Feinstein's Bumpfire Ban Bill

I'm an avid hunter and firearm advocate and don't have a problem with this. We have to draw the line somewhere. Of course those who have stamps for full auto weapons should be grandfathered in. What problems do you have with people doing illegal stuff or soon to be too their semi auto weapons? I haven't read the pdf yet so maybe I'm off on my thinking though. Will read later.

[...]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Well, if you look at youtube, you will see plenty of bump fire vids with no alteration or special stock at all.
At some point, the anti gun folks will ban weapons which can be bump fired...in other words, any semiauto.
I've seen a video of a Beretta 92FS being bumpfired.
 
zipspyder said:
I'm an avid hunter and firearm advocate and don't have a problem with this.
Click to expand...
Until you consider that the phrase...
...functions to increase the rate of fire of a semiautomatic rifle...
Click to expand...
...could be interpreted to include things like installing a lightened hammer or a trigger kit, replacing a worn recoil buffer or spring, or even doing a good "fluff and buff" internal parts polishing. :eek:

The language in the bill is dangerously ambiguous. However...
Bartholomew Roberts said:
On the bright side, I'd say the chances of that bill exiting the Senate Judiciary Committee are less than me winning the next Powerball drawing.
Click to expand...
Yup—for the above reasons.

IMHO this bill is DOA as written but the problem comes when it's edited into something less vague.
 
Beretta 92FS being bumpfired.
____________
Click to expand...
Yup, I’ve done it, in fact, with one hand. I discovered on accident. Early smartphone days, I was attempting to video with one hand and shoot with the other. It was a safe place, a small canyon like ravine of dirt walls on private property. I had a looser than normal grip and it bump fired. I did it a couple of more times for giggles and that’s all.
Bump fired a rifle one session just to try it.

I could care less about a bump stock, but we’ve got enough restrictions.
Many people out there think the government assigns rights and that’s wrong.
 
I'm an avid hunter and firearm advocate and don't have a problem with this. We have to draw the line somewhere.
Click to expand...

So as a firearms advocate, you thought there was no line anywhere and that this is a good place to start???????

The line is already drawn. Why are you so willing to give up more?
 
I'm an avid hunter and firearm advocate and don't have a problem with this.
Click to expand...
I have a huge problem with it.

I want a solution to the problem of these episodes of mass violence, not just more crap about shifting the blame to an inanimate object.

Focusing on guns does nothing to address the problem.

It sweeps it under the rug until the next bout, when the elected idiots squawk again how more laws are needed - which of course do nothing.

Whatever "they" have been doing up until now is obviously not working.
Only the mentally ill believe a different result can be obtained if the same measures are applied time after time.

Had every single gun disappeared by magic on Sunday, this latest piece of human garbage would have had no trouble at all driving a pickup truck through the middle of that crowd of 20,000.
 
We all know that banning or placing bumpfire stocks on the NFA won't do anything to reduce violence. I'm going to write my Congressman and Senators and tell them I oppose regulating bumpfire stocks unless we get something in exchange. Bumpfire stocks go on the NFA and suppressors come off would be ok for me. I'd like to see the SHARE act attached to any regulation of bumpfire stocks.
 
I'm an avid hunter and firearm advocate and don't have a problem with this.
Click to expand...

As it stands right now we don't ( as the public ) know enough on exactly what happened to already be ready to give up some rights . Agreeing to new restrictions with out knowing if any new restriction would have helped seems a little backwards thinking . There is no need to start proposing new laws until we know which if any have failed .

The first thing to ask is , were the current laws inadequate to prevent this from happening or were they inadequately enforced allowing this to happen .

We then can move to is there anything in the current laws that can be helped to be implemented better to prevent this from happening again .

Finally if all of that is not helpful in preventing this type of thing we can talk about adding additional restrictions . How ever in that conversation and or proposals . There MUST be a finding that not only all are current laws were inadequate that new restriction will have prevented this shooting .

There is no reason to give ground to something that would not have prevented this shooting . Like universal background checks . As we know it now . The shooter would have past a background check and if news reports are accurate , he in fact did the few months leading up to the shooting .

I also agree the devils in the details and until I see the final wording of any anti bump fire bill I will not be in support of one .

or any part, combination of parts, component, device, attachment, or accessory that is designed or functions to accelerate the rate of fire of a semi-automatic rifle but not convert the semiautomatic rifle into a machinegun.
Click to expand...

The bold section would have to be removed at minimum and maybe read( to allow the firearm to effectively work as a fully automatic rifle )
 
Last edited:
zipspyder said:
I'm an avid hunter and firearm advocate and don't have a problem with this. We have to draw the line somewhere. Of course those who have stamps for full auto weapons should be grandfathered in. What problems do you have with people doing illegal stuff or soon to be too their semi auto weapons? I haven't read the pdf yet so maybe I'm off on my thinking though. Will read later.

[...]
Click to expand...
Uh, this prospective bill has nothing to do with legitimate NFA Full auto weapons.....
 
zipspyder said:
What problems do you have with people doing illegal stuff or soon to be too their semi auto weapons?
Click to expand...

Having actually used a bumpstock, I think people are confusing rate of fire with lethality. Even actual military full auto has limited applications, full auto putting out a random rate of fire between 400-600rpm into a 10' x 10' beaten zone at 100m is kind of dubious utility in my mind. But even if we assume that this is a valid threat everywhere you cram 20,000 people into two acres, there are still serious problems.

As carguychris pointed out, that language is super vague. "Anything that by design or function increases the rate of fire...". That covers lightweight bolts designed to reduce reciprocating mass, match triggers, triggers with shorter resets, lighter buffers, adjustable gas ports, etc. Heck, any kind of gas-operated semi-auto will gradually increase its cyclic rate just due to erosion at the gas port.

Aside from being a regulatory nightmare, it will be administered by the same agency that just a few years back tried to interpret the tiny steel penetrator in M855 as "armor-piercing" and a "bullet core" - thus prohibiting an ammo that was widely used recreationally for the past 30 years.

Giving that kindof vague language to Feinstein is just a slow death of the Second instead of a quick one.

If they were really concerned about the proliferation of bumpstocks, open up the registry. That would kill off bumpstocks quickly and they'd have every single replacement registered.
 
ive had one of those $99 bumpfire stocks for a good while and its been great fun at the range. I was able to dump 30 rounds in 3 seconds. Works out to 600 RPM. I even got my friend on when I got mine, his family is rabidly anti gun and hates him for even having an AR-15, if they only knew of his bump fire stock :D

I knew some joker would use one of these sooner or later.... now you cant even get on bump fire systems site....

My only real worry is the ATF sending letters to owners of these devices demanding they be returned or some such. Sorry, but its not happening, not in a million years.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Bartholomew Roberts said:
Anything that is "designed or functions to increase the rate of fire of a semiautomatic rifle" is banned forever. Say goodbye to your belt loops boys!

On the bright side, I'd say the chances of that bill exiting the Senate Judiciary Committee are less than me winning the next Powerball drawing.
Click to expand...
I downloaded but did not read the bill.
However based on that phrase I guess they'll be cutting our fingers off.. you don't need a bump stock to bump fire.

But it sounds like it will be so far reaching how will they decide what the correct cycle rate of a semi automatic is?
Some people can fire faster than others, what about competition shooters with race guns? what about things like lightened bolt carriers?

What If I built the gun from a reciver and there for no known cycle rate can be calculated.. I put a bump stock on it on first build.. that's the normal cycle rate for this gun :p

They said on the news this would also ban things like trigger cranks.. will there be exceptions carved out for gatling gun replica's? Those are operated via crank.

zipspyder said:
I'm an avid hunter and firearm advocate and don't have a problem with this. [...]
Click to expand...
As a avid collector of all evil death inflicting weapons and as someone who does not hunt I don't care about your hunting shotgun, your bolt action hunting rifle, or your "right to hunt"

Fracture complete, Now what?
There may come a time you'll look to your left and find you stand alone.
 
JoeSixpack said:
As a avid collector of all evil death inflicting weapons and as someone who does not hunt I don't care about your hunting shotgun, your bolt action hunting rifle, or your "right to hunt"

Fracture complete, Now what?
There may come a time you'll look to your left and find you stand alone.
Click to expand...

I was thinking the same thing. Screw elmer fudd, when no ones left but him and his hunting rifles and they come for things he likes..... who will speak up?
 
Bad idea gone wrong

I knew some joker would use one of these sooner or later.... now you can't even get on bump fire systems site....
Click to expand...
Months before this bill come up for review, the company that makes these, will be sued, out of existence and when you see how they operate, it's only a matter of time. Sad that it took 59 lives and one crazy person, to put an end to this device. ..... ;)

Be Safe ???
 
Pahoo said:
Months before this bill come up for review, the company that makes these, will be sued, out of existence and when you see how they operate, it's only a matter of time. Sad that it took 59 lives and one crazy person, to put an end to this device. ..... ;)

Be Safe ???
Click to expand...
Well, the thing is, bump firing is not anything new.

Back in 2012 I got my First AR-15 and at the range I used my belt loop and managed to bump fire it.

If someone is dead set on making a bump fire apparatus, they can easily do so whether or not they are "banned".

The guy was a millionaire for christ sake, clearly would have had the means to make his own.

So now we see the classic knee jerk reaction as a result and a perfectly acceptable niche use device (range toy) gets crucified.

Yes, I can see it now, the look of pure greed on the lawyers faces when they realize they will sue the two prominent manufactures of these devices into oblivion. These two companies hardly have the assets to satisfy any likely judgment, so whats the point really?
 
Guys who have no problem with a ban, do you actually believe said ban would reduce crime, or do you simply find it acceptable for the government to ban things just because they feel like it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top