Home Main Category Second Amendment/Politics

Will bump stocks be deemed illegal by Congress

135

Replies

  • zorbazorba Senior Member Posts: 25,090 Senior Member
    snake284 wrote: »
    I say all this knowing full well you can't appease these a-holes. You give em an inch they want a million miles. And every time they think they win a battle it emboldens them and they want more. And they will continue to want more until the Second Amendment and any hint of gun rights for the common man and or woman are long since history.

    WORD.
    -Zorba, "The Veiled Male"

    "If you get it and didn't work for it, someone else worked for it and didn't get it..."
    )O(
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 27,457 Senior Member
    Watched Tucker Carlson tonight on Fox. He had a female on that was discussing the issue. She said something about it having no purpose for hunting. Well, DUH! The Second Amendment isn't about hunting, and since she was obviously under 45 years of age, she's in the unregulated militia. I bet she didn't know that! :roll2: If somebody pointed that out to her, I'd bet that her head would explode! :rotflmao:
      I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I don't know the answer”
    ― Douglas Adams
  • Gene LGene L Senior Member Posts: 12,642 Senior Member
    From a practical point of view, what choice do we have?
    Concealed carry is for protection, open carry is for attention.
  • CaliFFLCaliFFL Senior Member Posts: 5,486 Senior Member
    Gene L wrote: »
    From a practical point of view, what choice do we have?


    We don't have a choice. We eat this turd, and hope they don't get what they want next time.

    I puked a little typing that.
    When our governing officials dismiss due process as mere semantics, when they exercise powers they don’t have and ignore duties they actually bear, and when we let them get away with it, we have ceased to be our own rulers.

    Adam J. McCleod


  • NCFUBARNCFUBAR Senior Member Posts: 4,324 Senior Member
    Bump fire stocks ... we don’t need no bump fire stocks!
    “The further a society drifts from truth ... the more it will hate those who speak it."
    - George Orwell
  • BufordBuford Senior Member Posts: 6,721 Senior Member
    That there is some pertinent information.
    Thanks for sharing.
    Just look at the flowers Lizzie, just look at the flowers.
  • Gene LGene L Senior Member Posts: 12,642 Senior Member
    CaliFFL wrote: »
    We don't have a choice. We eat this turd, and hope they don't get what they want next time.

    I puked a little typing that.

    Yes
    Concealed carry is for protection, open carry is for attention.
  • snake284snake284 Senior Member Posts: 22,429 Senior Member
    That info is good to know, but Stephen Paddock may not have been a firearm's expert. He was probably just looking for something that was simple but worked. And for his purposes, no matter how evil, it worked and damn good too!
    Daddy, what's an enabler?
    Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
  • breamfisherbreamfisher Senior Member Posts: 13,918 Senior Member
    Diver43 wrote: »
    and the NRA is saying OK, or is it their way of putting on the BATFe's shoulders? NRA calls for federal review of 'bump stock' devices like those used in Las Vegas shooting

    http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/nra-calls-for-federal-review-of-bump-stock-devices-like-those-used-in-las-vegas-shooting/article/2636652
    Reason I heard for this earlier today: some Reps wouldn't mind a BATFE regulation as it would limit availability with no-one being on record voting for a gun control measure.
    The NRA likes it being done as a regulation and not law as it shields Congressional members from voting,

    Sent from my SM-S907VL using Tapatalk
    I'm just here for snark.
  • bullsi1911bullsi1911 Moderator Posts: 12,123 Senior Member
    Reason I heard for this earlier today: some Reps wouldn't mind a BATFE regulation as it would limit availability with no-one being on record voting for a gun control measure.
    The NRA likes it being done as a regulation and not law as it shields Congressional members from voting,

    Sent from my SM-S907VL using Tapatalk

    I also think it would be 'better' (i puked a little bit) for it to be the ATF just to issue a ruling, than to have legislation. Legislation can snowball and have all sorts of things added on to it- the ATF ruling would be specific and could also be reversed at some point. Legislation never goes away
    To make something simple is a thousand times more difficult than to make something complex.
    -Mikhail Kalashnikov
  • breamfisherbreamfisher Senior Member Posts: 13,918 Senior Member
    bullsi1911 wrote: »
    I also think it would be 'better' (i puked a little bit) for it to be the ATF just to issue a ruling, than to have legislation. Legislation can snowball and have all sorts of things added on to it- the ATF ruling would be specific and could also be reversed at some point. Legislation never goes away

    Possibly. See this article:
    http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/05/politics/nra-bump-stock/index.html

    An ATF ruling can always be reversed, sometimes at the discretion of the POTUS. Like I said earlier, I doubt we'd get a sunset provision in any future legislation.



    Edited to add: still doesn't mean I like this. As others have pointed out here and elsewhere, you can bump fire without a special stock. Also from a fiscal standpoint, if they ban possession of any bump fire stocks, does that mean we as taxpayers will have to reimburse folks for the ones they turn in? And from a practical standpoint, how do they track down the ones that have been sold?
    I'm just here for snark.
  • bullsi1911bullsi1911 Moderator Posts: 12,123 Senior Member
    Possibly. See this article:
    http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/05/politics/nra-bump-stock/index.html

    An ATF ruling can always be reversed, sometimes at the discretion of the POTUS. Like I said earlier, I doubt we'd get a sunset provision in any future legislation.



    Edited to add: still doesn't mean I like this. As others have pointed out here and elsewhere, you can bump fire without a special stock.

    Another reason to not want legislation. Depending on the wording, it could end up banning rapid fire. Make you a felon if you bumpfire.
    To make something simple is a thousand times more difficult than to make something complex.
    -Mikhail Kalashnikov
  • CaliFFLCaliFFL Senior Member Posts: 5,486 Senior Member
    Possibly. See this article:
    http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/05/politics/nra-bump-stock/index.html

    An ATF ruling can always be reversed, sometimes at the discretion of the POTUS. Like I said earlier, I doubt we'd get a sunset provision in any future legislation.



    Edited to add: still doesn't mean I like this. As others have pointed out here and elsewhere, you can bump fire without a special stock. Also from a fiscal standpoint, if they ban possession of any bump fire stocks, does that mean we as taxpayers will have to reimburse folks for the ones they turn in? And from a practical standpoint, how do they track down the ones that have been sold?

    They can't track all of them. I've see them for sale at gun shows. Cash and carry.
    When our governing officials dismiss due process as mere semantics, when they exercise powers they don’t have and ignore duties they actually bear, and when we let them get away with it, we have ceased to be our own rulers.

    Adam J. McCleod


  • Jack BurtonJack Burton Member Posts: 393 Member
    snake284 wrote: »
    That info is good to know, but Stephen Paddock may not have been a firearm's expert. He was probably just looking for something that was simple but worked. And for his purposes, no matter how evil, it worked and damn good too!

    Anyone see the press conference that indicated several jammed AR's with the bump-fire accessory found in the room after the shooting? They may have not worked all that good.

    There's so much nothing on the shooter that I've tuned out due to all the rampant speculation.
    Came for the fishing, stayed for the guns.
  • breamfisherbreamfisher Senior Member Posts: 13,918 Senior Member
    CaliFFL wrote: »
    They can't track all of them. I've see them for sale at gun shows. Cash and carry.
    ...which makes possession impossible to prohibit. And honestly, personal sales are going to be practically impossible to stop.

    It'll be a regulation or possible law that makes people feel "good" but doesn't really accomplish anything other than stopping further manufacture or commercial sales.

    And I get that a regulation is better than legislation and is probably inevitable. But I don't like it.
    I'm just here for snark.
  • sgtrock21sgtrock21 Senior Member Posts: 1,933 Senior Member
    ranger 869 wrote: »
    Hey Guys, Without getting in the middle of all of this conversation, it just seems that the swamp is going to do or say whatever it takes to keep themselves in the mix. BTW, did you see the morning CNN news about the bump stocks. In their discussion and show and tell they demonstrated a SAW in full as being a Bump stock. Always on top. Go figure.
    Obviously an AR rifle was not scary enough for the news media circus.
  • Make_My_DayMake_My_Day Senior Member Posts: 7,916 Senior Member
    I don't know how useful it will be, but I have written my Senator and Congressman informing them I will hold them responsible at election time if there are laws made or BATFE regulations banning the use of Bumpfire stock.
    JOE MCCARTHY WAS RIGHT:
    THE DEMOCRATS ARE THE NEW COMMUNISTS!
  • sgtrock21sgtrock21 Senior Member Posts: 1,933 Senior Member
    CaliFFL wrote: »
    This is why you never join an organization for life. Make them earn your member dollars.
    That is exactly what I do. I took a 3 year break in the 1990s following the AWB and I never respond to their constant begging.
  • sgtrock21sgtrock21 Senior Member Posts: 1,933 Senior Member
    tennmike wrote: »
    Watched Tucker Carlson tonight on Fox. He had a female on that was discussing the issue. She said something about it having no purpose for hunting. Well, DUH! The Second Amendment isn't about hunting, and since she was obviously under 45 years of age, she's in the unregulated militia. I bet she didn't know that! :roll2: If somebody pointed that out to her, I'd bet that her head would explode! :rotflmao:
    The only females required to be in the militia are National Guard members which doesn't make sense as they are already members of the organized militia.

    US Code Title 10 Armed Forces Section 311
    (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
    (b) The classes of the militia are—
    (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
    (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

    Section 312 Militia Duty Exemptions:
    (a) The following persons are exempt from militia duty:
    (1)
    The Vice President.
    (2)
    The judicial and executive officers of the United States, the several States, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands.
    (3)
    Members of the armed forces, except members who are not on active duty.
    (4)
    Customhouse clerks.
    (5)
    Persons employed by the United States in the transmission of mail.
    (6)
    Workmen employed in armories, arsenals, and naval shipyards of the United States.
    (7)
    Pilots on navigable waters.
    (8)
    Mariners in the sea service of a citizen of, or a merchant in, the United States.
    (b)
    A person who claims exemption because of religious belief is exempt from militia duty in a combatant capacity, if the conscientious holding of that belief is established under such regulations as the President may prescribe. However, such a person is not exempt from militia duty that the President determines to be noncombatant.
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 27,457 Senior Member
    bullsi1911 wrote: »
    I also think it would be 'better' (i puked a little bit) for it to be the ATF just to issue a ruling, than to have legislation. Legislation can snowball and have all sorts of things added on to it- the ATF ruling would be specific and could also be reversed at some point. Legislation never goes away

    Got to agree about BATFE ruling being better than legislation. BATFE ruling would be narrow and specific; legislation would have the ability to take MORE rights from us. If ya got to choke down a poop stick, always choose the smallest poop stick in the pile.

    Now for something related about legislation in general, and gun legislation specifically. We talk about compromise legislation here on a variety of subjects.

    compromise: noun 1.a settlement of differences by mutual concessions; an agreement reached by adjustment of conflicting or opposing claims, principles, etc., by reciprocal modification of demands.

    capitulation: :to surrender often after negotiation of terms


    MOST gun legislation HAS NOT been done by the definition of compromise. One side, OURS, has ALWAYS given up a part of our rights with nothing in return. This is the definition of capitulation, not compromise. We surrender part of our rights with nothing in return.
      I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I don't know the answer”
    ― Douglas Adams
  • sgtrock21sgtrock21 Senior Member Posts: 1,933 Senior Member
    Buford wrote: »
    That there is some pertinent information.
    Thanks for sharing.
    I categorize it as SEMI amusing sarcasm.
  • Diver43Diver43 Senior Member Posts: 12,258 Senior Member
    I would guess that the BATFE will do something similar as to what happened with the Streetsweeper Shotgun when they deemed it a destructive device.
    Logistics cannot win a war, but its absence or inadequacy can cause defeat. FM100-5
  • NCFUBARNCFUBAR Senior Member Posts: 4,324 Senior Member
    Diver43 wrote: »
    I would guess that the BATFE will do something similar as to what happened with the Streetsweeper Shotgun when they deemed it a destructive device.

    Or the Akins Accelerator like they resended one opinion with another to which owners received no compensation or grandfather clause.
    “The further a society drifts from truth ... the more it will hate those who speak it."
    - George Orwell
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 27,457 Senior Member
    Wonder if Congress knows that hand crank Gatling guns in various calibers are out there, including one based on the link belt fed mini-gun firing 5.56x45 ammo? Hope they don't find out!
      I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I don't know the answer”
    ― Douglas Adams
  • ArmoredmanArmoredman Member Posts: 362 Member
    Diver43 wrote: »
    I would guess that the BATFE will do something similar as to what happened with the Streetsweeper Shotgun when they deemed it a destructive device.

    I think Diver is on to something. AFTE declares that the Slidefire Bump Fire stock is, by name, a "machine gun" under NFA '34. They could dress it up by adding a few others like the afore mentioned Atkins Accelerator, again, by name, thus avoiding the whole trying to ban an activity, i.e., "bump firing", but that particular device. Then any device submitted afterwards would be measured against that standard.
    It's a poop sandwich, all right.
    Edit to add, I am not advocating this, just seeing it as something compromisers might want.
  • snake284snake284 Senior Member Posts: 22,429 Senior Member
    bullsi1911 wrote: »
    I also think it would be 'better' (i puked a little bit) for it to be the ATF just to issue a ruling, than to have legislation. Legislation can snowball and have all sorts of things added on to it- the ATF ruling would be specific and could also be reversed at some point. Legislation never goes away

    I agreed and I didn't puke for the reasons you mentioned. That's no doubt the reason the NRA has asked the ATF to review Bump Few Stocks. They'll make a restriction and that will be it. If this is done in the legislature, like you said, it could snow ball into something resembling the Gun Control Act of 1968. It probably won't but any additions to the legislation you can bet won't be gun owner friendly.
    Daddy, what's an enabler?
    Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
  • JasonMPDJasonMPD Senior Member Posts: 6,577 Senior Member
    Jeff in TX wrote: »
    Thoughts on bump stocks, does congress outlaw them? Will the NRA support it or fight it. Could the NRA see this as something they can support or a key to Pandora's box and fight it? My thoughts the NRA will go along with banning them.

    Thoughts?

    The NRA is already willing to hang out to dry the manufactures of bump stocks and the people who enjoy the entertainment of owning them for the purpose of pushing through their legacy legislation for national concealed carry reciprocity. I'm not giving them one more dime.
    “There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves.” – Will Rogers
  • john9001john9001 Senior Member Posts: 668 Senior Member
    I'll take national concealed carry reciprocity over bumpy fire.
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 27,457 Senior Member
    john9001 wrote: »
    I'll take national concealed carry reciprocity over bumpy fire.

    Add on taking suppressors off the NFA list and I'd agree. Anyway, after further review I've noticed my bumpy fire device could be built into a leather glove thus requiring no attachment to the rifle. That seems to be the sticking point, that attachment to the rifle thing. It would end up making the glove look goofy, but that's a minor aesthetic thing.
      I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I don't know the answer”
    ― Douglas Adams
  • JasonMPDJasonMPD Senior Member Posts: 6,577 Senior Member
    john9001 wrote: »
    I'll take national concealed carry reciprocity over bumpy fire.


    Trade one aspect of a guaranteed right for another. Good work. It's not about the bumpfire stock. It's about the manner in which the arm is beared.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    “There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves.” – Will Rogers
Sign In or Register to comment.
Magazine Cover

GET THE MAGAZINE Subscribe & Save

Temporary Price Reduction

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Give a Gift   |   Subscriber Services

PREVIEW THIS MONTH'S ISSUE

GET THE NEWSLETTER Join the List and Never Miss a Thing.

Get the top Guns & Ammo stories delivered right to your inbox every week.

Advertisement