaneously applauds the NRA for defending the 2nd Amendment and denounces the 2nd Amendment advocates for opposing infringements on the people’s right to bear arms is not someone that anyone should take seriously, but they are a dangerous breed as many anti-2nd Amendment hoplophobic people might just listen to them — none-the-less they truly are a confused individual.

      Then again, the NRA is itself has long stolen money from Americans while it pretended to be an advocate for the 2nd Amendment, yet was the author for every unconstitutional federal law and many of the unconstitutional state/local laws in America.

      So while the person might be a gun owner (self-admitted, but with no empirical proof, it’s just a statement akin to a wolf in a sheep’s clothing) they do nothing that would lead one to believe that they advocate for the 2nd Amendment.

      they are talking about disarming… using Orwellian double speak language, they rarely ever state outright that’s what they’re doing, as the majority of the public is against bans
      http://criterionbarrels.com/media/hr3999-to-ban-more-than-bumpfire-stocks-instead-serves-as-backdoor-semiautomatic-rifle-ban

      So aside from the shooter(s) (at a minimum Stephen Paddock) , the only other people with any culpability for the loss of life at the concert are the government officials that passed unconstitutional laws, and the people who enforced these unconstitutional laws along with the hotel that disarmed the people (understanding its private property, so it’s their call on what they will allow inside, but by denying everyone the opportunity for self defense options they take full liability and responsibility for the safety of their property and the people within to prevent it’s usages in criminal activity) especially with disarming their 2 employees(unarmed Security Guard Jesus Campos, and Maintenance Worker Stephen Schuck), Campos who responded even before the shooting began…either of these 2 employees with a gun could have made a difference, instead of waiting 46 minutes for police to arrive and then another 24 minutes before the LEO’s did anything.

      The NRA support gun control for much of the 20th century, its leadership in fact lobbied for and authored gun control legislation, 90 years of authoring the very unconstitutional federal laws that they claim to advocate against,
      > 1920s, the National Revolver Association, the arm of the NRA responsible for handgun training, proposed regulations later adopted by nine states, requiring a permit to carry a concealed weapon, five years additional prison time if the gun was used in a crime, a ban on gun sales to non-citizens, a one day waiting period between the purchase and receipt of a gun, and that records of gun sales be made available to police.

      > NRA assisted Roosevelt in drafting the 1934 National Firearms Act and the 1938 Gun Control Act, the first federal gun control laws. These laws placed heavy taxes and regulation requirements on firearms that were associated with crime, such as machine guns, sawed-off shotguns and silencers. Gun sellers and owners were required to register with the federal government and felons were banned from owning weapons. Going so far as to testify before Congress, Karl T. Frederick, the president of the NRA, testified before Congress stating, “I have never believed in the general practice of carrying weapons. I do not believe in the general promiscuous toting of guns. I think it should be sharply restricted and only under licenses.”

      > Gun Control Act of 1968, was advocated by the NRA, with NRA Executive Vice-President Franklin Orth going before Congress and testifying. The NRA, however, blocked the most stringent part of the legislation, which mandated a national registry of all guns and a license for all gun carriers.

      > NRA also supported California’s Mulford Act of 1967, which had banned carrying loaded weapons in public in response to the Black Panther Party’s impromptu march on the State Capitol to protest gun control legislation on May 2, 1967.

      • That was a lot of words. But, quick question, to what are you referring? The article above doesn’t say any of the things you’re arguing against. Your argument isn’t wrong, but its not about this article.

        • sorry left out some of the context – in my head not in the comment. I was replying to Paul – to treat the statement equally and much like when the anti’s come out claiming that they are a gun owner, but totally think its ok to violate and ignore the 2nd Amendment, I treat the NRA much the sameway, sometimes they happen to agree with my position, but mostly they exist to steal money from gun-owners and then use that money to fund more unconstitutional laws infringing on the 2nd amendment

      • “none-the-less they truly are a confused individual.”******** CHL holder here, and a with safe full of guns, but if morons continue their attempt to circumvent the 1934 Fire Arms Act, turning a semi-auto into a full auto, the shit will not end well for any of us. Bumpstocks are useless POS, but in fact may offer an advantage to the NRA to secure 2A rights. Just MHO….

        • How is the law being circumvented? Are they filing down the firing pin? Stick with FACTS Tom or we will lose. If you will, allow me to make an assumption. You probably have said and used the term “loophole” to describe a piece of legislation you didn’t understand. I bet you think the bump fire is a loophole. Ask yourself, did it go to lawschool? Of corse it didn’t. It’s just a piece of plastic that follows the law of physics.

          Personally, I think the 1934 NFA law needs to be eliminated. Your worried about people circumventing it, well we better preemptively ban hacksaws so there are no chance of a shotgun having a shorter than 18” barrel. Oh wait, Mossberg and Remington make a legal short barrel shotgun now don’t they? The law didn’t change so why is the Mossberg Shockwave all in a sudden legal? Because it took that long for someone to actually sit down and read the law and think what does it mean.

          Don’t jump to a quick conclusion, step back, breath, and ask what are the facts?

        • Apparently they’re not as “useless” as you claim. We can point to the mass shooting in Las Vegas to debunk that claim.

    • Let’s just make it simple instead of all lawyerly. If this device is covered by a patent, pass a law that says that you can’t use it and it is covered as a civil forfeiture of say $50 and surrendering of the patented device. That way everybody can claim they “did something” without trampling on our concerns. Having done something, this will go away.

    • How many times has the NRA been bashed because they didn’t make a statement sooner after a horrific tragedy? Now they make a statement, and it’s totally fvcking wrong, inviting the ATF to infringe. At this point, if you’re not a abosolutist, than GTFO.

    • The NRA’s position is realpolitik. Assigning the problem to ATF “deliberation” removes the “bump-stock issue” from the congressional political arena where laws are being proposed which will put government in control of trigger design. We do not want laws which puts gun-controllers in charge of the basic design of guns.

      • You seem not to understand that congress and senate can demand the president order ATF to review whatever congress wants, but such review slows down/stops no legislation.

  2. That’s why you never give a tent of an inch, ANY Republican senatirs, house reps willing to trample eith tge 2nd Ammentment needs to be voted out, any gun manufacturer, accessories included (La Rue Tactical) willing to play politics with the 2nd A, we should stop doing bussines with them.
    JV.

  3. Ultimately, there is only one place where gun control could lead in the United States and that is to civil war.

    • This is true. Unfortunately to get there we’ll have to go through even more restrictions and legal constraints until finally they pass the ultimate gun ban and start confiscation. Full auto weapons will go first, of course, followed by “black guns” and “sniper rifles”, and then any non-bolt action rifle, and then semi-auto pistols. Revolvers will probably be last.

      The only way they can do that is get enough Supreme Court justices to agree that the 2A doesn’t mean what it says. They already have a number of justices who do believe that. It’s only a matter of time before the ones who believe in the 2A retire and are replaced by worse justices.

      The actual confiscation will never work, fortunately. Even with door-to-door searches, they’ll miss a minimum of ten percent and likely as high as thirty percent of private firearms. That will leave between 40 and 120 million firearms still in private hands. More than enough to enable the insurgency.

      But no insurgency will work until we get the support of the bulk of the population. Fortunately during the same period when they’re incrementally banning firearms, they will also incrementally be ticking off the rest of the population on matters of the economy, privacy, police brutality, etc. So we might have more support than expected.

      • “until finally they pass the ultimate gun ban and start confiscation.”

        Is that “the bright red line”? Is that when the third revolution begins? Is that the marker that a rogue government has finally gone rogue? After 200 years of watching the nation decompose from what the founders intended, it confiscation the third rail? Is that when we see the skirmishes, the hit and run, the area denial tactics?

        Or is there that one, final, we really mean it degradation after confiscation, that sets it all off?

    • Civil war? What civil War? Did Californians or New Yorkers rise up against their laws, which are all but closing down on these things? Or MA, with their ban? There won’t be a civil war. It’ll die with a whimper. Granted, I will die along with it, because of the oath I took, but be real-it isn’t gonna be a civil war. Once they point guns at families, people will give up their guns. for the most part.

      • At least in CT and NY, if you do the math on the numbers they have, the level of non compliance is huge. That’s peaceful civil disobedience. AT least in NY, some of their local assembly/senate started talking about door to door inspection and confiscation because the numbers proved there was criminal non-compliance going on. The sheriffs said hell no, we won’t do it. Some political brasshole in the state police said we will, and publicly it’s not clear what that resulted in, but he walked that talk back very shortly thereafter.

        So yeah, from both sides there is a perception that once the door kicking begins all bets are off. I suspect even to the non-gun owners, the swat teams coming down the block kicking in your neighbors door and insisting you let them in to inspect will go over super awesome.

  4. Agreed. Bump stocks are a silly un-accurate novelty item. However, give them an inch…

    No means no. No gun law could have prevented this short of total confiscation. Even some on the left have recognised this.
    So, banning these is nothing short if feel good cap for the scardy pee pants people.

    As with all rights like them or not it doesn’t matter. Rights are not as Facebook like and dislikes are. They simply are and we can’t give away anymore than we already have.

    • I disagree that bump-stocks are silly, a “novelty”, or have no practical purpose. If a rip crew of four or more attackers are rushing me, a bump-fire stock could literally be the difference between me surviving and perishing. Bump-fire stocks could also be an exceptionally useful feature in close-quarters combat or trench warfare.

        • So can the Ar15, m1a, mini 14, mini 30, ak47 and any other semi if you take an hour of range time and practice

        • Agree. Point of my comment being bumpfire accessories are not required.

          Of course, knowing a plastic device is unnecessary for rapid fire only puts the spotlight on the fact all semi-automatic guns are scary, dangerous, designed to kill multiple people in the quickest time possible (because of their clipazines, thingies in the back that go up, and and semi-autos can shoot 100 bullets in a single second), have no real use in hunting, go off if they are jostled, are easy for kids to find, are the tool for thousands of killings every day, and no one with any common sense would let their daughter marry one.

    • Do they still want the ATF to creatively reinterpret the law and ban them by administrative fiat? That’s just as bad, maybe even worse.

    • Please re-read the linked article. Even the NRA is becoming adept at playing liberal/leftist/statist word games.

      The NRA does not oppose to regulating or banning bumpfire type accessories. What NRA DOES oppose is legislation banning bumpfire, AND including the broad legislation that would apply to any semi-automatic gun. Split bumpfire accessories from the rest of the cleverly worded legislation, and NRA would support a bumpfire accessory ban (called “regulation”).

        • Enacted legislation is “law”. The words of implementation are “regulation”.

          Ex:
          Legislation: The EPA is directed to establish all necessary support to ensure wildfires cannot burn more than two minutes, in any location.”

          Regulation: No persons, products, establishments, structures, roadways, signs, machines or manufactured items may be introduced into any area designed by the EPA as a “Protected Forest”.

          Legislation permits regulations to be drawn up (without need of congressional review in many cases). Regulations permit government to manage every detail of your life.

    • The question now is whether the NRA, having half-assed themselves in both directions, will commit to threatening Congressmen with enough force to get them to not ban these devices.

      Because as it stands, the NRA has already compromised itself by adopting a weak position. While the public may not know that the ATF has already reviewed bump fire devices twice, the public can not be the target of the NRA. Legislators have to be. The Feinstein bill is a disaster waiting to happen and unless legislators can be convinced the NRA will kill their careers, it will pass. Urging the ATF to review bump fire devices is dangerous as it’s likely the agency will be pressured to reverse their earlier decisions. That alone will open the door to worse regulation in the future.

      At least when talking to legislators, the NRA has to completely reverse its stance, not just ask the ATF to review the devices.

    • That means that they were having enough members cancel that they’re backtracking. Good, let them keep losing members, no matter how the vote goes. They’ve betrayed us time after time and they need to be replaced.

  5. It’s time for a change in leadership of the NRA. The present leader Wayne LaPierre has been there too long.
    Time for a change!

  6. The NRA’s initial statements have already done damage. Time for LaPierre to move on. Here in VA the Republican gubernatorial candidate has joined the BAN wagon . I won’t vote for the other idiot, but I won’t vote for him either – and I’m not alone. He probably just handed the Commonwealth over to the Dem candidate.

  7. Quite often, firearms owners are their own worst enemies. The duck hunters don’t like the AR-15 “black rifles” so they see no problem if attempts are made to ban them. The traditional rifle owners don’t like machine guns, so they have no problem with them being legislated out of existence. Some pistol owners see nothing wrong with certain long guns being outlawed just as some rifle owners would have no problem seeing pistols banned. Now it has degenerated into banning “bump-fire” stocks…
    Friends, ALL firearms advocates must “hang together” and realize that an assault on ANY means of firearms ownership and self-defense is an assault on ALL forms of firearms ownership and self-defense.
    There is absolutely NO ROOM for complacency among ANY Second Amendment supporters. An attack on one is an attack on ALL…
    ALL firearms laws are unconstitutional on their face. Imagine the hue and cry if “reasonable” restrictions were placed on First Amendment activities, especially with the “mainstream media”. The Second Amendment is clear–what part of “shall not be infringed” do politicians and the media not understand…of course, they understand full well…it’s part of their communist agenda…

  8. If the ATF reverses itself on bump stocks the makers will likely sue and in the current state of the Supreme Court, likely win. Still a poor idea for NRA to try to get them to review and outlaw.

    • $1 Million to beat your way back to zero ? ? ?

      No Fing thank you.

      If bump / slide fire is regulated, you make the other side sue for peace. And their Articles of Armistice better recite that they leave office immediately and go home (not even taking a single FING keyboard key [LIKE THE CLINTONS]).

      If they go home quietly, and quick/fast/and in a hurry, you let them, but they’ll carry the scarlet letters “POS”. If they don’t, then use your slide fire (for ‘fun’ in between your constrained and effective fire).

  9. If legal civilian ownership and making of machine guns had not been cut off in 1986, there would have been no need for “bump-fire” stocks…
    Let’s face it…(simulated) full-automatic fire is FUN! (Expensive, but FUN!). When unreasonable rules and laws are put into place, humans will find a way around them.
    Repeal the Lautenberg amendment and you will see “bump-fire” stocks go away…

    • When you need to lay down covering fire against your government, that doesn’t surrender to your 2nd Paragraph of the Declaration of Independence throwing-off of them to establish new guards for your security, you’ll need arms at least in parity with your government, if you cannot achieve overmatch.

      FURTHER: That would be the WRONG time to have to ASK that same government for the means to throw them out. That’s why they are attempting to clamp down so hard on ‘arms’ now.

      SAVE BUMP-FIRE FOR THE END OF AMERICA.

    • ‘Repeal the Lautenberg amendment and you will see “bump-fire” stocks go away…’

      I think you mean the Hughs Amendment. The Lautenberg Amendment banned people with misdemeanor domestic abuse convictions from owning gu ns.

    • The government might have cut off civilian legal “transferable” M-16’s in May of 1986 but don’t think for a minute that there are not many out there who have an AR stashed away that has the third hole drilled in just the right place with a full-auto trigger installed. If some sort of civil war 2.0 or meltdown against the leftists happened all these would get dusted off quickly and would be put to good use. Don’t think that the .gov isn’t aware of this…they probably have projections on what they are up against which is why you see the big push for gun control and slow creep to ban semi-autos. We either fight this now or it is going to get nasty in a hurry. As gun owners we have to ask ourselves where the red line is drawn. At what point do you say enough is enough and turn to the cartridge box. Are you willing to die for your beliefs? We aren’t there yet but it could happen. When is does things will quickly go to shit. Be ready, be vigilant.

  10. “What’s more, they’d be right,” FU, no they wouldn’t.

    And we’re not putting up with any (much less more) regulation.

    Their titties can stay twisted, their dumb asses can’t protect sh_t, so they have to exercise their demons by pounding full-body-weight handfuls of salt.

    F the NRA for even looking like they’d give an inch before burning down the world. F all saps that are sticking with them. You will hold your manhood cheap.

  11. I’m thinking that since we’ve already practically field dressed the bump-stock for the grabbers, we should maybe think about a trade off. For instance getting suppressors off the NFA list. I’d prefer national reciprocity, but I think the other side would rather let us have our bump-stocks.

    • The only trade remotely worth it is reopening the registry. If they were trading for anything they’d have introduced the bill already.

    • You can get off fantasy island now because it isn’t happening. They aren’t offering us anything so deal with the reality of the situation.

      Either we fight this tooth and nail or semi-auto’s will be regulated out of existence with the vagueness of this law. You know damn well ATF will abuse the hell out of it.

      • Who said that Democrats had offered anything? The Republicans seem to be a few votes short of taking suppressors off the NFA list. All they’d have to do is pick off a handful of Democrats willing to compromise. I’m just saying draw a line in the sand and say we’re not giving anything up unless we get something back. Get this done and over with before they realize how lame the bump-fire stocks are. Remember, someday the Demoncrats will be back in power and next time instead of ruining our healthcare system they may go after the 2A.

        Of course, first we need new leadership in the GOP.

    • “If the antis weren’t after bump stocks they’d be after 100-round magazines.”

      The antis were JUST AFTER A ‘WIN’. AND THE STUPID POS NRA / LARUE / DUMBASS WORTHLESS (R) HANDED THEM ONE.

      IT WAS AN UNFORCED ERROR.

      THE LV SHOOTING IS NOT ON US, IT’S ON THEM. QUIT ACTING LIKE WE OWE ANYONE AN APOLOGY.

      I’M SORRY FOR THE PEOPLE KILLED OR WOUNDED IN LV, BUT IT’S THE PRODUCT OF THE POS (D) AND OUR GOVERNMENT, CREATING THE SHOOTER, THE CLIMATE FOR THE ATTACK, AND THE VENUE.

    • I read Adams piece. Most of his post was devoted to trying to destroy the arguments we’ve been using AGAINST the anti-gun crowd.

      He ends up agreeing that only ONE argument is correct – that the 2A was intended to enable the citizenry to defend against an oppressive government. While he is correct about the 2A purpose, the rest of his arguments aren’t. He basically accepts EVERY ONE of the anti-gun crowd arguments.

      And it would take five minutes for the anti-gun crowd to recite their reasons why the 2A doesn’t mean what it says. And no matter how illogical those reasons will be, they will work with the public.

      So Adams is basically another trojan horse with his “I’m pro-gun, BUT…” arguments.

      The hell with him.

      • Yeah, he went full retard. He likes the idea of freedom, but he’s too much of a sniveling coward to support it because “guns are scary”.

  12. It was just ‘reported’ ? that the Jesus Campos Mandalay security guard wasn’t a registered guard in the state of NV. What kind of F’d up on purpose 1984 Cr_p is this?

    DID THE SHOOTING IN LV EVEN HAPPEN ?

    WHO IS JOHN GALT ?

  13. The NRA done screwed the pooch. The first rule of negotiation is “Never give up anything for free”! You want bump stocks banned? What will you give me for it? National reciprocity? Silencers off the NFA list? Re-open the NFA registry to new machine-guns? Pick one! Compromise is a form of trade, it is not stealing my wallet, and being pissed cause you only got half my money.

    • ^^^^ THIS. We need to out voice the leftist communist scum. We have power. Let’s do this. If only all 100 million gun owners united. We would fucking destroy the left once and for all.

  14. Regulating firearms based on rate of fire could maybe possibly lead to regulating how fast a civilian firearm can cycle.
    I think we know where that leads.

    I think Mr. Paddock’ s intent may have been to create an event that will lead to the biggest restrictions on guns since ever.

    Don’t think he was pro 2a because he had a sizeable collection. It’s entirely possible this was the result he was looking for. Certainly the brother and girlfriend are not about to give the game away. They are following a very careful protocol if play I g dumb.

    This is how the other side pulls off an upset win.

    • “It’s entirely possible this was the result he was looking for.”

      plausible; probable.

      i’ve seen it put forth (nami feed) that he was not too well monitored on his prescription benzo intake. fueled with alcohol it gets ugly quickly. i know i don’t like being around “them” “then.”

  15. I have sent two messages recently. One to TTAG regarding the whole Feinstein Bill that the bill as written could mean that you can’t put more than one cartridge in a magazine as if you put two it increases the rate of fire.
    The other message to the NRA was as follows as I could not seem to comment through a survey they sent out.

    Being this seems to be the only way to comment on the Bumpfire stock issue, as a life member I find it appalling that the NRA would endorse regulations on a device that was never used untile the recent criminal act. I will not be contributing any additional funds to the NRA until you drop your support of “regulating such devises.” My opinion of the current Bill by Senator Feinstein is that this bill could ban any device that can be attached to a semi-auto including a magazine. I’m sure no one will read this and I won’t receive any comment that will appease my current disgust with the NRA.

  16. between obamas atf signing off on bump stocks multiple times and no less than dianne feinstein admitting that no law would have stopped the las vegas massacre this whole thing would have been in the bag game over man game over until the nra and people like johannes paulsen had to open their big mouths and ruin everything

    its because of sunny day patriots like them not democrats that we cant have nice things

    democrats are going to do what democrats are going to do i expect that

    what i cant abide is people who claim to be on our side and fancy themselves and their 2nd amendment right as defenders of the republic against all enemies foreign and domestic but somehow just miserably failed to prove their ability to show any backbone on anything of any significance at the first sign of trouble on something that seemingly was an open and shut case to most gun owners

    THAT is as much if not more worrisome than how many politicians in washington dc have an r after their name

    it would be interesting to see how many anti bump stockers turned out to be anti and never trumpers as well

    • If they were just throwing it back to the ATF for a decision (“Yep, we looked again and it still meets the letter of the law and is still legal”), that would be one thing. But as I noted in my posting below, it sounds like there is a letter floating around that GOP Representatives are being asked to sign that urges the ATF to “reverse their 2010 ruling that allowed the sale of bump stocks”. Which is a horrible, dangerous precedent to set.

  17. “We” Keymosabi?!? My suggestion was do NOTHING. Like after Sandy Hook. Never willingly give up a damn thing😡😡😡😡😡

  18. I pretty much believe you are spot on. However, I will add that “politicians voting to avoid the wrath of their constituents” is exactly what they are supposed to do. they are supposed to represent their constituents, not vote otherwise.

  19. As a CA resident, my Senators are a lost cause. But I checked the website for my Congressman and found the following statement on “Gun Policy”:

    “I have long been a strong supporter of Second Amendment rights and I will never waiver from that commitment. However, it is incumbent on all of us to reflect on our current gun laws and seek to better protect ourselves and each other.

    “There are steps that both the Executive and the Congress can take to protect innocent Americans from an attack such as Las Vegas. There is simply no reason for someone to be able to modify a legal weapon to shoot like a machine gun. Bump stocks should never have been made legal and we must act quickly to ban them. I have agreed to sign a letter urging the ATF to reverse their 2010 ruling that allowed the sale of bump stocks and I am working with a number of Republicans and Democrats on a potential legislative solution as well.

    “Protecting the rights of law-abiding American citizens while providing for the safety of our communities are not mutually exclusive goals.”

    This is WRONG WRONG WRONG. So I just fired off the following email:

    Dear Congressman X,

    I have read your statement on gun policy following the Las Vegas shooting and I must respectfully, but strongly, disagree with your stance. While the Las Vegas shooting was a horrible tragedy, the current stampede to outlaw or ban “bump fire stocks” is bad policy, would not have eliminated to reduced the impact of the Las Vegas shooting, and has the potential for extremely dire consequences for the Second Amendment and gun ownership in this country.

    First of all, the ATF has already has ruled, CORRECTLY, on these devices. While they may increase the rate of fire, they do not actually modify a semi-automatic firearm into an automatic firearm, and ARE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE CURRENT LAW AS WRITTEN, based on the “one trigger pull, one round fired” rule. What you are asking them to do is go back and “re-interpret” the law with a particular outcome in mind, which is a very dangerous thing to allow any government agency to do. Once you have opened this particular door, there is absolutely nothing stopping them from going back and “re-interpreting” a lot of other decisions, all based on whatever the prevailing political opinion or climate happens to be at the moment.

    Regarding legislative action to ban “bump fire stocks”, I note that both the current House and Senate versions are focused primarily on “rate of fire” and are worded to ban anything that would increase the rate of fire of a semi-automatic firearm. So please tell me, what then is the correct and legal rate of fire for a given semi-automatic firearm? Every semi-automatic firearm already has a unique and maximum rate of fire based on mechanical limitations (e.g. gas piston systems, recoil springs, etc.) in the design and manufacture. Even a bump fire stock will not allow a firearm to exceed it’s own inherent mechanical limitation. And note too that, with enough practice, people can train themselves to simply pull the trigger faster, increasing the rate of fire to match and in some cases exceed that of bump fire stocks. Are we going to ban fingers as well? Are we also going to ban any hardware changes (e.g. triggers or springs) or gunsmithing (e.g. sanding or stoning to allow smoother trigger pulls) that would allow the owner to increase, no matter how slightly, the firearm’s rate of fire? And most worrisome, what’s to stop future politicians (and government agencies) from arbitrarily deciding that a semi-automatic firearm that can be made to fire ALMOST as fast as an automatic firearm is simply too dangerous for the average American to possess? This is the inevitable end of this particular slippery slope that is being setup. And if you support legislation banning a “rate of fire increase”, how do can disagree with this logic?

    And please note too that these restrictions would apply to handguns just as much as rifles, which means you are potentially giving anti-gun rights supporters all the tools they need to eventually outlaw all semi-automatic firearms.

    While I have never been a single-issue voter, this potential assault on the second amendment has far-reaching implications on every other right we have. It is often said (correctly, in my humble opinion) that the right to keep and bear arms protects all of our other rights as well. While I am in no way a believer of conspiracy theories, based on the track record of the US government over the past decade and their increasing intrusion on the civil liberties of the American people (e.g. Patriot Act, IRS attacks on conservative groups, Operation Fast and Furious, NSA data mining and collection on all Americans, and many, many more), it is really not that far-fetched or outlandish to believe (and fear) that there may be a need at some future point for Americans to take up arms to defend their lives and civil liberties from a tyrannical government and political system. Which you and your fellow members of Congress are setting up a process to take away.

    I have been a firm supporter of you for the past several election cycles and am hoping to continue my support. However, if you proceed with your support of ATF “reinterpretation” of bump fire stocks and support of ANY legislation to ban, restrict or outlaw the same, I’m afraid my support for you ends at that point. I cannot in good conscience vote for and support a Congressman who would lend his support to actions with such far-reaching and negative impact on our Second Amendment rights.

    I sincerely hope you do the right thing.

    Respectfully yours,

    Dave in SoCal

    Carrot and Stick. Hopefully he gets a similar earful from the many other gun owners in the mostly Conservative county we live in. We’ll see.

  20. I have been asked by a number of fence-sitters about bump stocks. What I tell them is that I am very thankful that this idiot used one. They are a “range toy” gimmick that, while it is a lot of fun for spending money made him WILDLY less accurate and lowered the body count from what it could have potentially been if he had just calmly shot anything without a bump stock. Some walk away confused, some continue the conversation out of genuine desire for education.

  21. No longer an NRA member. There’s a gun lobby and there’s an anti-gun lobby. Both sides have billions so why do I need to donate to someone who has that amount of money and sends me junk mail to my house that I cant get them to stop sending.
    If they stopped mailing all that crap they would save millions and a lot of trees also.

  22. “Nothing can change it short of changing the gas system or spring weights etc…”

    So this law will eventually be read to outlaw aftermarket gas systems and spring weights.

  23. Good read, Josh. …
    Next thing will be big brother telling us it’s illegal to hook a belt loop and do the twisted fingers trick to achieve the same rate of fire as a bumpstock.

  24. Actually, I wonder if the NRA’s statement has been misinterpreted.

    “The NRA believes that devices designed to allow semi-automatic rifles to function like fully-automatic rifles should be subject to additional regulations.”

    Nowhere do they say or imply that bump stocks actually allow semi-autos to function like full-autos – and they don’t, as the law currently defines it. Their statement, taken literally, seems to be “enforce existing law.”

    I wonder if everybody is getting worked up over a non-statement.

    • “Nowhere do they say or imply that bump stocks actually allow semi-autos to function like full-autos ”

      In political speech, there is no real difference between “converts to full-auto”, and “function like full-auto”. Only someone with decent knowledge of firearms, semi-automatic firearms, and full-auto firearms would perceive there is a meaningful differential between full-auto and “like full-auto”. For the headlines, full-auto and “function like” is not worth the time to discuss. “Function like” means really, really fast, and that easily translates into “same as”, which translated into “full-auto”.

      Variations on “anti-gunners do not know what they are talking about” are useless as a defense against encroachment.

  25. And here it is: “New Bipartisan Bump Stock Bill Would Actually Ban All Semi-Automatic Rifles”

    http://thefederalist.com/2017/10/13/new-bipartisan-bump-stock-bill-would-actually-ban-all-semi-automatic-weapons/

    “A new gun control proposal in Congress that is being pitched as a bipartisan bump stock ban would actually ban all semi-automatic rifles in the United States, according to an analysis of the proposed bill.

    The legislation, which was drafted by Rep. Carlos Curbelo, a Florida Republican, never bans bump stocks by name. Instead, the proposal bans any person from possessing or making any part that could be used to increase the rate of fire in any semi-automatic rifle … At no point does the proposed legislation specify a base rate of fire against which any illegal increases would be judged, a potentially fatal flaw in the bill’s drafting. As a result, the proposal arguably institutes a federal ban on any and all parts that would allow the gun to fire at all, since the mere ability to fire a semi-automatic weapon by definition increases its rate of fire from zero.”

    Bravo, Republicans! Well done! Yet again, you demonstrate why the GOP is known as “The Stupid Party”.

Leave a Reply

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