Feinstein's Bumpfire Ban Bill

Metalgod, the Supreme Court has never ruled on full-auto firearms. The closest they have come was the Miller case about a short barrelled shotguns. The government won by default, because the defense did not present an argument (defendant vanished).

SonOfScubaDiver, are you arguing that because people don't need something, the government should ban it?...seems like a faulty line of thinking to me.
 
Raimius, I thought I made myself clear when I said that the purpose of bump stocks is to get around the restrictions on automatic weapons. It's one thing to support the changing of restrictive laws, which I do depending on the issue. It's another entirely to devise devices to defeat the purpose of existing laws, something as a responsible gun owner I do not support. You and others may look at it differently, which you're entitled to do.
 
Maybe you raimius or one of the other lawyers can chime in here . If the NFA or other fully auto restrictions have never been heard at the SCOTUS . I ask why ? I find it hard to believe nobody has challenged those laws yet or has the high court just chose not to grant cert any time they've come up ?

It's another entirely to devise devices to defeat the purpose of existing laws,
Click to expand...

I'm conflicted as to if I agree or not . Here in CA we adopted the bullet button which is a device that turns your detachable magazine into a fixed magazine that needs a tool in order to release the mag . That tool can be anything pointy and a bullet is often used and where it got it's name .

The bullet button was solely invented to get around CA AW laws that banned guns with detachable magazines that also had any one of the following , pistol grip , flash hider , forward grip and a couple other things I believe . How ever once you put a bullet button on your rifle it was considered a long gun with a "fixed" magazine allowing you to have all those other goodies on your rifle .

I did not support the banning of those cosmetic feature and was more then happy to support the bullet button work around and was happy to have them on all my rifles .

There in lies my conflict . I had no problem with circumventing that law but don't really support the circumventing of the full auto law . Although as I explained in an earlier post . The slide fire stock does not actually circumventing the NFA because the shooter and only the shooter controls the rate of fire . That actually legally makes it no different then pulling the trigger as fast or slow as you can . The shooter is the only thing manipulating the rifle and it's rate of fire .

I don't know , as I stated I'm a little conflicted on this issue and writing about has helped me work out my thoughts a bit but it may take me a little while longer to fully come to a conclusion as to where my heart really is on this .
 
Last edited:
How come we are not seeing brand new members on the pro 2a side of this debate. Just call me suspicious. And don't think for a minute this is not a 2a debate. Flash headline: It ain't about hunting; it ain't about personal protection. I think we all know what the writers of the Constitution had in mind when they crafted the 2nd amendment. This country was born in bloody revolution not that long ago. Know your history. How we got to where we are today was not cheap. Know your birthright. A lot of good people paid that bill in full for all of us to do what we do and say what we say.
 
I'm not in favor of slide fire stocks. But I'm not ready to willingly give up any further ground.

I would; however, be very tempted to trade slide fire stocks for the Hearing Protection Act and CHL reciprocity.

But, Ms Feinstein would have to reword her bill to make it applicible to slide fire stocks only.

I think that trade would take us from "holding the line" to "pushing them back".
 
If the bill needs to be written to be more specific to satisfy some of you so be it. I see the usual not one ounce of give and take.

Apparently some line has already been drawn? What line would that be by the way?

No solutions given just don't take out crap away. Nobody said anything about not trying other avenues such as stricter vetting process or more help towards mental health screening but that's not what this thread is about is it.

Gosh forbid they take away your bump stocks. We all know there will be loopholes for people to use anyway but maybe that will satisfy the political morons.

If there is no give or take from both sides then more than likely when something changes (and it will eventually) it may be way more drastic than compromising earlier. And don't give me that 2nd amendment stuff unless you can show be where it's written though shall have a right to bump stocks.

I'm sure this will trigger some of you.
Click to expand...

I don't see anyone "triggered at all.

would it not make more sense to outlaw hunting, shotguns or both, which are the source of a lot more gun violence, orders of magnitude more, than bump fire stocks?

If we "have to start somewhere" why would we not look at the higher overall killing machines like shotguns?

Since most murder, 85% to 95% in all the studies, involves prior criminals, and we need to "start somewhere" what loppholes would you suggest we start looking at, to reasonably compromise? Mirada, warrants, stop and frisk, double jeopardy, etc, which of those need new limits?

Give and take would be helpful. Perhaps no juries for second offence? How about no right to remain silent? that might be a good give and take?

Seriously, you are implying anyone resisting this is somehow extreme. do you feel the ACLU is extreme for not wanting to reduce rights when a crime occurs?

Are you forgetting that every single gun control "group" -- every one -- opposed all the way to the supreme court, any right for you to keep an handgun at home even if it was just a revolver, you had zero criminal history, zero mental issues, were extensively trained, and would be keeping it in a safe?

the problem with portraying slippery slope as a fallacy, is that we know from facts that slippery slope is a strategy.

Someone with a bumpfire stock killed 50 people, let's say some 20 to 25 because it was bumpfire instead of semi auto. Once you are on that track, then mag fed semi auto prohibition makes sense, and any semi auto prohibition makes sense, handgun prohibitions make sense, prove a need to own makes sense -- they all lower lethality potential and reality.


And if we are on the logic of "common sense compromises" where is the other side of the compromises? Why would Feinstien not show she actually means compromise by including support for national reciprocity, national ban on "good cause" requirements, or a say a new law that forbids prohibition of on semi auto firearms that are not bumpfire?
 
Metal god said:
Maybe you raimius or one of the other lawyers can chime in here . If the NFA or other fully auto restrictions have never been heard at the SCOTUS .
Click to expand...

If memory serves, the NFA was challenged in Miller.
 
I wont pretend to know or understand what was going through the mind of this lunatic. I do know that there is nothing about this event, this man, or the guns he used that would have changed with a ban on bumpstocks. That was just a convenient accessory. Placing these kinds of bans on things does nothing to actually solve anything. There is no way it can as it shifts the focus away from the real issues. People have been killing people since Cain and Abel. Sometimes en mass. Even if you took away every gun out there, that wont change. Lunatics will find a way. The genie us out of the bottle and the cats out of the bag. Too many people in this world understand explosives and firearms and firearms design. People will build and deploy these machines. No law will ever change that. It is not possible. What is much more likely is that any prohibition on lesser items (like bump stocks) will just result in a greater motivation towards more lethal and more powerful ways of killing. This really should be so completely obvious.

Deal with the lunatic. THAT is where the problem is. NOT his tools.
 
jnichols2 said:
I would; however, be very tempted to trade slide fire stocks for the Hearing Protection Act and CHL reciprocity.
Click to expand...

You can't really trade with someone who will try to take back what he just "traded" to you. The only question is how much he can get and when he can get it. A good faith negotiation and a fight are qualitatively different things.
 
zukiphile said:
You can't really trade with someone who will try to take back what he just "traded" to you. The only question is how much he can get and when he can get it. A good faith negotiation and a fight are qualitatively different things.
Click to expand...

And that sums up the problem nicely. I'd be more than willing to throw away a gimmicky toy that isn't even necessary to perform said gimmick to get real advances in the Second Amendment. If the antis are hungry enough to make a bad deal, I'd sure help them.

But this isn't a negotiation, it is a fight. Look at the 1986 FOPA - the state of New York has been interpreting that language to arrest firearm owners who declared their firearms to TSA and were attempting to comply with the law. How can they do this despite FOPA? They take advantage of vagueness in the original law, which apparently did not foresee such hatred for legal gun ownership, and courts in New York have mostly upheld that interpretation.

Without even legislation or discussion, they are taking back their previous "compromise" but the registry is still closed to new machineguns for us. So not only are they taking back what they offered, they are keeping what they took.

If they are going to interpret FOPA that way, I certainly have no problem with the Obama-era ATF that tried to ban M855 on specious reasoning deciding that slidefire stocks are perfectly legal. Right back at ya.

And for that matter, no compromise is being offered. Instead, they just want us to roll over and accept super-vague language that would put ownership of any semi-automatic weapon entirely at the whim of ATF without future Congressional input. Thankfully, that isn't going to happen under this Congress.
 
I don't see anyone "triggered at all.

would it not make more sense to outlaw hunting, shotguns or both, which are the source of a lot more gun violence, orders of magnitude more, than bump fire stocks?

If we "have to start somewhere" why would we not look at the higher overall killing machines like shotguns?

Since most murder, 85% to 95% in all the studies, involves prior criminals, and we need to "start somewhere" what loppholes would you suggest we start looking at, to reasonably compromise? Mirada, warrants, stop and frisk, double jeopardy, etc, which of those need new limits?

Give and take would be helpful. Perhaps no juries for second offence? How about no right to remain silent? that might be a good give and take?

Seriously, you are implying anyone resisting this is somehow extreme. do you feel the ACLU is extreme for not wanting to reduce rights when a crime occurs?

Are you forgetting that every single gun control "group" -- every one -- opposed all the way to the supreme court, any right for you to keep an handgun at home even if it was just a revolver, you had zero criminal history, zero mental issues, were extensively trained, and would be keeping it in a safe?

the problem with portraying slippery slope as a fallacy, is that we know from facts that slippery slope is a strategy.

Someone with a bumpfire stock killed 50 people, let's say some 20 to 25 because it was bumpfire instead of semi auto. Once you are on that track, then mag fed semi auto prohibition makes sense, and any semi auto prohibition makes sense, handgun prohibitions make sense, prove a need to own makes sense -- they all lower lethality potential and reality.


And if we are on the logic of "common sense compromises" where is the other side of the compromises? Why would Feinstien not show she actually means compromise by including support for national reciprocity, national ban on "good cause" requirements, or a say a new law that forbids prohibition of on semi auto firearms that are not bumpfire?
Click to expand...

Apparently yes it has triggered some of you. And when did I say or imply "everyone" opposed. Throwing around the NRA handbook of statistics doesn't help anything. I'm talking more about getting to the table just to talk.

Every word you write screams no compromise. They won't budge so we won't budge. I'd be just as happy if this bill died today as anybody but at some point we have to get together and work these issues out sensibly.

Have our gun rights advocates/politicians get in there negotiate and talk to these politicians. How long should we wait? The next big tragedy or the one after that?

PS: If you don't know how to get around bump firing without having a bumpfire stock I'm not sure what to tell you and why you are arguing about this then? Having them ban official bump stocks is a really weak ass bone to throw them for the trouble. Of course that bill would have to be re-wrtiiten to be more specific from what I understand.
 
Last edited:
1. I will be picking on of these stocks up in the next few weeks.

2. A mag fed bolt action in the right hands with a good scope, less injured, more dead.
 
The devil, in the details !!!

In a previous reply, I stated that the "devil is always, in the details" and even though this new battle has just begun, Here is the first devil and how it can effect some of our current laws. Politicians just ain't stay on point and exploit real issues with their agenda. Let me highlight this devil ....... ;)

it shall be unlawful for any person to import, sell, manufacture, transfer, or possess, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, a trigger crank, a bump-fire device, or any part, combination of parts, 8 component, device, attachment, or accessory that is de signed 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...

I am fairly competent in doing trigger work on Ruger 10/22's. This law would prohibit these types of upgrades. ..... :)

Be Safe !!!
 
@Pahoo, tell me how that highlighted part would effect you from modifying a perfectly legal trigger? All I see is the illegal selling of pre-modified parts. Not saying you are wrong just asking?
 
The fact that the Citys with the most crime, are Democratic strongholds has not slipped my mind. They also have the strictest gun laws.

Criminals do not abide by laws, that's why they are criminals.

This deranged person who perpetrated this crime was a millionaire. He could have bought all kinds of illegal stuff, including C4 and like explosives, left a van with a thousand pounds of it, in the street where the fans would flow out of that venue, and caused hundreds of deaths, and left a 20ft hole in the ground!

He had a mental complaint, and did nothing to alert law enforcement, he was on no one's radar, he was just a very rich man, period.

And what will it trigger now (no pun intended) the half-wits like FeinsteinClinton whomever, to come shrieking and blathering. Both of these sick women, with armed guards surrounding them!

I remember Ms Feinstein in one of her rants on Assult Rifle's, on a stage, holding an AK47 style rifle, 30 round magazine in place, safety off! Finger on the trigger, waving it at the audience!

Recently on more than one occasion, calling the current President, Bush!
On TV! She should be in a nice warm home for people who need looking after.

And there is no giving in to "Reasonable new Gun Laws!" This kind, and articulate Liverpool person, me. Has one reply, to any and all. "Piss off!"

I have heard it all before, in England, and Australia. It never ends well.
 
TDL said:
I don't see anyone "triggered at all.
Click to expand...

The people in this thread that are calling for the banning of inanimate objects due to their emotional knee-jerk reactions, have clearly been triggered...
 
"If there is no give or take from both sides..."
There has been give and take. We give and they take. Look at the history.
 
My only real worry is the ATF sending letters to owners of these devices demanding they be returned or some such.
Click to expand...
How would ATF know where to send these letters? The stocks aren't serialized or registered. They would have to contact every store and website in the country that sells them, demand sale records selling the stocks in the past 6 years (or however long they were out for sale), and then chase you down from that? Maybe they get your name from those records, but would have to do even more digging for your contact info.
 
So many people that didn’t know anything about bump-firing now support a “Bump-Stock”
Ban.

I’ve heard the same line. “Ima second amendment supporter”
“I hunt”
“I’m a sport shooter”
All supporting a ban of bump stocks. Seems ok right?
No, it’s not alright. Do any of you honestly think that such a bill would be straight forward and honest? Do you think such a bill would be fee of hidden provisions or wording that could be abused?
No one wants a bad person to have guns, we all agree. But most laws involving guns have put a lot of good people in legal jeopardy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top