Banning bumpfire stocks

[IronMonster]

Again, completely missing my point and misconstrueing my words. I have said many times I do not agree with a ban. I have said many times that a firearm accessory is not part of a firearm.

You want to make it part of a firearm, fine. Then what you have IS an item than can be regulated and controlled. One that the ATF can make rules and put you in jail for owning. Why would you want that? As long as it's NOT a firearm it's just a hunk of plastic.

And AGAIN I will say that you can't have it both ways... you want second amendment protection for a hunk of plastic? FINE! Then it puts all your hunks of plastic on the table for scrutiny because you have just declared it a firearm.

I can't understand what is so hard to grasp about this, far as I am concerned you guys are screaming to ensure the worst outcome possible... to declare a hunk of plastic that has no intrinsic use on a firearm to itself be a firearm

I say it's an accessory... and as such is not an intrinsic part of a firearm and thus simply a hunk of plastic. If you insist on making it a designed part of a firearm you will put it in the same category as a pistol brace. An item that reclassifies a firearm into something else

 

[The Heretic]

That is a possibility, but it won't stop them from 'banning' that hunk of plastic when it is attached to the gun and maybe even putting people in prison for simply owning one. They have done this with triggers, suppressor parts (a suppressor is an accessory if there ever was one) and so on. Saying it isn't a firearm won't keep them from passing a law and it won't keep people out of prison.

As I said, I care less about stocks than I do about binary triggers, and triggers are an intrinsic part of a firearm and there is already precedent for controlling them - people have gone to prison for owning an unregistered DIAS trigger. The BATF may come out with a ruling that says all triggers must have a weight above 4 pounds to make it harder to bump fire a rifle.

They could do what they did with the pistol brace.

We will be very lucky if this bill never makes it to law, but from here on, the rest of Trump's admin, we will be on the defensive, and Trump/GOP/NRA are not helping at all by playing along. The best defense is an offense, but instead they are being conciliatory. The one time when Trump should double down, he doesn't - he backs down.

 

[cookie]

My usual If the killer ran over the people with a van would the whores rise and scream to ban vans?

 

[The Heretic]

My usual If the killer ran over the people with a van would the whores rise and scream to ban vans?

Eleven teenagers are killed every day in traffic accidents because they were texting while driving. That is over 4 thousand per year. I had a niece that was killed because she was texting while driving - she left behind 6 kids.

So yeah, ban texting while driving, but don't ban cell phones. One is a stupid action that endangers everybody on the road, the other is a very useful object.

 

[Boboclown]

No dog in this argument but...

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

Pull trigger, go bang. Gun functions sights or no sights.

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

Does it still go bang without it?

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

It still goes bang.

While they serve a purpose on a gun, they aren't necessary for its function. What they do is make certain tasks easier, but they aren't necessary to the function of the gun. I have never owned, intended to own, or ever intend to own a bumpfire stock (or similar accessory). However, to use function of the gun as an argument to say its okay to ban then (or not as bad) is not a good one to make.

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.

They wouldn't be in the position to not care less if we had access to military grade small arms, cause then this stuff wouldn't exist in the first place.

 

[IronMonster]

No dog in this argument but...

Pull trigger, go bang. Gun functions sights or no sights.

Does it still go bang without it?

It still goes bang.

While they serve a purpose on a gun, they aren't necessary for its function. What they do is make certain tasks easier, but they aren't necessary to the function of the gun. I have never owned, intended to own, or ever intend to own a bumpfire stock (or similar accessory). However, to use function of the gun as an argument to say its okay to ban then (or not as bad) is not a good one to make.


They wouldn't be in the position to not care less if we had access to military grade small arms, cause then this stuff wouldn't exist in the first place.

A guns intent is not for it to go "bang" A gun is a precision mechanical device designed to fire a tiny projectile at a distance accurately. In order to do that it must have all those things, we talked about. A gun that just goes bang but you cant aim is worthless... Thus you have changed the function of the firearm.


"However, to use function of the gun as an argument to say its okay to ban then (or not as bad) is not a good one to make."

That is not the argument I am making at all, not even close. I have said at least 6 times in this thread alone that I don't agree with banning anything.

"They wouldn't be in the position to not care less if we had access to military grade small arms, cause then this stuff wouldn't exist in the first place."

Not sure what you are trying to say here... If the second was being upheld and we had access to military grade weapons like I feel the founders intended.. Would you care about bumpfire stocks?

 

[RicInOR]

The NRA's Phony Concession on Bump Stocks Invites a Real Ban

 

[Boboclown]

A guns intent is not for it to go "bang" A gun is a precision mechanical device designed to fire a tiny projectile at a distance accurately. In order to do that it must have all those things, we talked about. A gun that just goes bang but you cant aim is worthless... Thus you have changed the function of the firearm.


"However, to use function of the gun as an argument to say its okay to ban then (or not as bad) is not a good one to make."

That is not the argument I am making at all, not even close. I have said at least 6 times in this thread alone that I don't agree with banning anything.

"They wouldn't be in the position to not care less if we had access to military grade small arms, cause then this stuff wouldn't exist in the first place."

Not sure what you are trying to say here... If the second was being upheld and we had access to military grade weapons like I feel the founders intended.. Would you care about bumpfire stocks?

Would I care about bumpfire stocks if we had access to military grade firearms? No, cause they wouldn't exist.

And purpose and function are different. The gun still shoots without all that stuff. A firearm is designed to launch a projectile. That's the function, other stuff is the goal. So a lack of sights, pistol grip, etc does not have an effect on function. I wasn't trying to say you were trying to ban anything either.

 

[RVTECH]

However, to use function of the gun as an argument to say its okay to ban then (or not as bad) is not a good one to make.

I believe the point the OP is trying to make is a slide fire stock is purely a additional accessory. It is meant to replace the existing stock as the rifle comes with it's own stock from the factory which downgrades it's importance even further. Because the rifle comes with a stock an accessory one is not an 'essential' item for it's function and as mentioned before it is NOT a firearm and by itself could most likely not be banned.

However what COULD be 'banned' (and this is purely conjecture) is say replacing the factory stock with 'Any accessory (non-factory installed) stock which when installed allows for reciprocating movement specifically intended to increase the rate of fire' OR something to this effect. The idea being while the stock itself cannot be banned it's installation could be - not unlike an under 16" shotgun barrel which by itself is a metal tube but when installed makes the gun illegal.

 

[CountryGent]

The text of one of the proposed bans may be read here. That language, particularly "and for other purposes", is pretty darn broad.

 

[Core]

Thought I would throw this out there. Banning thousands of bumpfire stocks will not stop people from bumpfiring their rifles or handguns by using two fingers or one finger and a wooden dowel or a rubber band or whatever else can be dreamed up. It won't take liberals to long to figure this out and start screaming for all semiautos to be banned since any semiauto can be bumpfired.

I think the NRA needs to stop making decisions for the members prior to holding a census.

 

[Phred]

I think there's a reverse psychology thing that might be considered here, that could benefit us. So we go - "OK, take the Bumpstocks away". Unfortunately, history will surely repeat itself in some way in the future. Then when the Dumbocrats start crying again, we can rightfully say "we tried it your way, and it did't cure anything as we new it wouldn't. I would also personally through in, "now go pound sand idiots". So, now come up with a common sense idea, ( totally lacking in D.C ) and we'll talk.

3 cents worth

 

[IronMonster]

Im all for compromise.... I will gladly support the outright ban of bumpfire stocks...

All I ask for in return is a full repeal of the Hughes amendment.

 

[Slobray]

I think there's a reverse psychology thing that might be considered here, that could benefit us. So we go - "OK, take the Bumpstocks away". Unfortunately, history will surely repeat itself in some way in the future. Then when the Dumbocrats start crying again, we can rightfully say "we tried it your way, and it did't cure anything as we new it wouldn't. I would also personally through in, "now go pound sand idiots". So, now come up with a common sense idea, ( totally lacking in D.C ) and we'll talk.

3 cents worth

Won't work, the anti's will never stop until all guns are outlawed. A few examples..........

The Gun Free School Zone Act was supposed to stop all shootings in schools, but didn't, yet all anti's are still screaming for more gun free zones.
The Brady bill was supposed to protect us all, but didn't, yet all anti's are still screaming for BGC's.
The '94 AWB was supposed to stop all mass shootings and violent crime, but didn't, yet all anti's are still screaming for a new AWB.



Ray

 

[Slobray]

Im all for compromise.... I will gladly support the outright ban of bumpfire stocks...

All I ask for in return is a full repeal of the Hughes amendment.

No dice...................... now a full repeal of the NFA and the Hughes amendment, then we can talk.



Ray

 

[Diamondback]

No dice...................... now a full repeal of the NFA and the Hughes amendment, then we can talk.



Ray

Piker. I'm holding out for a SCOTUS strikedown of all hardware bans like AWB's nationwide... get Barry's Little B*tchboy Roberts and Drunken Bum Kennedy onboard and we'll talk.

 

[Pete F]

This morning CBS quoted the ATF as classifying them as a Firearm Part. That is obviously not accurate. It is an aftermarket accessory that can be used on any Firearm or other finger controlled device, like power staple gun etc.

Putting one on a legal Firearm to create an illegal Firearm should be the same penalty as putting a mod. kit in. Plain and simple. Just enforce the laws that exist now!

What if you buy the gun with the Bump stock already installed? It is just a piece of the firearm. I too see no reason to own one, but plenty of reasons not to ban them.

 

[RicInOR]

NRA Opposes New Bump Fire Stock Ban Bill


Although, since they said the BATFE should review them under their existing rules, I am not sure the NRA has any ground to stand upon.

"We are opposed to the Feinstein and Curbelo legislation,"

Of course, your legislators want to hear from you.

 

[Boboclown]

No dice...................... now a full repeal of the NFA and the Hughes amendment, then we can talk.



Ray

Or a full repeal of the NFA, Hughes Amendment, and 1968 GCA.

Otherwise, no dice.

 

[Pandaz3]

I immediately wrote the NRA including my lifetime member number and called them back sliding blankedy blanks and said no more money! Apparently others did the same as they changed their tune. Chris Cox wrote me today for more money for the NRA-ILA, no dice.
I am not tearing up my membership, but it takes time to heal wounds.