JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
New Bipartisan Bump Stock Bill Would Actually Ban All Semi-Automatic Rifles
A new congressional proposal to ban bump stocks in the wake of the Las Vegas mass shooting would actually ban all semi-automatic rifles and parts.
October 13, 2017 By Sean Davis


A new gun control proposal in Congress that is being pitched as a bipartisan bump stock ban would actually ban all semi-automatic rifles in the United States, according to an analysis of the proposed bill.

The legislation, which was drafted by Rep. Carlos Curbelo, a Florida Republican, never bans bump stocks by name. Instead, the proposal bans any person from possessing or making any part that could be used to increase the rate of fire in any semi-automatic rifle. The lead co-sponsor on the gun control bill is Rep. Seth Moulton, a Massachusetts Democrat and U.S. Marines veteran who completed four tours of duty in Iraq.

"It shall be unlawful for any person … to manufacture, possess, or transfer any part or combination of parts that is designed to increase the rate of fire of a semi-automatic rifle," the bill states. At no point does the proposed legislation specify a base rate of fire against which any illegal increases would be judged, a potentially fatal flaw in the bill's drafting. As a result, the proposal arguably institutes a federal ban on any and all parts that would allow the gun to fire at all, since the mere ability to fire a semi-automatic weapon by definition increases its rate of fire from zero.

The design of semi-automatic weapons uses the recoil of the weapon generated by the gas explosion in the chamber when a round is fired to automatically chamber a new round, and prepare the weapon to be fired again. Because of this, any parts used in that process would likely be subject to the federal ban proposed in the Curbelo/Moulton bill, since they serve to increase the rate of fire of a semi-automatic weapon. Gas tubes, gas blocks, buffer springs, magazines, charging handles, ejectors and extractors, and even triggers themselves could potentially be banned under the bipartisan bump stock ban language proposed by Curbelo and Moulton.
 
Yes he would. 1) He doesn't actually understand guns. 2) The NRA has already given him cover after putting out a statement that they would support changes to law concerning bump fire stocks.

Our only hope on that front is that enough congressmen know the truth that will amend the bills to only affect bump fire stocks, giving very strict definitions of such. I hope nothing like this ever gets to Trump's desk, but the NRA has already screwed us on this point, and I wouldn't see Trump as the bulwark against insanity.
 
None of this sheet is going to pass The DON wont sign any of it into law.

"The DON" will sign whatever he thinks will stroke his ego. Gun rights are not high on his list of things he wants done, so if this will get him enough points (of if he thinks it will get him points) so he can get other things done (like cutting the top tax rates) he will sign it in a heartbeat.

It never ceases to amaze me that people believe the lies of the people they elect. :rolleyes:
 
Bro you are still trying to antagonize people? Get off the whole internet instigator thing it's really old already.

Remember opinions are like AZZholes everyone has one and some stink and need a washing out.
 
Yes he would. 1) He doesn't actually understand guns. 2) The NRA has already given him cover after putting out a statement that they would support changes to law concerning bump fire stocks.

Our only hope on that front is that enough congressmen know the truth that will amend the bills to only affect bump fire stocks, giving very strict definitions of such. I hope nothing like this ever gets to Trump's desk, but the NRA has already screwed us on this point, and I wouldn't see Trump as the bulwark against insanity.
Not if he expects to run again in 2020.
 
Million dollar question:

what is the cyclic rate of a semi automatic firearm?


news flash....


there is none.
From my paintball experience, where we actually timed things like this, most people cannot do better than 7 or 8 shots per second with a single action trigger. It would be an easy thing to actually run some tests with various firearms, then take 150% of that rate and make that the statutory definition of a normal semi-automatic rate of fire. Anything above that would physically require extra parts which would be illegal.

That said, the whole thing is an exercise in futility. It won't accomplish anything as far as fewer firearm deaths. But then, we all know that is not the point. What everyone is dancing around on both sides is acknowledging that everyone knows that these laws will do nothing to accomplish the stated goals, but what they will do is punish all gun owners, and that is subconsciously what is attractive to people about these laws. I firmly believe that most normal people who favor more gun laws subconsciously want to punish gun owners in general, and that any publicly stated benefit as far as guns getting into the wrong hands and reducing gun deaths is just rationalization.
 
Not if he expects to run again in 2020.
You may be right, but I can't tell you how many pro-gun types I have heard in the media over the last two weeks who have said they had never even heard of "bump-stocks" (not even the right term for these...). To the average person (read what I mean by this term to be a majority of voters, even possibly a majority of Republicans), bump-fire stocks make rifles into full-auto machine guns...if not literally or technically, then at least functionally or in essence.

If a bill gets to Trump's desk, I would not bet on his protection from tyranny! And I say this as an ardent Trump supporter. I just happen to be a realist and an astute observer of our current situation.

Our best-case hope is that no legislation makes it entirely through the Congressional process, but instead the issue is sent to the BATFE to render an updated decision. And even then we may lose access to bump-fire stocks.
 
I believe the story, but such legislation still may come about again when it is discovered that the ATF has already made up its mind and can only follow current law, under which bump-fire stocks are 100% legal. Regulation cannot change this fact, only legislation can change the fate of these accessories.
 
Nobody should be allowed to post 3x in a row. There should be a law...

I couldn't give one flip about bump-fire stocks. I think they're stupid and only allow for fun at the range or for an exceedingly rare instance (only once) of killing people. Except as this issue pertains to our freedom as Americans o buy any product for any and all legal purposes, I don't care what happens.

However, I am most nervous about how any such legislation may affect trigger groups with lighter triggers. Now THOSE are something I would fight for, because anything that makes a rifle more ergonomically accessible would be up for grabs then.
 
Still trying to figure how you go from fire to zero.
Nonetheless, I gleaned from that, all semiautomatic arms owners will have to forfeit (surgically remove) their fingers because pulling the trigger will increase the rate of fire. I think the thumb is safe because something has to hold the stock.
 
From my paintball experience, where we actually timed things like this, most people cannot do better than 7 or 8 shots per second with a single action trigger. It would be an easy thing to actually run some tests with various firearms, then take 150% of that rate and make that the statutory definition of a normal semi-automatic rate of fire. Anything above that would physically require extra parts which would be illegal.
Don't try and give them authority they don't already have. I can't get passed what the shooter probably did but they are trying to base a new law on fantasy, because nothing has been proven. At best it was a single event and they want to rewrite the constitution.
 
Last Edited:
Still trying to figure how you go from fire to zero.
Nonetheless, I gleaned from that, all semiautomatic arms owners will have to forfeit (surgically remove) their fingers because pulling the trigger will increase the rate of fire. I think the thumb is safe because something has to hold the stock.
YA! JM is gonna have to have a tax stamp on his fingers
 
I think this bill, at least in its current form, has little chance of getting through both houses of congress, much less make it to Trump's desk. But let's say somehow it did manage to get to Trump, would he sign it? Well, since he's not faced any pro or anti-gun legislation yet, all I can say is, I don't know. I know the Trump haters will say of course he'll sign it, same with the NRA haters. But let's not forget, Trump is not a stupid man, he is certainly not your typical politician. Hardly anyone can predict what he will or won't do. My gut feeling though is that he's smart enough, should he want to run again in 2020, not to sign something that will likely piss off a lot of gun owners, since they helped get him there. But when it comes to Trump, I will stop short of saying he will or won't do anything - seems everyone who tries to predict him ends up missing the mark.

We'll have to see. I expect there will have to be some very serious changes to this bill or any other before they will be able to get enough support to get it to clear a vote.
 
Seems like there are fewer and fewer of those around these days :(

We need to back the true defenders of the Republic regardless of Party affiliation and do whatever we can to send these politicians who only look at polls and fundraisers back to the unemployment office to get their Government cheese.
 

Upcoming Events

Oregon Arms Collectors March Gun Show
Portland, OR
Tillamook Gun & Knife Show
Tillamook, OR
"The Original" Kalispell Gun Show
Kalispell, MT
Teen Rifle 1 Class
Springfield, OR
Kids Firearm Safety 2 Class
Springfield, OR

New Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top