Banning bumpfire stocks

[The Heretic]

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 if the gun was sold from the manufacturer with the bumpfire stock? Then it is intended to function with it.

Several of the binary trigger manufacturers sell rifles with the binary trigger already installed. So they are intended to function in that manner.

So yes, infringing on our Second Amendment rights by banning devices that increase the rate of fire.

I can't see how you can say a buttstock is less of a part of a rifle than a flash hider or a pistol grip.

 

[IronMonster]

And if the gun was sold from the manufacturer with the bumpfire stock? Then it is intended to function with it.

Several of the binary trigger manufacturers sell rifles with the binary trigger already installed. So they are intended to function in that manner.

So yes, infringing on our Second Amendment rights by banning devices that increase the rate of fire.

I can't see how you can say a buttstock is less of a part of a rifle than a flash hider or a pistol grip.

I am not saying that. I am saying a bumpfire stock, that is not an original part of any sold rifle, which the rifle will function as intended without..... Is not the same as mandating a change in a functional part of a rifle... Like an original butt stock.

Its simple.... A rifle needs a buttstock to function as intended. Not only does it not need a bump fire stock to function as intended it arguably will not function as intended with one.

 

[IronMonster]

ATF stance on bumpfire stocks

"But a bureau spokesman said in an email Friday that ATF does not approve the devices; it merely determines what classification they fall under—a firearm, a part, a silencer, and so on. The ATF in 2010 determined that bump stocks are an attachment to a gun that replaces its grip and suppresses its recoil, but doesn't on its own cause the gun to fire automatically"

And yet once again I will say I don't think they should be banned..... All I am saying is they don't have the protection of the 2nd amendment.

 

[The Heretic]

I think you are quibbling about the intention of the manufacturer/designer, when there are, as I mentioned, manufacturers/designers who manufacture and sell rifles with these enhancements.

Also, the intention of the laws is indeed to infringe on our rights. Also, I believe, that the creators of the Second Amendment would see it as an infringement.

 

[IronMonster]

I think you are quibbling about the intention of the manufacturer/designer, when there are, as I mentioned, manufacturers/designers who manufacture and sell rifles with these enhancements.

Also, the intention of the laws is indeed to infringe on our rights. Also, I believe, that the creators of the Second Amendment would see it as an infringement.

There are no rifle manufactures that sell rifles with slide fire stocks attached. There are shops that take manufactures rifles and add accessories like bump fire stocks and then sell them.

I think the creators of the Second Amendment couldn't care less about bump fire stocks.... They would be too busy screaming about why we don't have access to military grade small arms like they intended.

 

[The Heretic]

ATF stance on bumpfire stocks

"But a bureau spokesman said in an email Friday that ATF does not approve the devices; it merely determines what classification they fall under—a firearm, a part, a silencer, and so on. The ATF in 2010 determined that bump stocks are an attachment to a gun that replaces its grip and suppresses its recoil, but doesn't on its own cause the gun to fire automatically"

And yet once again I will say I don't think they should be banned..... All I am saying is they don't have the protection of the 2nd amendment.

The ATF interprets the laws it is charged with enforcing. As you yourself pointed out, some of the laws it enforces violate the Second Amendment.

Also, they have stated that certain trigger packs are "firearms" when you and I know they are not. Ditto with suppressors. These determinations by the ATF and other laws violate the Second Amendment, both in spirit and letter.

 

[The Heretic]

There are no rifle manufactures that sell rifles with slide fire stocks attached. There are shops that take manufactures rifles and add accessories like bump fire stocks and then sell them.

I think the creators of the Second Amendment could care less about bump fire stocks.... They would be too busy screaming about why we don't have access to military grade small arms like they intended.

The proposed ban bill makes no mention of bumpfire stocks, it bans any device that will increase the rate of fire of a firearm to near that of a full auto firearm.

As such, this law would ban rubber bands, a stick, a cranking device, and even your finger.

Fostech and the manufacturer of the digital trigger both sell rifles with their devices, designed to use their devices.

 

[rurallife]

They want total confiscation.

Personally, not sure if this stuff is worth drawing a line for. I don't want one, couldn't afford to use it. Lol

There's a bigger fight coming ...

 

[IronMonster]

The ATF interprets the laws it is charged with enforcing. As you yourself pointed out, some of the laws it enforces violate the Second Amendment.

Also, they have stated that certain trigger packs are "firearms" when you and I know they are not. Ditto with suppressors. These determinations by the ATF and other laws violate the Second Amendment, both in spirit and letter.

I am tired of trying to make my point and you clearly do not get what I am trying to say....

Im going to just agree that we dont agree.

 

[The Heretic]

They want total confiscation.

Personally, not sure if this stuff is worth drawing a line for. I don't want one, couldn't afford to use it. Lol

There's a bigger fight coming ...

Depends on what "drawing a line" means.

For me, it isn't worth a physical fight, but it is worth a political fight.

My main intention is to wake up people regarding their so called "leaders" intentions. Especially when it comes to the NRA, Trump and the GOP.

We may or may not get this ban foisted on us, but that doesn't mean we have to lie down and accept it. It also does not mean we should forgive and forget. The NRA, Trump and the GOP never really intended to protect us - their promises were just a means to an end; money and power. Now that they have what they want, they are quite willing to "go with the flow" and let us suffer because of some maniac.

It is the Libertarian Party, the GOA and the SAF who have stayed true and worked for our rights all along. So people need to wise up and not be fooled by the con men who say what we want to hear - actions speak louder than words. Take off those rose colored glasses and see who your real friends are by their actions.

 

[The Heretic]

I am tired of trying to make my point and you clearly do not get what I am trying to say....

Im going to just agree that we dont agree.

I hear what you are saying, I just do not agree.

 

[IronMonster]

I hear what you are saying, I just do not agree.

I don't think you do, but I won't argue about that either

 

[slimmer13]

If it would buy us some time, or appease them for awhile, where they would leave the real prize (AWB) alone for awhile, I would be willing to support throwing stupid bf stocks right under the bus. But it wont, they will be emboldened and encouraged and have some momentum.

I say why give them that?

 

[rurallife]

Apologies if already posted

 

[rurallife]

Heck, they want all of them. Don't kid yourself. Total confiscation is their endgame.

 

[nammac]

With my tin foil hat firmly in place this morning, I do find the timing of last Sunday's event coupled with the sudden and cohesive attack on butt fire type stocks curious...

Curious, because there's indications that beginning November 4th, ANTIFA is planning and coordinating, ongoing nationwide protests with the intent of having the current administration ousted...

That's exactly four weeks from today, if I were a betting man, I'd bet that Washington D.C. comes to an agreement on slide/butt fire stocks, not only comes to an agreement but that we have further regulation completed by that time.

I'd hate to see it happen, but the responsiveness so far to this event leads me to believe that we will see some type of additional regulation, at the federal level.

And of course we'll have a he!! Of a fight in the Washington and Oregon legislatures come next legislative season...

Enjoy the good ole days while we still have 'em.

 

[soberups]

So the NRA has officially called upon the BATFE to consider ADDITIONAL REGULATIONS on bump fire stocks. That is what the NRA statement said? Now I understand better why I cut up my NRA membership card into little pieces and mailed the bits back to the NRA. This was done in 1968. Seems nothing has changed regarding the NRA. NOW DO YOU UNDERSTAND WHY THE NRA IS NOT THE SOLUTION BUT PART OF THE PROBLEM! Why does this not surprise me? Hello! Hello?

Respectfully.

Think it through.
They arent calling for a law that bans them. They are calling for a review. A review from the same ATF approved them under the Obama administration. A review that, if unfavorable, could wind up in court.
They are also making noise about 50 state reciprocity. I see a quid pro quo in the works, with the possibility of our side getting something (reciprocity)in exchange for essentially nothing, since a ban on bump fires is virtually unenforceable and anyone who wants to bump fire can do so with a rubber band. Dont give up on the NRA just yet, this is a poker game and sometimes you have to be willing to fold a hand in order to win the game.

 

[rurallife]

We all know the present Oregon gov'ner wants to emulate Cal.

So how did that Connecticut ban work out? Massachusetts?

 

[ma96782]

IronMonster,

IMHO...you're wrong about what is "an intrinsic part of a firearm." What is intrinsic, is basically a:

lock,
stock,
and barrel.

Think about it........

1) There was a time when firearms did not have scopes.

2) There was a time when firearms did not have sights at all.

3) There was a time when firearms were not loaded with self contained cartridges.*

4) There was a time when firearms could not be loaded with a clip or magazine to improve it's loaded capacity.*

*OK......so you didn't speak of those particular "improvements."

But the point is more that..........the liberals would like nothing better than to be able to pick and choose what is acceptable in a firearm.

Huh?

Because to some liberals.......they would like nothing better than to define acceptable firearms (ammo and parts) as only those suitable for hunting or firearms like what was available in 1776. Some would define any newfangled firearms and innovations beyond what was available in 1776 as just plain EVIL and subject to banning or more regulation.

Remember, to some of them........all private gun owners are potential murders AND the 2A was meant only for the Govt and Govt Agencies. Not private citizens. Cough, cough.

Don't play their game.

The EVIL comes from the person pulling the trigger.

Aloha, Mark

 

[The Heretic]

They are also making noise about 50 state reciprocity. I see a quid pro quo in the works, with the possibility of our side getting something (reciprocity)in exchange for essentially nothing, since a ban on bump fires is virtually unenforceable and anyone who wants to bump fire can do so with a rubber band. Dont give up on the NRA just yet, this is a poker game and sometimes you have to be willing to fold a hand in order to win the game.

This is what happened with FOPA - we supposedly got "protection" for carrying guns across state lines and in exchange they closed down the registration for select fire firearms so no more can be manufactured and sold. The majority of firearm owners got a piece of candy and NFA owners (or people who want to be) got a kick in the nether regions.

Remember, this isn't about stocks, this is about any device that increases the rate of fire, including binary triggers. I was never really interested in the former, but I was considering buying the latter.

I can get a CHL/et. al. in all of the states I want to carry in now. And bear in mind - it is not 50 state reciprocity - it is only reciprocity for those states where CHLs are issued. So all a state has to do is say - no more permits.