Brady Center Sues SlideFire Solutions

Lohman
Aren't bumpfire stocks kind of sold with a "wink, wink, nudge, nudge" in getting around laws regulating full auto firearms?
Click to expand...

Perhaps, but with the blessing of the ATF and their full knowledge of what they are.
 
No bumpfire stocks are 100% legal. By wink wink nudge nudge I meant if the shop suspected a CRIME was about to be committed. IE I walk Into my local Gun. shop having a conversation about that sob ima gonna kill or some such or ima show them all!! Etc.

I don't mean wink wink nudge nudge I want to pretend like I have full auto for stuff and giggles.
 
JoeSixpack said:
...what you can do is ask the ATF a legal question or evaluate a product and they will render an opinion.. since ATF is the ones that enforce gun laws in this country I would assume their own rendered opinions would have SOME weight....
Click to expand...
Yes, they have weight, but they are not binding on a court.

And while immunity laws, like the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) can offer useful protection, they do not, and can not, foreclose a lawsuit. Such laws set out certain conditions which, if satisfied, will protect a party from liability. But if there's a dispute as to whether those conditions have been satisfied, that dispute will be worked out in court in a lawsuit.
 
Aren't bumpfire stocks kind of sold with a "wink, wink, nudge, nudge" in getting around laws regulating full auto firearms?
Click to expand...

Kind of but not really. It designed to simulate FA fire... But its perfectly legal and I don't believe there's a thing that anyone but a majority of congressmen can do about it. It is legal, and will very likely remain so, because of the definition of "machine gun" in the NFA. Basically machine gun=more than one round per trigger pull. Slide fire still equals 1 round per 1 trigger pull... It just aids the shooter in using the rifles recoil to pull the trigger much faster. It does this with no mechanical assist.

Before we bemoan it as a legal loophole that ATF shouldn't have allowed... Remember we would have to have the same stance with bullet button ARs sold in CA to get around the detachable magazine restriction. Don't blame the loophole item. Blame the poorly written law. Doesn't matter if you are skirting the spirit of the law if you abide by the letter of it. Why doesn't it matter? Because the rule of law matters.
 
Lohman446 said:
Not to be combative and this is an honest question because I always kind of just rolled my eyes and walked by when the sales pitch started the few times someone tried to sell me one at a show:

What was the marketing angle on them?
Click to expand...

Well Like I said my research is not exhaustive.
The Akins Accelerator which is like the grand daddy bump stock Im not sure how that was marketed, far as I know it was only for the ruger 10/22 and I didn't have a 10/22 so didn't pay much attention till after the ATF reversal.

Trigger cranks I think are usually marketed as novelties.. but I never paid much attention to them.

Binary triggers.. Im not sure, I think at least one marketing angle was on competition, I briefly looked at the franklin armory binary triggers before first getting scared at the price and then getting terrified at the product.
I could not wrap my head around a trigger that discharges when you release it I was for sure I'd end up shooting my self with the damn thing.

Not sure who all is making bump stocks, Slide fire is the only one I can name off the top of my head it came out after the Akins and I thought they were interesting but I believe the at the time price was like 200-250.. which seemed way overpriced for a hunk of plastic.
The way the thing operates seems kinda crude and I just assumed at some point it would suffer the same fate as the Akins spring or no spring.
So I only looked at them when they first came out and haven't kept up with their marketing strategy since.

I remember when they first came out it was marketed as a safer way to bump fire, it was suppose to be fun and used for recreation, possibly training.

But I went over the slide fire to see what the current message was and here's what I dug up.

So here's the video or one of the video's I remember early on
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0f7OCnrrpk
Emphasis safety, fun.
Here's a more recent one again emphasis fun/recreation
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TI3occOYH7g

But than we come across this one
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hCCT8JtwQeI
Eh.. thinly cryptic.. This might play into your wink/nod marketing.

Lastly we have a video for their belt fed AR, completely solution with a belt fed modified upper and a bump stock.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UC3nsxeMsBY
Well.. What I can I see this one quite literally says simulated full auto and no tax stamp..

So maybe there is something to your point.. at least in some instances.
I guess I have not paid enough attention to recent marketing on these things.

Still originally at least the message was clear it was for fun/recreation not try and skirt any sort of law.

And if you look what people was using them for that's exactly what they're being used for.. fun.. recreation.
Far as I know the vegas shooter is the first one to use a bump stock in a crime.

He did so with tremendous success, But than again I think everyone can agree his planing was methodical.. bump stocks or no Im sure his shooting spree would have been devastating.

Even the gun grabbers like Di-Fi are dumbfounded on how they could have stopped this particular incident.

P.S I See they've been busy and came out with a 10/22 stock now that's something I wouldn't mind having and I could afford to feed it.

22lr is fun to shoot quick.
 
A law suit isn't going to go anywhere. They sell a product that does what it is made to do. There is no failure to work as advertised and no negligence on the part of the manufacturer. Its like suing a knife maker for making a knife or a bat maker making a baseball bat that are used in a crime. The manufacturer is not responsible in any way for the way it is used by a purchaser. The suit will only make the anti-gunners look stupid when they rant about how the gun lobby supported the use of a bump stock in a crime.
 
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.
natman
Click to expand...

They do not expect a different result. Some of the antigunners are not idiots as much as some think so. They know that a lawsuit like this is still born. But in the Liberal court of public opinion slide fire is guilty of murder. So they can say something like
"We tried but the laws must change before anything can be done to stop this because if we just had no guns, there would be clean water in Flint Michigan, no more hurricanes, and south Chicago would look like Mayberry, so donate to the Brady Bunch and vote for candidate (x) to make legislative changes".
 
Mississippi said:
They do not expect a different result... in the Liberal court of public opinion slide fire is guilty of murder. So they can say something like "We tried but the laws must change before anything can be done to stop this..."
Click to expand...
+1, hence my earlier assertion that this lawsuit is cynically designed to fail for propaganda purposes.

They want the PLCAA to be repealed, but when talking their base of support, it's hard to explain WHY. So yes, they're proverbially banging their heads against a brick wall, but understand that they're doing it to demonstrate that the wall is there. ;):rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top