Banning bumpfire stocks

[GUNARCHER]

I can't understand how an agency that declared a shoe string as a class 3 item when it is attached to a gun --allowing rapid fire as the bump stock does yet not saying the same about the stock. It still seems like a set-up by Obama and his BATF to me.

Fast and furious: Part Deux

 

[IronMonster]

and again, I own a bump fire stock, I'm not for banning bump fire stocks. I'm just trying to objectively look at the Law and logic involved

 

[etrain16]

What we need is compromise and bipartisan in out government. Quit worrying that because they take away bump stocks your going to lose your AR-15.

I find that just a bit naive. Just yesterday, Nancy Pelosi said this:

"So what?" Pelosi responded. "They're going to say, 'You give them bump stock, it's going to be a slippery slope.' I certainly hope so. But I don't think bump stock should be a substitute for the background check. By the way the background check is a compromise. There are many more things members want to do, and we're saying, 'How do we save the most lives?' We save the most lives with a background check."

Right out of the asses' mouth.

Keep believing they only want a few restrictions. They want more. They want our guns. Believing otherwise is a dangerous way to ignore their ultimate intent. Know your enemy. They have no interest in playing nice - they want it all.

 

[jbett98]

 

[etrain16]

I have stayed out of this but I feel its time to give my two cents.

First... For those screaming "My 2nd Amendment!"
There is no constitutionally protected right to own firearms accessories. A bump fire stock is not a firearm and thus has no 2nd amendment protection. Taking away an accessory that is designed to simulate full auto fire is not infringing your 2nd amendment rights. I am sure this is the reasoning behind the NRA statement.

Do I agree with "banning" anything firearm related? No... I think actual full auto firearms should be available to anyone who wants one. Still does not change the fact that a stock is not a 2nd Amendment protected item.

Second. We are talking about an accessory that's entire reason for existing is to simulate a controlled firearm. Banning these would not set president. Its been done many times before banning items that when installed created full auto rates of fire. Wanting to regulated these like they regulated DIAS and other things that used to be available is not surprising.

Do I think it will solve anything? No, of course not. A criminal will not abide by the law. Someone who wants to shoot up a crowd can build a actual full auto rifle with very little skill required. Banning bump stocks will do nothing to stop nut jobs from shooting up a place...

Still.... Banning a hunk of plastic (or even placing it on a controlled list) is not the same as placing restrictions on or banning a firearm. I am not for banning bump stocks, but I am not really torn up about losing them either, its an accessory.

Given the circumstances and that fact we have 570 some victims in a huge mass casualty event involving a dozen or so AR15's..... The fact that they are making such a big stink about a hunk of bolt on plastic and not screaming for the total repeal of the 2nd amendment I count as a blessing.

I see the bumpfire stock as a token "give me" that might placate the anti's and get us through this tragedy without losing anything of actual value.

Do I like it? no. Do I think its right? no. Does this mean I am anti 2nd Amendment? Like I already stated this is not a 2nd Amendment issue, its not a firearm.

Do I think its going to stop this kind of madman? NO... Things are not responsible for evil, men are. Any sane and rational person understands this. Problem is the world is full of irrational/emotional people.

So yeah. I know its not a popular view point and I will get a raft of bubblegum for this. Still if you are objective and not emotional about it I am sure you can see the logic.

So best head on over to Gunbroker and get you a $900 bump fire while you still can.... Cuz my bet is they are history, and honestly I am not that broken up about it.

I agree with much of what you say. And part of me is thinking, even hoping, the apparent caving by R's and the NRA is a wry political move meant to get something really important out of the D side. Ultimately, they can't pass any ban without R support and the President's signature - they have to find a way to sell that to the R's and their supporters without supremely pissing them off. If these folks are smart, they know most gun owners don't care about bump stocks, but they do care about suppressors and national reciprocity.

So, I'm holding my judgment on the NRA, R's and Trump until I see what's really going on. That said, I have little faith in the R's actually demonstrating they have a spine - they have been supremely disappointing since they took control of congress.

As for buying any bump stocks right now - I wouldn't do it - if they ban possession a lot of folks may find themselves with very expensive potential felonies in their possession - and I doubt the government would even consider giving you what you paid for them, if they even reimburse for them.

 

[RVTECH]

A bump fire stock is not a firearm and thus has no 2nd amendment protection. Taking away an accessory that is designed to simulate full auto fire is not infringing your 2nd amendment rights.

Excellent observation and point! This distinction should hopefully 'sink in' with those who are on the 'bump fire bandwagon' - yet were probably 'blissfully ignorant' of there existence until a few days ago. I'll admit I KNEW there was some accessories for increasing the rate of fire but really didn't know how they worked until I researched it myself. Like you my answer is NO for all the same reasons but if we can allow rational and logic to prevail and get over these trivial, insignificant 'accessory' issues we can concentrate on REAL 2A demands.

I see the bumpfire stock as a token "give me" that might placate the anti's and get us through this tragedy without losing anything of actual value.

Yep - quite possibly a 'blessing in disguise'

I know its not a popular view point and I will get a raft of bubblegum for this.

Not from me you won't - and shouldn't from any others but I am sure many will attempt to overcome the logic and try to equate non-firearm accessories as inclusive to all other 2A considerations.

 

[Capn Jack]

I lost my love for fully automatic weapons when "Sam" quit buying the ammunition.

 

[nammac]

More gas for the fire.... Take all the restrictions that are on the 2nd and apply them to the other Bill of Rights amendments.

You will see the people that are ok with them wailing up a storm. Especially if they are on the 1st A.

This right here, this should be the litmus test. If the restriction or similar, could be applied to any other Component of the Bill of Rights without an uproar, then I would accept that restriction on the Second Amendment...

Try restrictions on the First, Forth or Fifth Amendments, such have been applied to the Second and see what happens...

 

[Wombat of Doom]

Excellent observation and point! This distinction should hopefully 'sink in' with those who are on the 'bump fire bandwagon' - yet were probably 'blissfully ignorant' of there existence until a few days ago. I'll admit I KNEW there was some accessories for increasing the rate of fire but really didn't know how they worked until I researched it myself. Like you my answer is NO for all the same reasons but if we can allow rational and logic to prevail and get over these trivial, insignificant 'accessory' issues we can concentrate on REAL 2A demands.

incorrect. The second amendment refers to arms, not guns. Bump fire stocks, knives, etc. So the previous post and your takeaway from it ignores the second amendment altogether.

 

[RVTECH]

incorrect. The second amendment refers to arms, not guns. Bump fire stocks,

How, pray tell, is a stock an 'arm'? - it by itself is not capable of firing ammo. It is an attachment, a part of a firearm - not a firearm unto itself.

 

[Wombat of Doom]

Well then you are fine with a trigger or barrel ban?

Parts of arms would be covered under the concept of arms, unless you would be fine with a barrel ban.

 

[RVTECH]

A bump fire stock is not a firearm and thus has no 2nd amendment protection. Taking away an accessory that is designed to simulate full auto fire is not infringing your 2nd amendment rights.

Hey I was simply agreeing with the OP on this. Maybe he can clarify it for you.

 

[ma96782]

A friend of mine e-mailed me on this issue/subject of bump fire stocks. My response was.......

++++++

I have two bump stocks. And….my stocks have NEVER been used to kill anyone. OMG. Just because of one idiot…..the country is in a panic. Don't get me wrong…..it's unfortunate that people died as a result of a maniac with a gun.

So, ban crazy people. When are we EVER gonna address that issue?

Don't fall into the liberal's trap. If they ban bump stocks….why, not the AR15 itself? It was just a step away if Hillary had won the election. Yes, I believe that. Read the Democrat's Party Platform on guns.

They are trying to get Americans, to accepting the idea, that all guns (and related accessories) that can be used by a nut case, can be banned/regulated. All, in the name of SAFETY.

-- by Martin Nimbler (with my additions for firearms)

First they came for the Socialists Hi-cap magazines, and I did not speak out—

Because I was not a Socialist had no Hi-cap magazines.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists Semi-automatic firearms and bump fire stocks, and I did not speak out—

Because I was not a Trade Unionist had no Semi-automatic firearms or a bump stock.

Then they came for the Jews shotguns, rifles and revolvers, and I did not speak out—

Because I was not a Jew did not own a shotgun, rifle or revolver.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me real weapons left to put up a fight with.

Unfortunately (IMHO)…..the NRA is not as smart, strong or as forward looking/thinking as I'd like them to be. They are headed down a slippery slope.

Just my $0.02.

Aloha, Mark

PS.....even before the "Slide Fire" or "Bump Fire" style of stocks were available to the marketplace. We used to play at bump firing our semi auto ARs without a manufactured device. So....maybe the semi autos (or hi-cap magazines) will be next? IMHO, the anti gunners will never stop.

Don't compromise with the anti gunners. It dosen't work. Hawaii has an "Assault Pistol Ban" (which includes any magazine that will fit an AP) based on compromise that left the "Assault Rifes" free. LOL Yet, how many times since then, has a proposed "Assault Rifle Ban" been floated in Hawaii.

 

[cooper]

Never look a gift horse in the mouth....
FOR THOSE OF YOU THAT WENT "BALLS DEEP " IN YOUR AR BUILD OR PURCHASE...MIGHT BE YOUR LAST CHANCE TO FOLD. HELL WITH COMPLETE RIFLES UNDER $450

SIMPLY ATTATCH A SLIDE FIRE TO IT ..NOT SOLD SEPERATLEY OF COURSE....AND ASK YOUR $800-1500 PRICE
PLENTY OF LOCAL FFL TO TRANSFER
WINDOW IS CLOSING MAYBE FOR LAST TIME
FRIDAYS ARE PAYDAYS
DOUBLE DIP AND CASH IN ON THAT AMERICAN EAGLE REBATE
PICK UP ANOTHER 4,000rds
$1,000 SHIPPED 4,000 BRASS RELOADABLE
NIGHTMARE OR FAIRYTALES YOU PICK

I HAVE GUNS IN BOTH

 

[Blowgunner]

Bump-firing wasn't on the radar of the legislators until the shooting - either that or they are lying about being ignorant about it. Half a dozen, six of the other. Hard to know, but I am going to go with them being ignorant, it fits better in this case.

Gun control advocates? Maybe they will know - but again, it seems most of them are ignorant about guns too - at least from what I have seen them say. In general, it seems to me, that you have to actually use or at least be very interested in how guns work, in order to pick up on this, and most gun control advocates don't seem to go there.

So maybe they will try, but they have tried before. The gun control people doing what they do is not surprising at all - totally predictable by most of us.

What a lot of us have been ignoring, and that I have hinted at before this, is how fast the GOP and Trump and the NRA have caved on this issue. They are politicians and they go whichever way the wind blows - they will bend with it because they do not want to risk their powerbase and they have no real principles other than to stay in power at all cost.

If the diehard Trump/GOP supporters see this for what it is - see them for the liars they are, and stop supporting them - that may be the one good thing that comes out of this.

I stopped supporting the NRA and GOP back when the NRA and Reagan 'compromised' on the FOPA - we got a bit of 'protection' for crossing state lines at the cost of losing the right to have any new manufacturer full auto firearms. Totally screwed over the NFA community.

Then Bush made the import ban permanent.

These (NRA and GOP) are the people who said they would protect our Second Amendment rights. Did they?

**** NO!

Stop supporting the people who lie to you!

When are we going to wise up?

Trump is a con man. He has cheated people and stole from them. He is the worst of the worst.

WAKE THE **** UP PEOPLE!

THIS!

I have stayed out of this but I feel its time to give my two cents.

First... For those screaming "My 2nd Amendment!"
There is no constitutionally protected right to own firearms accessories. A bump fire stock is not a firearm and thus has no 2nd amendment protection. Taking away an accessory that is designed to simulate full auto fire is not infringing your 2nd amendment rights. I am sure this is the reasoning behind the NRA statement.

Do I agree with "banning" anything firearm related? No... I think actual full auto firearms should be available to anyone who wants one. Still does not change the fact that a stock is not a 2nd Amendment protected item.

Second. We are talking about an accessory that's entire reason for existing is to simulate a controlled firearm. Banning these would not set president. Its been done many times before banning items that when installed created full auto rates of fire. Wanting to regulated these like they regulated DIAS and other things that used to be available is not surprising.

Do I think it will solve anything? No, of course not. A criminal will not abide by the law. Someone who wants to shoot up a crowd can build a actual full auto rifle with very little skill required. Banning bump stocks will do nothing to stop nut jobs from shooting up a place...

Still.... Banning a hunk of plastic (or even placing it on a controlled list) is not the same as placing restrictions on or banning a firearm. I am not for banning bump stocks, but I am not really torn up about losing them either, its an accessory.

Given the circumstances and that fact we have 570 some victims in a huge mass casualty event involving a dozen or so AR15's..... The fact that they are making such a big stink about a hunk of bolt on plastic and not screaming for the total repeal of the 2nd amendment I count as a blessing.

I see the bumpfire stock as a token "give me" that might placate the anti's and get us through this tragedy without losing anything of actual value.

Do I like it? no. Do I think its right? no. Does this mean I am anti 2nd Amendment? Like I already stated this is not a 2nd Amendment issue, its not a firearm.

Do I think its going to stop this kind of madman? NO... Things are not responsible for evil, men are. Any sane and rational person understands this. Problem is the world is full of irrational/emotional people.

So yeah. I know its not a popular view point and I will get a raft of bubblegum for this. Still if you are objective and not emotional about it I am sure you can see the logic.

AND THIS!

 

[HuckFin]

I enjoy shooting bump fire, lotta fun but it is more of a toy and not what I would use for serious work. I would really like to know With all the planning this guy supposedly had done why this Paddock character would choose a bump fire stock when he could have done far more damage with just a semiauto especially shooting 400 yards out.

 

[The Heretic]

Let me put it this way.

A scope makes a firearm more capable of long distance accuracy and therefore more deadly - ban it. Not intrinsic part of the rifle - why should you care? You don't need it. Rifle works as intended and just fine without it.

Iron sights. You don't need them - just point in the general direction. Firearm works fine without them. Ban them.

Pistol grips - makes guns more deadly. Ban them.

Ditto with flash hider.

I think we should make all triggers 10# or more to make it harder for people to shoot them quickly and make them safer - that's what the NYPD did right?

I could go on and on, but the Second Amendment is not about guns, it isn't really even about 'arms' - it is about the ability and right of the populace to resist against tyranny, foreign or domestic.

When the government passes laws that infringe on that right, whether it is about bump fire stocks or flash hiders or whatever - they are slowly neutering your ability to resist them. They are demonizing gun owners, making us into a hated minority because we own something that threatens their power.

 

[aflineman]

When the NRA Supported Gun Control

 

[IronMonster]

The Heretic, Let me put it this way.

A scope makes a firearm more capable of long distance accuracy and therefore more deadly - ban it. Not intrinsic part of the rifle - why should you care? You don't need it. Rifle works as intended and just fine without it.

Wrong.... A scope or any sights are intrinsic to the function of a firearm. Not having them reduces the ability of the rifle to work as intended.

Iron sights. You don't need them - just point in the general direction. Firearm works fine without them. Ban them.

Wrong.... Sights are intrinsic to the function of a firearm, see above

Pistol grips - makes guns more deadly. Ban them.

Wrong... An intrinsic function of a firearm, try taking one off of a M4 and tell me it does not affect function.

Ditto with flash hider

Wrong.... An intrinsic function of a firearm serves a legitimate purpose and removing it alters how it functions, serves a purpose

I think we should make all triggers 10# or more to make it harder for people to shoot them quickly and make them safer - that's what the NYPD did right?

Changing trigger pull intrinsically changes the function of a firearm

I could go on and on, but the Second Amendment is not about guns, it isn't really even about 'arms' - it is about the ability and right of the populace to resist against tyranny, foreign or domestic.

Bumpfire stocks to do not make a AR or AK better suited to resist tyranny and removing one the rifle still functions as intended, unlike all the examples you provided.

And I disagree... The second amendment is specifically about ARMS and the right of the public to have them to resist against tyranny foreign and domestic.

When the government passes laws that infringe on that right, whether it is about bump fire stocks or flash hiders or whatever - they are slowly neutering your ability to resist them. They are demonizing gun owners, making us into a hated minority because we own something that threatens their power.

Again.... Removing a bumpfire stock the weapon will still function as intended. The stock is not a part of the firearm like all the other things you listed. And again I think I need to state that I am not for banning bump stocks and I am just looking at the 2nd and its wording and what rights it protects objectively. I think the public should have access to full auto weapons, as that is the intent of the 2nd amendment. To have military grade arms for the protection against enemies foreign and domestic.

Objectively, a slide fire stock is not a weapon, when removed the weapon it was on functions as intended. Again, Objectively full auto fire weapons are regulated (not banned) Other things that simulate full auto fire have been regulated. This is not precedent. If you took away something that affected the intended function of the rifle... Such as limiting magazine size or banning optics or even an bayonet lug... That is infrinngment. The firearm is no longer as useful as it once was.

Now the Hughes act of 1986 that prohibited the new manufacture of automatic weapons.... That is infringement As is the National Firearms Act of 34. The AWB... Those all affected the right of individuals.

 

[cookie]

The problem is the stupid voters.