List of States and Cities That Ban/Want to Ban Bump Fire Stocks. Is Your State on This List?

The Demoncrats in Missouri wanted to be the last state in the country without ‘civilian’ concealed carry.
They almost succeeded.
It’s not surprising that a Kansas City Demoncrat (Richard Brown) wants to ban a sliding piece of plastic.

NM isn’t as much of a surprise as you’d think. Santa Fe (state capital) is kinda like Santa Cruz (CA) in the desert.

This sort of thing happens pretty much every legislative session, but as this is a budget session the governor has to invite the bill to be heard. I’m going to write to her requesting she not. Writing my rep will be useless, as she’s a bought-and-paid-for Bloomberger D.

Something tells me with Obamagate ready to burst wide open, the Leftists won’t really be in a position to do much of anything.

Kind of hard to pass legislation…from jail.

#releasethememo

Last time I looked, right next to MO. 8^)

Right? Illinois gun grabbers never seen a gun control bill they didn’t like. I’m surprised to see Illinois missing.

“A law unto themselves”?
Have no doubt, some do. The rest are simply being politicians. The first lesson a civics teacher of mine beat into our heads in school: “the one overriding goal of every politician is to get reeelected.”
That isn’t cynicism, it just an acknowledgement of reality. These politicians who are pushing this at a state and municipal level probably are doing so knowing full well that their laws are unconstitutional and will be overturned.
It doesn’t matter.
There are no penalties to suffer when a politician knowingly votes for or implements an unconstitutional law. They get to pass it, claim credit for it, reap the benefits of their actions with the weak-minded sheep who demanded the law, get reelected by those same sheep, and have the law thrown out by the courts with no consequences to the politicians whatsoever.
So why not ban a piece of plastic? From the politicians perspective (rule #1 Get Reelected), what could it hurt?
🤠

Very gun friendly, until your Florida weight clothing lets your handgun become visible?

I submitted a comment many weeks ago, but they never publicly displayed it yet.
It was assigned comment # 1k2-92t7-2r77
Ir was submitted as follows:

=============================

COMMENT FOR
Agency: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives
Docket No. 2017R-22
AG Order No. 4132-2018
Bump-Stock-Type Devices

1. Knee-jerk reaction is the worst method for creating of modifying rules of law.
These devices are gun safety devices as they simply allow a “firing technique” to allow for more accurate targeting.

See example of bump fire technique performed WITHOUT ANY BUMP STOCK DEVICE which fires one round for every pull of the trigger at:

2. See Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 61 at page 13442, “these devices convert an otherwise semiautomatic firearm into a machinegun by functioning as a selfacting or self-regulating mechanism that harnesses the recoil energy of the semiautomatic firearm in a manner that allows the trigger to reset and continue firing without additional physical manipulation of the trigger by the shooter.”

This claim is false.
The regulating mechanism is “manual” pressure applied by the used. That manually applied pressure is neither selfacting nor self-regulating. And “without additional physical manipulation of the trigger by the shooter” is false in that the shooter’s finger “physically manipulates the trigger for each round fired”.

3. See Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 61 at page 13442, “such devices allow a shooter of a semiautomatic firearm to initiate a continuous firing cycle with a single pull of the trigger”.

This is either false of vague.
First, that a “pull” is affected by recoil energy absorbed into a person’s body does not mean that there is not one pull for every round fired.
See example of bump fire technique performed WITHOUT ANY BUMP STOCK DEVICE which fires one round for every pull of the trigger at:

Second, the term “continuous” firing cycle is vague as “manual” movement of a finger can be “continuous”. A person can continuously manually move their finger forward and backward. In fact this describes normal firing of multiple rounds from a typical “semi-automatic” weapon.
ATF has previously used the term “automatic” firing cycle.

See Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 61 at page 13445, “ATF concluded in Ruling 2006–2 that devices exclusively designed to increase the rate of fire of semiautomatic firearms are machineguns if, “when activated by a single pull of the trigger, [such devices] initiate[] an automatic firing cycle that continues until either the finger is released or the ammunition supply is exhausted.”

The above demonstrates that the terms “automatic” and “continuous” are used interchangeably even though they are not synonymous.

See Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 61 at page 13442, ‘initiate a continuous firing cycle’
See Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 61 at page 13446, ‘initiate an “automatic[]” firing cycle’

Movement of a finger can be “continuous” through manual movement of the finger. That does not make the movement “automatic”.

4. See Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 61 at page 13442, “a semiautomatic firearm to which a bump-stock-type device is attached is able to produce automatic fire with a single pull of the trigger.”

Presumably the regulations intended use of “automatic fire” is synonymous with its use of “automatic firing cycle”. Regardless, this claim is false. There is nothing “automatic” about applying “manual” pressure. (See also point 3 above)

5. The proposed regulation would be impermissibly vague as “automatic firing cycle” would encompasses “manually” applied pressure. See Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 61 at page 13444, noting that it requires “the shooter’s maintenance of pressure”. When something is required of the shooter, it is not automatic.

True machine guns require nothing from the shooter after the trigger is pulled. Nothing required from the shooter is what “automatically” means in the GCA.

See Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 61 at page 13444, “The GCA defines ‘‘machinegun’’ by
referring to the NFA definition,2 which includes ‘‘any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.’’ 26 U.S.C. 5845(b).”

6. See Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 61 at page 13454, “As reported by public comments, this proposed rule would affect the criminal
use of bump-stock-type devices in mass shootings, such as the Las Vegas shooting incident.”

First, there is no reason to believe that criminals will not retain bump stock devices or be able to obtain them after the proposed change.
Usable bump stock devices can be printed on a 3D printer if a criminal wanted to use one.

Second, there is no solid(verified through forensics) evidence that any of these devices were “actually used” in the claimed incident.
There is some forensic audio evidence that suggests that there were either multiple shooters at that incident or else an audio recording of multiple shooters was played back on a sound system. There is also forensic audio evidence that suggest real machineguns were used.

7. See Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 61 at page 13454, “No other feasible alternatives were identified, and thus none were considered.”

The agency should not rely solely upon the public to submit feasible alternatives and if the agency could not identify the feasible alternative of exempting devices manufactured prior to enactment of the rule, then it is plainly incompetent (or corrupt) as that is the logical alternative to prevent the regulation from being both an ex post facto enactment and a constitutionally impermissible regulatory taking for lack of due process and lack of providing just compensation.

8. When results/effects of past application of a regulation’s classifications (i.e., definitions affecting what constitutes a violation of the regulation) are changed based on reclassification through a change to definitions, or interpretation, affecting what constitutes a violation of the regulation, then that is an ex post facto regulation which is violative of the Constitution’s prohibition against ex post facto laws.

9. The regulation constitutes a regulatory taking of property without any due process for providing just compensation.

See Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 61 at page 13442, “current possessors of these devices would be required to surrender them, destroy them, or otherwise render them permanently inoperable upon the effective date of the final rule.”

See also Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 61 at page 13453, “This proposed rule would require the
destruction of existing bump-stock-type devices.”

This effect of the regulation constitutes a regulatory taking. The logic is unmistakable. For example, what if – Some were found to be using outbuildings in residential areas as sex slave composts and a regulation was enacted to make all “outbuildings in residential areas” illegal and that classification(i.e., “outbuildings”) was interpreted so that one room log cabins were not considered to be outbuildings. Then, many people build/obtain one room log cabins to use as their homes. Then someone used a one room log cabin as a compost for sex slaves so it was proposed to change the interpretation or the classification of outbuildings to now include one room log cabins. If that reclassification did not also exempt all one room log cabins existing prior to the reclassification (that is, it applied retroactively to such property), then that would be not only an ex post facto law but a regulatory taking. Similarly, had the 1986 machinegun regulation not exempted all pre-enactment machineguns, that would have been ex post facto and a regulatory taking.

10. The regulations are an impermissible infringement upon the Second Amendment right of responsible law abiding citizens. Bump stock equipped arms are protected under the Second Amendment because, even based on the agencies own proposal, hundreds of thousands of them are in common use for lawful purposes including self defense. I, personally, use a bump stock device attached to a semi-automatic weapon for self defense in my home.

The question for Second Amendment protection is not “have any of that type of arm been used for unlawful purposes?” but rather “are those type of arms in common use for lawful purposes?” If it were otherwise, then all handguns could be banned (and nearly every other type of arms as well).

Based on the regulations summary and current Supreme Court precedent, bump stock devices are protected by the Second Amendment.

See Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 61 at page 13451, “Low estimate […] 280,000”.

See Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 61 at page 13450, “Commenters noted a variety of purposes for which bump-stock-type devices have been advertised and used, including for recreation and fun, assisting persons with mobility issues in firing quickly, self-defense, killing invasive pig species, and target practice”.

See opinion dissenting from the denial of certiorari in FRIEDMAN v. CITY OF HIGHLAND PARK http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf (“The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.”)

The regulation is not narrowly tailored to be the least restrictive of a fundamental right. See “exempting devices manufactured prior to enactment of the rule” in point 6 above as a less restrictive means.

11. Upon a showing that owners of machineguns commonly use them for lawful purposes, it would have to be concluded that even actual machineguns are protected by the Second Amendment today. Current restrictions requires current justifications. That is, while machineguns may not have been in common use for lawful purposes at the time that the NFA(1934) or the GCA(1968) even the FOPA(1986), was enacted, if they are in common use for lawful purposes “today”, then they are protected by the Second Amendment.
A restriction was valid in the past does not mean it is still valid today. That is, a restriction that “imposes current burdens and must be justified by current needs.” Northwest Austin Municipal Util. Dist. No. One v. Holder, 557 U. S. 193 ,203 (2009).

=============================
END

Columbia’s ban on the use of bump fire stocks and triggers cranks was immediately challenged by local attorney Mark Schnee. Waiting for courts to follow through.

Schnee won a case last year against the city of Columbia for enacting a ban on all firearms within an extended distance of the statehouse.

They don’t care. In NJ it’s either throw it away or face penalties so severe you would’ve thought you beat and robbed an old lady. No “just” compensation.

What I find even more interesting is that all of this has occurred from ONE KNOWN CRIME involving a “bump stock.” I’ve been searching for the last month trying to find documentation of another crime involving the use of a “bump stock,” and I have yet to come across anything.

I’ve asked people if they knew what a “bump stock” was six months ago before the Vegas shooting, and everyone I’ve talked to that was not a “gun guy” said, “No.” Think if we had done this with the automobile industry. The first time a crime is committed with a vehicle over 50-horsepower and an “automatic” transmission, we must “ban it!” Lump in all non-criminal automobile accidents, and . . .

The just goes to show that it is not about making people “safe,” “stopping crime,” or “saving just one child.” It is just about trampling on the constitutional rights of Americans.

Added.

Meanwhile, I can’t write in proper English.

Exactly, California has no need to propose a bill to ban bump fire stocks, they are illegal already. In California they are considered a “multi-burst trigger activator”

Um Maryland has no law banning pistol grips so stop spewing BS about it.

Also only certain “salt weapons” are banned in MD. You can still buy AR’s and AK’s.

The only AR’s that are affected are 5.56 pencil/goverment barrels. HBAR’s in 5.56 are fine, any other caliber is fine. With all the evil features as well.

The only AK’s banned in MD are 7.62×39 rifles. 5.45 and 5.56 still legal cash and carry with all the folding stocks and bayonet lugs you want. Imported, sporter 7.62×39 AK’s still legal. AK pistols in any caliber still legal.