The Real Problem With The Trump Bump Stock Ban

Bump stock ban trump atf regulation machine gun

(AP Photo/Steve Helber)

Every time we write about the ATF’s bump stock ban, plenty of commenters write that they can’t understand why anyone would want one. They opine that no one will miss them now that they’re officially verboten. That’s completely missing the issue at stake and why the ban is so dangerous.

Bump stocks facilitate a fast rifle shooting technique in which the shooter pushes the gun forward so that the trigger is activated by a stationary finger, at which point recoil energy causes the gun to slide backward, resetting the trigger. Contradicting what the ATF had consistently told bump stock manufacturers and members of Congress, the Trump administration declared that rifles equipped with these accessories are illegal machine guns.

As Damien Guedes and other bump stock owners point out in their challenge to the ban, that conclusion is plainly at odds with the legal definition of a machine gun, which requires that the weapon fire “automatically” and “more than one shot” by “a single function of the trigger.” Bump firing is not automatic, since it requires the shooter’s active intervention, and it entails resetting the trigger after each round, as with any semi-automatic weapon.

The question raised by Guedes’ lawsuit is not whether banning bump stocks is a good idea. The question is whether bump stocks are already banned.

By pretending they are, Trump is usurping congressional authority and criminalizing conduct that everyone thought was legal until he arbitrarily decreed that it wasn’t. Like the cop who decided that Joseph Cracco’s pocket tool was a forbidden weapon, the president is making up the law on the fly.

– Jacob Sullum in Gravity Knives, Bump Stocks, and Lawless Law Enforcement

comments

  1. avatar No one of consequence says:

    Worth repeating, perhaps, but I’ve never seen a bump-stock denier change his position.

    The bump stock issue is like free speech. I don’t care for them personally, but I agree with your right to own one if you wish to.

    1. avatar Chris. says:

      This exactly; I don’t own one – won’t ever, I think they’re nothing but a good way to waste ammo. That said, My opinion of them is irrelevant. If they can ban that garbage piece of plastic by Executive Fiat – they can do anything.

      1. avatar Freebird says:

        Neither Trump , nor A.T.F. has ‘ jurisdiction ‘ , no matter what they ‘ say ‘ !

        The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, has no venue or jurisdiction within the borders of any of the 50 States of the united States of America, except in pursuit of an importer of contraband alcohol, tobacco, or firearms, who failed to pay the TAX on those items. As proof, refer to the July 30, 1993 ruling of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, 1 F.3d 1511; 1993 U.S. App. Lexis 19747, where the court ruled in United States v. D.J. Vollmer & Co. that “the B.A.T.F. has jurisdiction over the first sale of a firearm imported to the country, but they don’t have jurisdiction over subsequent sales.”
        Color of Law …. is no law , at all.
        http://usa-the-republic.com/revenue/BATF-IRS%20Criminal%20Report.html#tgotm

      2. avatar JR Pollock says:

        I see this argument a lot, the “whole waste of ammo” trope. Tell me, what’s more wasteful? A $30,000, 33 year old, transferable M16, or a 2-3 hundred dollar bump stock? Both of them can only be used by a civilian, legally, at a target range. They both burn through ammo at a high rate, so why is one a “wasteful range toy” and the other isn’t? If you paid for the ammo, it’s yours to use as you see fit, right?

        You should be considering that a future democrat House & Senate could pass a bill outlawing ALL machine guns, and a future socialist democrat President will happily sign it into law. There’s already a registry of the approximately 400,000 registered machine guns, so tracking down non compliant owners would be a breeze, compared to the other estimated 392,600,000 Title 1 firearms that are not in a registry(that we know of).

        Compensation? I haven’t heard of any bump stock owners being compensated. RW Arms certainly weren’t for the 60,000 units they surrendered last week, but even the most generous compensation, say 400,000 at 30K apiece is only 12 billion dollars, a figure that socialist democrats would gleefully spend in a New York nanosecond to get them out of circulation forever. Hell, Bloomberg might even kick in a few of his 54 billion, as long as his private security was able to keep theirs, but that’s always how it works isn’t it? They could very well decide the only compensation you’re entitled to is the price you paid for the gun. The Constitution is sort of vague on what ‘just compensation” is. A socialist democrat judge would argue for the least amount to be paid..

        I’d be very careful about demonizing bump stocks, because real machine guns could be next. Rep. William Hughes surely laid out their ultimate goal in 1986.

        1. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

          “There’s already a registry of the approximately 400,000 registered machine guns, so tracking down non compliant owners would be a breeze, compared to the other estimated 392,600,000 Title 1 firearms that are not in a registry(that we know of).”

          A drop-in auto sear (DIAS) is simple to fabricate and the machinist plans are all over the ‘web. Along with a number of other ‘gadgets’ that perform the same function.

          At this point, I believe they are planning on adding detachable-magazine semi-autos to the NFA. I doubt the current SCOTUS will allow that, so a future Leftist biased Court will do that dirty work, along with striking down Heller.

          Just because we are currently winning on the 2A, doesn’t mean that in 20 years or so the Leftists won’t reverse ‘Heller’, and do it with all the moral self-righteousness as when ‘Dred Scott’ was reversed. Our rights are *not* secure…

        2. avatar Chris. says:

          You did understand I’m against a ban right?

          Yes, I think it would be a Waste of MY money – if you want one, go nuts. I fully support your right to do so. and Yes, I think it would be immensely fun.

          I’m pretty certain this bump stock ban is going to be thrown out in the courts too. But yes, they are worth fighting for – even if I do not, and will not own one. I’m no Fudd.

        3. avatar Ing says:

          “At this point, I believe they are planning on adding detachable-magazine semi-autos to the NFA.”

          Geoff, right on. This is where they’re headed — outlawing ALL semiautos, or at least all with detachable magazines.

          You can see it in what happened long ago with California’s “bullet button” law. Now WA has defined all semiauto rifles as “assault rifles.” A similar law was proposed in FL, if I remember correctly. It hasn’t gone anywhere…yet…but give it time. It took several years of proposing the same thing semiannually before the progs broke through in WA. They’ll do the same elsewhere.

          They’ve done the dirty work over decades, demonizing ordinary firearms so that millions of people now see them as “assault weapons.”

          The truth that these assaulty things are no different from any other semiauto — a fact that gun people have been harping on forever — isn’t going to weigh in our favor. The fear and horror of the ignorant will easily transfer from a small class of “assault rifles” to OMG ASSAULT WEAPONS ARE EVERYWHERE BAN THEM.

          And if Trump’s unconstitutional executive overreach is allowed to stand, the anti-gun left will have the perfect tool to do what they’ve always wanted: “Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in.”

        4. avatar strych9 says:

          “I haven’t heard of any bump stock owners being compensated.”

          And you won’t for quite a while. FedGov isn’t going to pay for them at this point because the whole thing will probably get thrown out due to the way it was done.

          After that, if the bump stock ban and the way it was done are upheld then there will have to be a case for “takings”.

          If that second case is successful then you’ll see people compensated, probably poorly. That will take at least another 10 years.

          “At this point, I believe they are planning on adding detachable-magazine semi-autos to the NFA.”

          Just because I’m curious: Who do you think is planning this, why, under what pretexts, with what logic and do you think they plan to do it by Act of Congress or via caveat with administrative rules?

        5. avatar Draven says:

          it is one of the proposed add-ons to the new AWB.

        6. avatar strych9 says:

          Draven:

          Thanks. I missed that somehow.

        7. avatar frank speak says:

          a fair amount of well off and influential people own machine guns…congress has always been ok with that as long as the numbers stay relatively small…then there’s the issue of the accuracy of the registry…which is pegged.. [optimistically]… at about 50%….placing semis under the NFA is nothing new…that idea was kicked around back in the eighties…

  2. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

    “Every time we write about the ATF’s bump stock ban, plenty of commenters write that they can’t understand why anyone would want one.”

    They completely miss the point,sails rite over their head with the pea brain in it .

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      Just because I don’t want one and would probably never own one doesn’t mean that I don’t get the point. I don’t get the point of owning a hundred AR mags and complete AR rifles either, but hey, whatever floats your boat. I fully support the right to posses them.

  3. avatar anarchyst says:

    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, its “bump stocks”. You see, anti-gunners want them all. They will chip away a little at a time until their goal of civilian disarmament is complete. They have an excuse for banning every firearm. Scoped bolt-action rifles are defined by anti-gunners as “sniper rifles” because they are “too accurate”. Magazine-fed weapons are suspect because of high (actually normal) magazine capacity. Handguns are suspect because they are “easily concealable”. The gun grabbers want them all and have made (flimsy and suspect) excuses for banning every type of firearm. They don’t care how long it takes. and will use incrementalism to their advantage.
    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…
    Even the NRA bears some responsibility for capitulation on matters concerning firearms. The NRA failed when it allowed the National Firearms Act of 1934 to stand without offering opposition, the 1968 Gun Control Act, the NICS “instant check” system, the “no new machine gun for civilians” ban in 1986, the so-called “assault weapons ban in 1991, “bump stocks” and other infringements on the Second Amendment. Let’s face it. What better way to increase membership than to “allow” infringements to be enacted and then push for a new membership drive. Yes, the NRA has done good, but its spirit of “compromise” will only lead to one thing…confiscation.
    If the NRA is truly the premier “gun rights” organization, it must reject ALL compromise…

    1. avatar 76shovel says:

      Thank you for a well written, well considered statement.
      In my opinion gun owners of every persuasion should copy this and pass it around, with your permission of course

      1. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

        If you hang around long enough, you will get very tired of seeing the same exact copy-paste thing, over and over…

        1. avatar 76shovel says:

          The readers of this blog probably are tired of it already, we basically have an echo chamber with the occasional troll being the exception. I intended that some of this thought be shown to people outside of our fairly tight group. Who knows maybe someone will start thinking, just a little. Unless we find a way to unite all gun owners as well as recruit a few new people that are at least neutral things are going to get loud and bloody and it may not take long.
          Find people outside of our group, pass along some of the wisdom you no doubt accumulated over the years. It is much better than any alternative that I see available. If you have a better/different course of action let’s proceed with that as well.

        2. avatar GS650G says:

          Beat me to it.
          The dedicated trolls have cut and paste snippets at the ready for their favorite blogs.
          The really bad ones send the same thing 1300 times in a row.

    2. avatar Tiger says:

      A position that is doomed to fail.

    3. avatar frank speak says:

      pseudo assault rifles are the low-hanging fruit…but give them time and they’ll pick the tree clean…

  4. avatar Shire-man says:

    It’s all so stupid. No government can ban inertia and any government that tries should be burned to the ground for their crazy witchcraft beliefs.

    Ban it all you want you’ll still fly through your windshield if you hit a tree and aren’t buckled in.

    1. avatar strych9 says:

      They can try. Back in 1897 Indiana had it’s famous “pi bill” attempting to “square a circle” by establishing various, incorrect, values for pi.

      All because some ignorant twatwaffle in the Indiana Legislature thought he was a better mathematician than all those before him and wanted his bullshit codified by law.

      His “proofs” had been known to be incorrect since, quite literally, ancient times and concretely proved to be wrong a few years before by an actual mathematician, von Lindemann in 1882 I think, but this dude just couldn’t take the idea that he was a moron so he tried to use his position in the legislature to make what he thought into an asinine law.

      Fortunately there was another real mathematician visiting the Legislature that day who managed to convince the people running the legislature that this was such horseshit a vote shouldn’t even be considered. The bill never came up for an actual vote thanks to the actions of one guy who knew the Legislator in question was a moron.

  5. avatar barnbwt says:

    “But guys, it’s all an elaborate ruse! The rule change doesn’t match how a bump stock really works, because Trump is just fooling the Democrats into thinking bump stocks had been banned; they aren’t actually going to be banned at all!”

    1. avatar Ben says:

      Wake up and realize Trump is a fake conservative. He is letting the ATF victimize people that own a type of plastic stock.

      1. avatar Chris. says:

        Trump is a fake everything.

        Self-serving asshole.

        1. avatar Dennis Sumner says:

          You want the CNN site, just down the hall there!

      2. avatar barnbwt says:

        It’s a sad reflection on the gun community that what I wrote isn’t received as ridiculous hyperbolic satire.

        “Satire is dead, and I have killed it” –Trump, and most other politicians

      3. avatar frank speak says:

        he doesn’t appear to be the friend to gun owners we thought he was…republican complicity has emboldened the democrats who appear to forging ahead with all manner of asinine restrictions…it was really not this bad under obama….wonder if trump thinks he can win without us?

    2. avatar strych9 says:

      barn:

      You bring up a point we’ve been debating endlessly but which I think is actually rather interesting.

      Is the bump stock ban the knee jerk reaction of a guy who’s not real bright or is it actually a carefully crafted attack on the overall “Deep State” that bets on courts not accepting the ban because of it’s extreme interpretation and therefore issuing rules on how government agencies can use administrative rulemaking that has the force of law?

      I’ve said from the jump that I have no idea because I cannot read minds but there seems to be decent evidence in both directions.

      The one thing I do suspect I know is that no matter what happens Trump will claim victory. If the rule change is upheld it’s a “win for safety” if it’s shot down “it was a devious ploy to curtail the deep state and we WON!!!! Those silly Democrats never even saw it coming!”.

      The only thing I know for sure is that it’s damned strange behavior for a person to appoint judges that are highly likely to throw out the POTUS’s own supposed priorities, especially since at the time he probably could have convinced the Congress to amend the NFA. It’s like openly cheating at a game that you’d win anyway but choosing a ref that will prevent you from cheating going forward even though you never really needed to cheat in the first place. Such behavior always makes me suspicious that there’s something I’m not seeing. Especially when the person doing it has access to any and all the advisers on law and politics he could ever want.

      Supposedly Julius Caesar once said “It’s only hubris if I lose” which is an interesting statement to apply to this issue since how would Trump lose and how would we know if he really did or didn’t since he’s likely to claim whatever happens is what he wanted all along? If a fighter is known to take a dive how do we know if he took a dive or actually lost?

      1. avatar frank speak says:

        well,..you can certainly lay these abominable “red-flag” laws directly at his feet…and it appears the rest of the republicans are falling in line…

  6. avatar Aaron Walker says:

    Well we all know it’s horseshit 🐎 💩! So what strong 💪 active measures are we all taking to prevent “Authoritarianism”, place government back in check, and Reclaiming 🗽 Liberty!?

    1. avatar barnbwt says:

      Posting in cute emojis, apparently

    2. avatar Tiger says:

      The ability to spray bullets is the yardstick for liberty?

  7. avatar Dennis Sumner says:

    Wonder how those same people would feel if we said we just want to ban tablets, not your PC , we cant see why anyone would need a tablet too.

    1. avatar barnbwt says:

      They have phones in registered booths, therefore no one needs to carry a phone on their person. It only takes a few minutes to locate the nearest one, so it is not an undue burden.

  8. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

    Imagine what kind of precedent this will set for the next Demoncrat president if the courts uphold this ban.

    1. avatar Hank says:

      That’s the real problem with all this. If it’s ok for Trump to ban bumpstocks by royal decree, then the insane leftist that comes after him will ban all semi autos in the same manner.

    2. avatar barnbwt says:

      You mean next Republican president (or senator), right? The precedent is that they can expect to be re-elected, and even continue to be endorsed/funded by the NRA despite any gun control they happen to pass.

  9. avatar enuf says:

    The Second Amendment is not about “NEED”, it is about “RIGHT”. Same as all the other Rights, you may have the thing because you were born with the same Rights as every other human. Whether or not you can cook up a personal list of reasons why you “need” is immaterial.

    You have a RIGHT to Keep and Bear Arms. A Bump Stock is a firearm part, and is therefore included under that protected Right. Doesn’t mean you personally have to own one, or like the idea of them. You can think them as stupid as you wish or as fun as you wish.

    Doesn’t change the fact that this is about RIGHTS not “needs”.

    1. avatar Hannibal says:

      See, this is the weakest argument compared to the one above. A bump stock is a toy. It has no place in the militia definition of arms. There is not ONE military in the world that uses ‘bump stocks.’ This is the argument you will lose every day if you bring a case to the courts.

    2. avatar frank speak says:

      logic won’t cut it…this is all about raw power…..

  10. avatar RMS1911 says:

    Time to put the fear of the Constitution back into the power hungry scum.
    Right now they think the Constitution is a quaint suggestion and not the supreme law of the land.

    1. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

      This ! The only thing lacking is the teeth to uphold it.

  11. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

    From the article:

    “According to Cracco and a co-worker who was with him, it took the cop four or five tries before he managed to swing the blade fully open with one hand—a feat that Cracco himself had never attempted. Cracco thus joined the thousands of New Yorkers who are arrested each year for carrying the tools of their trades or hobbies.”

    I’m not sure how I missed this one, but this is pretty big news. New York has some draconian pocket knife laws, and a judge slapped down one of the worst. Gun laws are important, but we shouldn’t ignore knife laws either.

    “Because the wrist flick test is a functional one, it is difficult if not impossible for a person who wishes to possess a folding knife to determine whether or not the knife is illegal,” U.S. District Judge Paul Crotty noted in a March 27 decision declaring the gravity knife ban “unconstitutionally vague” as applied to Cracco. “People should be able to tell whether their conduct is lawful or unlawful.”

    1. avatar strych9 says:

      Gravity knife laws have been fucking retarded from their inception.

      Technically speaking, if you read most of the laws, you’ll find that any fixed blade knife magically becomes a gravity knife if you wear the sheath in a manner where the handle of the knife is pointed downwards.

      That is to say that if you take a fixed blade knife and invert it from “normal” carry you have a gravity knife. So, while I’m not a fan of the practice, putting a fixed blade knife upside down on the shoulder of a back-pack, sling bag, plate carrier or other article of clothing makes any fixed blade a “gravity knife” and makes it illegal to possess.

      Reading the statute as presented in the article NY’s law was the same. Any fixed blade with a retention system on the sheath fits the definition provided that the retention system is working and the knife is upside down.

      This, of course, raises a question. What if you’re carrying the knife right side up but you find yourself upside down? Does a fixed blade become illegal when dangling from a giant snare trap or when walking on your hands? Does it go from legal to illegal and back to legal again in the blink of an eye if you do a cartwheel?

  12. avatar MarkPA says:

    The bump-stock ban issue is valuable (in the debate) precisely because the subject of the debate is NOT intrinsically important.

    IF an event of “. . . the [necessity] of [securing] a free state . . . ” should arise then machine guns will likely play an important role. Bump-stocks will be an unsatisfactory substitute. In any such event artisans will turn to their mills and 3-D printers to turn-out Sten-guns, not bump-stocks.

    So, let’s have an earnest debate about the Hughes Amendment which stands in the path of maintaining the training of a “well-regulated militia”. We could then prescind from discussing the usefulness of maintaining skill in bump-firing for “necessary” purposes.

    We may also prescind from the amusement factor of bump-firing which may be distinguished from that of machine-gun fire.

    What then remains of the argument over the bump-stock ban by regulation or by Congressional act?

    What remains are arguments over: rule-of-law; Constitutional powers delegated by Congress to the Executive; efficacy; efficient use of law-enforcement recourses; slippery-slope; and others better articulated elsewhere.

    1. avatar John in Ohio says:

      “What remains are arguments over: rule-of-law; Constitutional powers delegated by Congress to the Executive; efficacy; efficient use of law-enforcement recourses; slippery-slope; and others better articulated elsewhere.”

      Stare decisis, IMHO, will present one of the greatest obstacles to overcome for any serious restoration of “shall not be infringed”. Even Heller presents a significant problem.

      1. avatar EWTHeckman says:

        One advantage we have on that front is that Miller v. United States stipulates that the 2nd Amendment explicitly (and only) protects citizen ownership of weapons suitable for military use.

        The irony is that it upheld the NFA which targets military weapons because the short barreled shotgun was thought to be not suitable for military use. (Short-barrel shotguns wer used by the Army in WWI.)

        If the Stare Decisis rationale of Miller is actually applied, that would mean the end of the NFA and the Hughes Amendment. Though duck and deer hunters might not like the foolish “not military = not protected” idea that also seems to violate the 2nd Amendment.

  13. avatar TFred says:

    These are the same folks who say, “Why refuse a request for a search if you have nothing to hide?”

  14. avatar Docduracoat says:

    Finally people are starting slowly towards what I’ve been saying for a long time.
    The precedent set by DJT ordering the DOJ to ban bump stocks by regulation is awful!
    I have been predicting the next president will do the same thing to all workarounds of the NFA.
    Binary triggers and braces are next. Mark my words

    1. avatar Specialist38 says:

      And non-NFA 14 inch bbl firearms – Shockwave et al.

  15. avatar Timothy Toroian says:

    Misdefining words is dangerous. Once it allowed to happen ANY word or object is subject to redefining and criminalized. That is called tyranny and despotic.

  16. avatar sound awake says:

    i never wanted one until i shot one
    i will have one someday if this all pans out the way it should

  17. avatar Vlad Tepes says:

    I am not going to get into whether you should or should not be allowed to own a bump stock but what is also most frightening is that Millions of dollars worth of personal property are being confiscated with no compensation. If this is allowed to stand and if later on in time they ban all assault rifles the guy that owns say 10 of them could and would be out at least $40,000 to even $100,000 dollars depending on the model of gun.. Since when can the government confiscate previously owned legal property with no compensation. I think too many people are arguing over bump stock rights and not seeing the more dangerous president being set and that is the taking of a person’s private property with no compensation. Even Stalin paid compensation to people when he took their property for governmental use.

    And another very sad note. Despite Mitch McConnell’s packing the courts with Conservative Judges the majority of the courts continue to uphold every anti-gun law that is passed even blatant illegal bans like the Bump Stock. Long, long ago one gun scribe aptly wrote “When it comes to gun rights no one really has any”. Yes the year 2020 is getting to be more and more of a dooms day machine for all gun owners as we soon will all be in deep, deep shit if you own anything that is semi-auto. As a kid the only gun I was allowed to own was a single shot .22 l.r. bolt rifle and now that I am old it looks like that is again all I will be allowed to own. I am glad I saved it. I am not being facetious.

  18. avatar Hannibal says:

    Yes, it’s certainly a presidential powergrab from the legislature. But, two things:
    1) The legislature is only too happy to allow it and
    2) There are much, much more important power grabs that make many of us look at this as a sideshow.

  19. avatar Don Ward says:

    And the double-digit IQ mouth-breathing Fudds here at TTAG show their ignorance yet again because they panic-bought bumpstocks and are now stuck with range toys they paid a half-grand for instead of being smart enough to realize “banning” them is actually a legal ploy by the Administration to kick this issue to the courts, and potentially setting up precedent to overturn the Hughes Amendment.
    I’d suggest TTAG stay in its own lane, which is drooling over Katie A. pocket dump photos.

    1. avatar 76shovel says:

      Really, that is what you got from this? I guess what the media reports on reading comprehension being at the third grade level is true in some cases at least.

    2. avatar frank speak says:

      don’t be delusional…seeing something that’s not there does nothing to make your case…..

  20. avatar Tony says:

    The really problem with the Bump Stock ban is ANY kind of restriction on firearms and firearms ownership. Last I checked, the Second Amendment didn’t contain any qualifiers other than “Shall not be infringed”

  21. avatar Draven says:

    are crank ‘trigger activators’ banned?

  22. avatar George from Alaska says:

    I owned a quality Fostech bump-stock and I won several registered select fire or full auto only guns. I’m perhaps a bit older than the average person here and was around and had a little money when they were sale for normal prices.
    People who say bump-stocks are junk and waste ammunition are incorrect. My Fostech cost me $425 at my lgs and was of a higher quality than the SlideFire ones, although I have shot a bunch of Slide-Fires, the higher end ones.
    With 100 rounds of ammo and a couple of hours of practice I could shoot by bump-fire just as accurately as my select fire M-4 type. You don’t always have to do mag dumps just because you can and they are inherently inaccurate in either platform. When it comes to two to four round bursts they ae both just as accurate, same as in single shot. The at first awkward feeling motions necessary to properly shoot a bump-fire is just practice to get the muscle memory down.
    Those who don’t like bump-fires probably failed to get the technique down and most folks at the range that “don’t like full autos” or “they are a waste of ammunition” just don’t know how to shoot and probably can’t afford one or the ammo, even with just two round bursts – like binary trigger bursts, which I find very accurate.
    Some people spend their money on cocaine, timeshares in Hawaii, a new jet ski every year or expensive trips and houses. I’m ordering an HK registered in all three calibers auto-sear pack so I can “waste more ammo with something stupid”.. hey, it’s my money so leave me alone if you don’t like it – I don’t like coke or time-shares…
    I’m 64 years old and I endorse this message..

    1. avatar frank speak says:

      anyone who fires an automatic weapon for the first time always emerges with that shit-eating grin…bump stocks were a cheap alternative that would still be floating around if not for that idiot in vegas…expect something similar if the silencer restriction is removed even though ATF wanted to dump them from their registry…unfortunately they’re subject to the will and whims of those in power….I find it curious that the NRA has gone out on a limb for trump while he continues to downplay their influence…and congress is starting to take their cue from that…

  23. avatar Quince says:

    Is the stay still in effect? Good for new FPF members or just old one? What if Will Smith wants to be anonymous member? Can he sign up anonymously? I am sure he doesn’t want his name associated with it to prevent backlash or harassment on all fronts! Poor Mr. Smith. Should have joined in 2018.

  24. avatar Geoff says:

    There are multiple problems with declaring the bump stock a machine gun. The ATF cannot change a regulation that was a law enacted by Congress just by amending it. Congress would have to do that. And as some pointed out the trigger is continuously manipulated by the trigger finger, the gun does not keep firing after the trigger is reset.
    I keep posting this video that shows the AR15 can be bump fired without a bump stock. 1 shot then 99 continuously in just about 6 seconds, or a rate of fire about 900 RPM. The Vegas shooter was only about 600RPM so could not have been a bump stock, but possibly a M249 which that is the low end rate of fire and took 10 seconds to do 100 rounds. (I counted the shots in the cell phone video.)
    Go to 30 seconds in the video.

  25. avatar Tupac’s cousin says:

    Sounded more like M249 or a M14 but I could be wrong as the new edited script has sections that shoulder like more than one ‘operator.’ I did enjoy the one newly found clip looping a tourist with a set of luggages. Video is too grainy, worst than the Tupac’s Vegas fight video from early 90s.

  26. avatar Henry says:

    Got a question about cars. If decides to make a factory bullet proof car and submits it for evaluation before selling to the public and it was approved. Do I have to burn the car, causing global warming and potentially forest fire if DOT decides to later ban the sale and possession of this road-rage ready car?

    I am saving my coins to a pre-1986 Town Car but rather get a 2012 version with moonroof.

  27. avatar Chris T in KY says:

    The rich will always have machine guns. But no rapid fire guns for the poor. And these bigots will always make fun of Hi Point owners. As Hi Point introduces even better products for folks who can’t afford more expensive guns. Everywhere except in the gun community you are allowed to try to produce a cheaper and improved performance product over a previous produce item. (very sad)
    We are our own worst enemy.

  28. avatar Anymouse says:

    The real problem is that ATF has said that bump firing with a bump stock is a machine gun. We know that you can bump fire most semiautos without a bump stock. The ATF said it’s ok to bump fire without a stock, but they could reverse that decision and declare any bump fireable gun to be a machine gun since it’s the same physical action as what they’ve already defined as automatic firing. That would mean the uncompensated destruction of any model that they could demonstrate is bump fireable, with is any semiauto with higher recoil force than trigger force.

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