Feinstein's Bumpfire Ban Bill

[doofus47]

Ok, I"ll step into this pile of doo doo.
I can live w/out slide fire stocks on the market. And you can too.

The intent of the slide fire is to allow your firearm to do something that has been regulated down to a list of registered users for decades. Why, if I cannot put full-auto fire group parts into my ARs w/out NFA approval should i/you/we be able to accomplish the same end using over the counter parts? That makes no sense. This item should have been closed down by the ATF when it first came out.

And I don't care what you say about "giving ground," b/c that ground was given up back in 1986. This limit on open market availability would be simply enforcing what's already on the books (like that ever happened). A sensible determination by ATF when this part came out would have saved us all a bit of headache and a few score lives in Vegas. The fact that the previous administration didn't make the call [here I'm wiping away my invisible crocodile tears like our previous 'great leader'] just makes this incident more frustrating.

Yes, people can always use belt loops, or file down their sears in their garage to accomplish rapid firing, but that doesn't mean that purpose-made parts that allow the same goal should be allowed. Just because people will cook meth in their basement doesn't mean that you need to allow a "pre-school meth kit" to be sold at the corner drug store in the name of "free market" liberty.

Yes, this yahoo apparently had enough liquid assets to buy a legal class 3 weapon, but he didn't. I am not saying that banning bump-fire stocks will make bad people go away; I'm saying that taking these parts off the market will bring the market back into line with the already existing laws. Don't like the laws? Write your congressman or move to [fill in the blank] 3rd world crap hole with an ongoing civil war. I prefer the rule of law even if not every law is ideal as I would like it.

All that said, this bill (as apparently with any firearms-related law by Sen. DF) seems a pile of loosely written crap and shouldn't be passed.

P.S:
And this same topic will come back concerning pistol braces in one shape or another. Guaranteed.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Who knew that Neville Chamberlain had so many illegitimate children and that they all shared an interest in firearms?

All appeasement does is buy you time and make your opposition stronger. We have no need to buy time here. This is poorly written legislation that will die on its own. We have nothing to gain here - the opposition is faithless and has not dealt with us fairly in the past. Why expect it in the future? Not that their good faith matters since they aren't offering any horse trading but just demanding capitulation.

This has nothing to do with preventing firearms deaths. More people die in a month in Chicago. This is about control - control over normal, peacable citizens.

 

[JohnKSa]

...but at some point we have to get together and work these issues out sensibly.

If it were sensible, it would have been worked out long ago based on the facts. The bill has been proposed many times before and died because the facts didn't support it.

Emotion and strong feelings don't substitute for facts.

I'm all for being sensible and I'm all for working issues out. But a tragedy doesn't magically turn a bad bill into a good bill. More importantly, passing laws in the heat of the moment is a bad idea even when there's a good reason to do so. Things that would normally be carefully investigated slip through the cracks and there can be really unpleasant unintended consequences.

If this is an issue that really needs to be dealt with, the right way to solve it is to do the proper research, give everyone affected a chance to weigh in, write a good bill, run it through the proper process at a reasonable speed and turn it into law. The WRONG way to deal with it is to pass a bill in a hurry right after a tragedy while people aren't thinking straight.

 

[JoeSixpack]

Yes, people can always use belt loops, or file down their sears in their garage to accomplish rapid firing, but that doesn't mean that purpose-made parts that allow the same goal should be allowed. Just because people will cook meth in their basement doesn't mean that you need to allow a "pre-school meth kit" to be sold at the corner drug store in the name of "free market" liberty.

Your analogy is flawed, unless they chop your fingers off you could still legally bump fire your gun, it's just more difficult by hand, the bump stocks just take most of the technique out of it.

Meth is illegal period.. whether you make it from scratch or from a kit.

Yes, this yahoo apparently had enough liquid assets to buy a legal class 3 weapon, but he didn't. I am not saying that banning bump-fire stocks will make bad people go away; I'm saying that taking these parts off the market will bring the market back into line with the already existing laws. Don't like the laws? Write your congressman or move to [fill in the blank] 3rd world crap hole with an ongoing civil war. I prefer the rule of law even if not every law is ideal as I would like it.

If he had used legally registered "machine guns" then what would you say?

 

[LubeckTech]

Would it take a law to ban slidefire socks?

Could ATF just make an administrative ruling which would eliminate the sale, use or even possession of slide fire stocks? From what I have read ATF has said in the past slidefire stocks are "legal" so it seems possible they could reconsider their position. The way I understand the agency they have a great amount of discretion as to how firearms laws are applied.

 

[Pond James Pond]

I've been thinking about this since I read the OP this morning. How I usually think about it is "how might I defend this against my anti-gun friends/colleagues?".

In this case, I'd find it hard. Yes, it was the actor, not the object, but the object made it happen and the only real use of said object (i.e. a bump/slide-fire stock) is for having fun. We can't say that they have a legit SD/HD/Hunting use, so it's just about having fun.

The only argument I can think of is no one spoke of banning goods delivery vehicles nor rental companies after the Nice and Berlin vehicle attacks, but beyond that...

In this sense it is pretty hard to pit having a laugh as a viable argument against reducing the number of dead and wounded in an incident like this.

I think in many respects slide-fire stocks could be a sacrificial lamb to keep the anti-gun crowd at bay. No action after an incident like this, be it for solid reasons or not, would not sit well with many of the electorate...

 

[Snuffy308]

Until we realize this ain't no argument over a silly piece of plastic we are forever lost. Please wait to click on the attachment until after you read this post. I'm sure it will "trigger" many. When I was a kid back in the late 50s, early 60s the public park just a half block from where I lived had a program during the school summer recess call "play school". It lasted a week and was about 3 hours a day in the morning. During that time the park director, and elderly woman named Mrs. Deas, would guide us in making various arts and crafts. The attachment was one of those crafts. Yea, it was most "made", we just stained it and used one small nail to put it together. But this was a public park mind you, funded by the city's taxpayers and ran by a city paid employee. Can you even imagine anything like this happening today? Somewhere we lost a large part of what we are as nation and kids today will never experience the freedoms that we enjoyed and sadly took for granted. And no, I'm not willing to compromise on anything.

 

[zukiphile]

Who knew that Neville Chamberlain had so many illegitimate children and that they all shared an interest in firearms?

All appeasement does is buy you time and make your opposition stronger. We have no need to buy time here. This is poorly written legislation that will die on its own. We have nothing to gain here - ...

I concur. Any model for reaching an agreement that settles a dispute between parties is a poor model for this episode.

Newt Gingrich spoke at my club more than 20 years ago, and one of his assertions stuck with me. He noted that businessmen don't understand politics because they think that as you spend capital you are left with less of it. On the contrary, in politics as you fight the fight, as you spend your political capital you acquire greater attention, focus and opportunity for alliances.

Giving Diane Feinstein someone else's silly stock isn't a road block for her or a savings for us. It communicates our weakness and lack of resolve and let's each emotive nanny voter know that she is their leader; it's a victory for her that gives her political momentum.

If you parked a car on a hill and you didn't want it to crash at the bottom, you wouldn't push it ten feet down the hill and hope that's all that comes of it. Yet, in politics people feel a need to look moderate or reasonable with statements like "I drive a lot and I'm not in favor of a car wreck at the bottom of this hill, but a 10 foot roll isn't like a full blown car crash".

The initial act may not be terrible, but the momentum it imparts will be.

 

[rickyrick]

We are the United States in name only. We don’t have the same country anymore, at least not in whole, but it’s coming to a region near you soon.

 

[Psychedelic Bang]

Newt Gingrich spoke at my club more than 20 years ago, and one of his assertions stuck with me. He noted that businessmen don't understand politics because they think that as you spend capital you are left with less of it. On the contrary, in politics as you fight the fight, as you spend your political capital you acquire greater attention, focus and opportunity for alliances.

Wow.

 

[Snuffy308]

What I haven't been able to glean is where does the NRA stand on the proposed legislation? My membership is up for renewal and my decision will hinge on their position. And yes, I'm perfectly willing to die on this hill. Not one more step backwards.

 

[carguychris]

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.

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 )

Setting aside the question of whether such a ban is justified or not... it's important for the hypothetical ban to be worded as narrowly as possible. Something like this:

Rapid Fire Device: An ancillary device that, when attached to the firearm, harnesses mechanical energy by means of a crank, lever, or recoil-actuated spring, or other combination of parts, to repeatedly and automatically actuate the trigger of the firearm without the operator having to manually and deliberately actuate the trigger for each individual shot.

There are too many ways in which many semi-automatic firearms operate that is similar to the operation of a fully-automatic firearm. If the law were worded in a way that delves into the actual operation of the firing mechanism itself, it could become a Trojan horse for a sweeping semi-auto ban.

 

[carguychris]

What I haven't been able to glean is where does the NRA stand on the proposed legislation?

As I write this, AFAIK the NRA leadership has been silent on the matter, at least in public.

 

[JoeSixpack]

I've been thinking about this since I read the OP this morning. How I usually think about it is "how might I defend this against my anti-gun friends/colleagues?".

In this case, I'd find it hard. Yes, it was the actor, not the object, but the object made it happen and the only real use of said object (i.e. a bump/slide-fire stock) is for having fun. We can't say that they have a legit SD/HD/Hunting use, so it's just about having fun.

The only argument I can think of is no one spoke of banning goods delivery vehicles nor rental companies after the Nice and Berlin vehicle attacks, but beyond that...

In this sense it is pretty hard to pit having a laugh as a viable argument against reducing the number of dead and wounded in an incident like this.

I think in many respects slide-fire stocks could be a sacrificial lamb to keep the anti-gun crowd at bay. No action after an incident like this, be it for solid reasons or not, would not sit well with many of the electorate...

Well you could approach this in a few ways.
On the one hand 2a is actually about having the means to overthrow a tyrant.. so on that basis you should have parity with any thing the government has.. of course that was long lost and I doubt you could pull off such a creditable argument since your basis for what should be legal seems to be rooted in SD/Hunting.. If you don't believe it no one else will either.

Another way you could approach it is the guy could have just bought the real deal.. he didn't need a bump stock.. it actually would have been worse probably if he had as a true FA will have a even higher rate of fire.

Anyone who thinks banning bump stocks would have stopped his plans is mistaken. infact his plans could have been carried out without modification regardless if they are banned or not... he simply had the means to make it happen unaltered.

Lastly and this may do very little given your crowd, Bump firing was not invented by the stocks.. it makes it easier yes but you don't need any gadgets to do it.. It was not long ago Semi auto's of a certain type and characteristic was the target of bans.. The same argument was used against them.. to many bullets, to fast a rate of fire.

If you indulge the argument that bump stocks should be banned because of the results obtainable you play right into the argument that all semi auto's are to deadly to be of legit use.. SD or Hunting even.

As you feed bump stocks to the beast careful you don't slip down it's throat along with the lamb.

Bottom line? What makes you think bump stocks will be the end of it? Feinstein her self said she would take all guns if she could but it's not politically possible.

You only fool your self in thinking it stops with bump stocks, History shows us this.

 

[RC20]

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.

Ok, as you can see my signature I am of a somewhat contrary view.

None of what I am writing is a solution to all problems, no more than there is one cure for cancer.

So contrary to your flawed assertion, an automatic weapon in a crowd of 20,000 is going to kill a hell of a lot more people than a Semi auto.

I have no issue with magazine limits. I <was upset> when I saw that someone made a 30 round magazine for a Glock (as did an acquaintance who is a government hating die to the wool 2nd amendment type).

I work with equipment and a mechanic/technician and now engineer. Equipment has safeties. The more lethal, the more safeties and interlocks.

The intent is if one fails the other does not. You also test those safeties, you deliberately test them and see if the thing runs when it should not.

The writers of the constitution made mistakes. While they were probably the single greatest concentrated group of intellectuals (yea I know the Trmpistas hate that smart people are needed) this country has ever had one place. They also were both human and trying to develope a whole new system different than what they felt were the flaws of the English system.

I know its not popular among the second amendment ranters, but the 2nd amendment fits in context with the constitution , god did not list the right to keep and bear arms in the 10 commandments did he?

The purpose of the 2nd is to PROTECT those other rights, not a right unto itself.

When was the last time you saw a 2nd Amendment action that protected other rights. For all the ranting and raving all they do is driven to keep that right come hell or high water and regardless of its flaws. Been a hell of a lot of things they should have fought for and did not. Sat on their butts.

The freedom of speech, religion etc are inalienable.

They also enshrined Slavery into the constitution as a compromise. Women could not vote because they all agree they had the vapors. Anyone want to argue my wife is not my equal?

They set up the Senate, the House of Lords and petti dictators (read the rules and actions of the Senate if you don't think so). Those Senator were APPOINTED by the powers that held the righsn of power, not us (note that goes changed to)

They crated the Electoral collage as that was controlled by the high powers and we do not get to elect our President by popular vote (but do everyone else?)

The US Constitution is not some sancrosacnt document handed down and created by god. Its got its high spots and its abysmally low spots (Slavery being one).

The Sub Text of the 2nd Amendment was that Malitias are a counter to government . That was a theory, it proved to be totally wrong. Any time a Mililatia was involved in a battle alongside Government forces, they ran. Undisciplined, untrained clowns. The group in Michigan a case in point. It IS a failed idea.

You can try to ignore it, but the right to keep and bear arms is directly related to Militia, otherwise that would have been a separate clause.

While most have not read the founding fathers, I have. they were whip smart intelligent and they did not make a mistake in that. Those sucker could write like no one since.

NO RIGHT IS UNLIMITED

Your right to free speech does not allow you to pass on state secrets.

Your right to assembly does not allow you to assemble to riot (and kill black people as was done in the worst massacre in US history aide and abided by the national guard)

So don't tell me we can't restrict guns and make logical and sane choices in how to deal with it.

Been down to the range lately? How many people do you see that should have their gun rights removed? 30%, 50%, inept, ignorant, incompetent , dangerous. I have pulled 3 from walking down rang while firing was going on.

I had a guy walk down range with an AR slung down (not up) when there are NO GUNS ALLOWED DOWN RAGNE.

My step son who was a rebel flag waving Westerner went shooting with me for the first time a couple of months ago. He was shocked at the ARs. What do they need those for he asks?

I have talked to other people who were die hard 2nd amenderters and its the same, this has gotten out of hand.

So when we have Bump stocks and silencer they want to turn loose, no way.

Does the government have to seize all bumps stocks? Nope, make them illegal, seizure, heavy fines and they will got away and they will not easily be put in public hands.

Restrict magazine to 10 or 20 rounds in a rifle, no more than butt length in a pistol.

Don't give me that crap that a big mag makes no difference because they can change magazine.

Like a safety, its an interruption, its a chance to take action or escape and most of them are clowns who do not practice and they can fumble it. All I need is 3 seconds to get on them.

We had something like 19,000 gun deaths by suicide in 2015.

An Entire Army Division wiped out. 10s of thousand more of loved ones and family who are traumatized.


So yes, I want some restrictions '.

I want research allowed in gun deaths so we can lower that, we won't stop it but we can do better like we did with Aids.

There is no magic solution but what we have is grossly insane let alone not working. Bet your head against the wall or see what can be done.

Only 30% in the US own guns, lots of them, but 30%. Its called getting marginalized .

The US Constitution is subject to amendment and the rights to restrictors. Don't tell me otherwise.

I am damned well ready to talk about it and I am damned well ready to deal with those who are trying to shout the majority down.

 

[RC20]

Another way you could approach it is the guy could have just bought the real deal.. he didn't need a bump stock.. it actually would have been worse probably if he had as a true FA will have a even higher rate of fire.

That's BS. He may have done damage but killed 59?

How about one fewer death?

You think that person and their family and loved one would not be grateful?

How about 10 few, or 20, or 30?

How about no copy cat?

Bumps stocks allowed this carnage and high death rate.

 

[Pond James Pond]

If you indulge the argument that bump stocks should be banned because of the results obtainable you play right into the argument that all semi auto's are to deadly to be of legit use.

I disagree.
A semi auto is more accurate, more controllable and fires a known number of shots if you put your finger on the trigger and pull: one. A bump-fire stock does none of those things...

So, for me one can't apply the arguments against a bump-fire stock to a regular semi-auto.

And I get the arguments made earlier about appeasement, but Chamberlain tried to appease Hitler: a homicidal megalomaniac. That was never going to work because Hitler was the one and only power in Germany at that time.

In the US, the power is still (thankfully) with the people. Most of them may not want outright bans on semis but I bet many will find the existence of slide-fire stocks difficult to justify in RKBA terms for the average member of the public, given that FA's are ATF controlled, and tightly at that. Particularly as they are basically just for messing around. There are no comps that I know of that use these stocks, anyone that used one in an SD/HD situation would have the book thrown at them etc.

It is that public that will vote for senators and congressmen/women in the future and you run the risk of them turning against the fire-arms owning community if Congress were to look at this outrage against humanity and not "do anything". The fact is it will probably happen again and frankly I'm surprised it hadn't happened sooner.

Sadly, often there is nothing that can be done because a person on the brink of insanity, who wants to hurt will find a way. As I said earlier, Nice and Berlin showed that, but the voting public still always think that something can be done. That a risk free existence is just a question of law-making, when really it is an unachievable goal....

 

[RC20]

What I haven't been able to glean is where does the NRA stand on the proposed legislation? My membership is up for renewal and my decision will hinge on their position. And yes, I'm perfectly willing to die on this hill. Not one more step backwards

Yea, I here the talk but where were you when Bush started wire taping the entire country with the so called Patriot Act?

Talk is cheap.

 

[JoeSixpack]

Wow.. Ok Im gonna let someone else give your post the attention it deserves.

But let me just ask you one question would you be in favor of applying all current gun laws to civilian government agencies.. IE: civil law enforcement like swat squads would have to buy off the 86 MG registry or just go without their m4's and mp5's?

 

[RC20]

I disagree.
A semi auto is more accurate, more controllable and fires a known number of shots if you put your finger on the trigger and pull: one. A bump-fire stock does none of those things...

So, for me one can't apply the arguments against a bump-fire stock to a regular semi-auto.

A semi auto is designed to deliver fire fast and if you train, accurately.

I agree bump stock has a mass fire intent.

Rapid Fire Device: An ancillary device that, when attached to the firearm, harnesses mechanical energy by means of a crank, lever, or recoil-actuated spring, or other combination of parts, to repeatedly and automatically actuate the trigger of the firearm without the operator having to manually and deliberately actuate the trigger for each individual shot.

Fully agreed. Needs to be changed to Harnesses mechanical energy OR by means of a crank ...... etc

We are the United States in name only. We don’t have the same country anymore, at least not in whole, but it’s coming to a region near you soon.

I have bad news for you. The US was founded on regions, North and South.

Republicans have been busy dividing us to make it worse.

As Dick Gregory once said, the only good thing about the good old days as far as we are concerned is they are gone.