Feinstein's Bumpfire Ban Bill

Well, it seems that Speaker Ryan has announced the most expeditious way to have bumpstocks dealt with is for ATF to reconsider their legislation. Since NRA has come out against the current bumpstock bans as written and absent a discharge petition, no legislation will get a vote if Speaker Ryan doesn't wish for that to happen, I'd say our prospects are looking up.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/powe...6288544af98_story.html?utm_term=.14a89ed565f5
 
I pretty much have satisfied my AR sweet tooth, no potential ban could make me buy another.
I would like some lowers for my spare uppers, but I have no urge to buy any.

I may have overstated a future rush, as many people are probably in the same position as me. The final AR holdouts will probably buy one now, but probably not exponential growth, lol
Click to expand...

That's the silver lining in this cloud. Contrast this with five years ago.

I haven't seen prices tick upward on the 22lr. I see no drought of ammunition, BCGs, receivers, etc. People inclined to buy, people like you and me, have been buying and don't sense that we are going to be shut out if we don't stock up right now.
 
I haven't seen prices tick upward on the 22lr. I see no drought of ammunition, BCGs, receivers, etc. People inclined to buy, people like you and me, have been buying and don't sense that we are going to be shut out if we don't stock up right now.
Click to expand...

I have 4 local gun shops I frequent. They currently have hundreds upon hundreds of P-Mags, ammo, reloading supplies, AR parts, and AR rifles marked down below $500. If there was any panic, the sub $500 rifles would be gone. Also, fifw I can get you all the 22LR ammo you would need for 10 liftimes.

Compare that with post Sandy Hook and we'll...
 
The glowing reports on current ammo and parts availability are encouraging, but also a cause for concern.

I'm not saying that the above posters have this sentiment, but for many, the thinking is, "Eh, we've got our AR's, and no one's worried about losing them, so, let the gov have bump stocks... big deal. Remember how bad it was under the last administration? Let's just count our blessings."

Complacency

Again, I can't read the minds of anyone posting here, but for many people, that's the reasoning behind accepting small violations of the RKBA.

PS

I would not be personally affected by the proposed legislation were it to pass. I don't own a single item that would fit the bill's description, even under a broad interpretation.

But... in my opinion, it's still yet another affront to liberty.
 
A bit presumptuous to be sure for me to attempt to speak on others behalf. However, it isn't complacency preventing panic. There is a bit of panic for individuals paying $800 for slide fire stocks on GunBroker.

But panic like post Sandy Hook, and the 2008 election are not likely to occur for some time. Here's why,

A: Everyone who needed a nudge to buy an AR, or more of them, has already done it. Enough time hasn't passed to pressure a new crop of buyers that do not already have one or several.

B: While banning firing rate accelerators is possible, any kind of ammo or firearm ban really is very very very unlikely in this administration.

C: Many of us already have big ammo stockpiles .

D: after 3 or 4 panic buys in 6 yrs or so, folks are not going to be price gouged again only to pay 150% more than these things are worth.

E: and finally, the industry ramped up production in all major areas anticipating a Hillary win.... which didn't happen so there is a surplus of what might have been Otherwise regulated.

It isn't that I/we are in different, just look at my posts, I will concede nothing! It's that there is no upside to panic buying because it creates it's own shortage problem. We have driven up prices and created the past shortages.
 
Mississippi said:
Also, fifw I can get you all the 22LR ammo you would need for 10 liftimes.

Compare that with post Sandy Hook and we'll...
Click to expand...

In 2013, I wanted to build an AR and resigned myself to paying $225 for a BCG because I finally found one in stock somewhere. When I found another place selling for $175, I jumped on it. I'm cheap, and this admission embarrasses me now.

A bit presumptuous to be sure for me to attempt to speak on others behalf.
***
We have driven up prices and created the past shortages.
Click to expand...

It's not presumptuous to have spoken for me on this point; it's exactly my observation. It takes just a little bump in demand to upset a supply chain in a way that leaves CTD selling $70 Pmags.

On the other hand, so many hobbyists have increased demand and supply and established their own reserves that each little think in the news doesn't cause a run.
 
JoeSixpack said:
Surrender guarantee's defeat.

I don't buy the logic that if we just go with the flow it won't hurt as bad.

I'll fight them here, and If we loose I'll get back up and fight them 5 paces down the hill.

Im not giving them anything.. They gotta take it.
Just do me the kindness of not grabbing your pom pom's for any bill's.. If you don't wanna fight just sit this one out.

Last thing we need is some puppet "gun owners" legitimizing the crap they're gonna try to shove thru.
Click to expand...
Totally agree.
 
Just a thought on compromise. We have seen in war plenty of mistakes where orders never to retreat lead to disasters. Retreat, if you mean a realignment to a more defensible position that then leads to progress is not a bad idea.

Being absolute:

1. When shall issue concealed carry laws were proposed, n several states more extreme gun rights organizations opposed the laws as a compromise. The 2nd Amend. was absolute and NO permit should be needed. To support the law was compromise. They spoke against the law in two states I lived in. In one state, they managed to delay the shall issue law for several years. However, common sense prevailed and carry laws passed. That enable millions of people to carry and protect themselves legally. That is a great benefit. After that, in some states there have been moves towards constitutional carry.

So the great compromise, now in about 45 ish states, has been one of the greatest expansion of practical gun rights that we have seen in modern times.

If you were an absolutist, you would prefer many gun owners not to carry or be criminals? Those who would be crime victims because they could not carry would thank you.

2. In Oregon, when we got the CCW bill, there was a small and practically meaningless antigun part (which I can't remember - duh). The opinion was that the antigun folks were snookered in that trade.

So, if one get take a step backwards on a stupid item (like bump fire) and several important steps forward - for example - getting rid of sporting purpose language, ammo type bans and lifting the suppressor rules - that's a good trade and more progress.

If you want to be in a never surrender Japanese Pacific Island garrison, that's fine. Does it help your cause?

Again,the CHL laws were seen as 'compromise' against the absolute. But they worked out, didn't they.

Of course, we need negotiators who truly know their stuff. It is an empirical question as to whether the GOP has those and who are committed to a clever strategy. If not, then just don't give in to the moral panic of the moment.
 
I'd throw bumpstocks under the bus in a heartbeat to get SHARE; but that's not the deal on the table at the moment. The deal on the table isn't even a compromise; but a complete surrender that is vaguely and dangerously worded.
 
Thus, I wouldn't support it. I'm afraid as I said, that moral panic overwhelms the minds of the GOP and/or the leadership cadres really don't truly support anything more than a Joe Biden shotgun special for the peasant class.
 
Glenn E. Meyer said:
So, if one get take a step backwards on a stupid item (like bump fire) and several important steps forward - for example - getting rid of sporting purpose language, ammo type bans and lifting the suppressor rules - that's a good trade and more progress.

If you want to be in a never surrender Japanese Pacific Island garrison, that's fine. Does it help your cause?
Click to expand...
Tell me how you propose to get even one of those things in trade.
I see no historical basis for that hope, But convince me.

Tell me how you plan to limit their ban to a narrowly worded "bump stock" none of the bills thus far come even close to that.
But you're gonna convince them to scale back to a narrow wording and extract a concession from them.. I can't wait to hear the plan.

This is not a shooting war If it was the matter would have long been settled; Why do people think if you loose one debate, one fight, they cart you off to the morgue.. "Sorry the vote didn't go your way, now we're gonna cut out your tongue & snip off your fingers."

If we win the debate we will have it again after the next high profile shooting.
If we loose we'll still have another debate after the next shooting, but on something else.
 
First, historically - I documented how it happened in the past in the carry debates. Both in Oregon and TX compromises were made to get the laws and then fixes made - esp. in Texas.

Second - so the current bills are crappy - you needed dedicated and intelligent negotiators. I assume you assume that progun folks are incapable of that - so we just sit and whine.

That's your plan.
 
you needed dedicated and intelligent negotiators
Click to expand...

It really can't be explained any simpler then that . You need are side to say no vote will be taken if anything other then the bump stock is included in the bill .

Done dang deal ;-)
 
Some people continue to post rants that contain statements that are not factually true. While it is amusing to post long and well documented rebuttals, that is becoming a waste of time.

They will be deleted. Msny fora exist for rants elsewhere.
 
So we all have posted here....how many have written a concise letter to their representatives?
Click to expand...
All too few.

Here we go, guys: sign up here. This site allows you to quickly and easily send correspondence to your relevant congresscritters. I don't care if your Senator is one of those, "I went hunting with Uncle Jed one time. I support the 2nd Amendment. Swearsie realsies!" types. I don't care if he's a genetic clone of John Wayne and Charlton Heston. He's going to be under immense amounts of pressure, and he'll be tempted to take the easy way out. He needs to hear from his constituents.
 
What if he's Diane Feinstein?
Click to expand...
Actually, if she were hearing from enough of her constituents, and on a regular basis, it might give her reason for pause.

Problem is, my own personal research finds that 0.000071% of people who gripe about RKBA issues on the internet or at the gun-shop counter actually ever take the time to contact their legislators.
 
I don't know what the actual numbers are but I contact my reps . In fact I received what I believed to be a personal reply and not one of those generic reply's from Feinstein once .

if she were hearing from enough of her constituents, and on a regular basis, it might give her reason for pause.
Click to expand...

I believe this to be accurate across the board and not just with the RKBA . It's quite sad how many times I hear family or friends criticizing something the government is doing and when I ask have you called or wrote your reps . There's just a blank stare in there eyes . So sad .

Not sure about other states but here in CA you can't email any reps that don't represent your district through the .gov website . You must enter your address and zip code and once you've done that only your reps come up as options to write to . This is something that really bothers me because these people are voting for things that effect the entire state . Shouldn't they all have to listen to everyone in the state if what they are about to vote on effects everyone in the state ?

I've called other reps and at times been told the congressman was not my rep and directed and transferred to the proper rep with out being able to voice my concerns . Not sure how the snail mail works . They likely have sorters checking the postage stamp as to where it was mailed from and redirect it as well .

Anyways Tom I think you're more right then wrong on what you said there .
 
Last edited:
Well,

I actually work with legislators quite often at the state and federal level.....not on firearms related matters though.

I am lucky enough (or unlucky enough depending on your opinion) that I could voice my concerns to them in person. However, with respect to firearm related matters, I have no complaints with my reps.

But I have raised concerns on other matters and it does make a difference. Especially if you can get several folks to sign on. I helped kill a tax idea from some misguided state legislator with the help of a relatively small organization.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top