Feinstein's Bumpfire Ban Bill

For the distances he was shooting, he was basically shooting an area target and not point targets. Law enforcement thinks he may have tried to shoot the fuel tanks at the airport because there were a couple of impacts on them (2). The targets are located indirectly behind the concert venue from where the shooter was. My guess is that he just lost control of his guns while firing and a couple of rounds just happened to hit the tanks, nothing more.
Click to expand...

My point was just that I don't feel a leap from bump-stocks bad to semi-autos bad is a logical one because there are apples and oranges, as you guys say...
 
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Click to expand...

Carguycrhis: There were a number of versions and variations of spelling and punctuation.

And yes the Government and standing armies (aka GB and the King) were the source of the attempt to maintain the freedoms.

The comma makes no difference, the right to keep and bear arms is clearly stated and by historical record related to the militias.

A reality sub test was people owned guns, that was not in questions and frankly has zero to do with the 2nd, all attempts to change that fact aside.

Agreed the Michigan militia was a read hearing, but the point was Militia is now totally out of context. ITs been replaced by the national guard which in turn is really part of the power structure of the US Military (not a bad thing but not what was intended either in the vision of the founders)

You know we already have serious penalties for shooting into crowds and killing people, right?
Click to expand...

The endless pivot.

He died, so did 58 (now).

Obviously determent one did not mean anything to the deranged man.

Please keep the vein in context and read ALL my posts.

It has to do with avaialaity , opportunity and hopefully triggers alarms and or results in a stop before it occurs.

Have you read about the failure of the Maconda Oil Platform Operation?

Little spill of oil in the gulf of Mexico?

There were something like 6 major softies systems involved to stop that action.

If ONE had been done right or worked (tested even) this would not have happened.

The ban is one part of a checks system.

If its no accessible (like FA generally) then you can't have it a factor.

Stop it, maybe not. Slow it down, minimize it, allow a catch and complete stop, maybe.

Can you prove that the death penalty ever stopped anyone from killing anyone else?

Give me a break.

My point was just that I don't feel a leap from bump-stocks bad to semi-autos bad is a logical one because there are apples and oranges, as you guys say...
Click to expand...

James: I do get it.

Try to convince the public now that ARs are not assault rifles though. It was failing before, calling the MSA is now a sick joke.

The point is it should be part of a discussion and not ruled out from ownership, but it may be one that you want to have enhanced protocol in place as to ownership.

Fee, tracking, registered.
 
I dont have a real problem with bump fire stocks being REGULATED but I do have a problem with FORCED surrender of the devices.

Especially since the ATF gave their "blessing" already. No way it would fly today that they just randomly outlaw them and call you a "felon" for having one when they were " A-OK" before hand....

Any regulation on these must come from real legislation. Yes, we could open a registry like the pre 1986 NFA one and serialize them (I guess, they are all plastic thought). Limit one per person, transferable with $200 tax stamp. We dont know how many of these are out in the wild but very fun gun people have them. Certainly would be less than 25k total id imagine.

We knew this day would come for bump fire stocks, only question is, when will it come for Tannerite (binary explosives)? That's probably the next "loophole" someone might use....

It almost make you wonder what his real motives were. To force a ban on "assault weapons" ? To force a ban on bump fire stocks?
 
Mass fire into a packed crowd with no cover and no where to go and you think it was not the bump stock?
Click to expand...

He fired at the crowd unimpeded for 19 minutes. A rate of fire of 30 rounds a minute could generate the same amount of casualties (1 round every 2 sec).
 
rc20 said:
Can you prove that the death penalty ever stopped anyone from killing anyone else?
Click to expand...

I can demonstrate the deterrent effect, but you may not consider proven to your satisfaction.

Do you understand that the same standard would call into question the efficacy of "serious penalties" for owning a slide-fire stock?

rc20 said:
The endless pivot.
...
Give me a break.
Click to expand...

Certainly. Seems like you could use it.
 
JoeSixpack:

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.
Click to expand...
My point is that defending it using any sort of free market rationale fails. Citizens have been able to do something similar to this "on the fly" or with a modicum of mechanical tinkering, but that doesn't mean allowing a mass-market product that easily evades a law designed to keep non-registered weapons from firing FA is consistent policy on any level. This item should never come to market.

Also JSP:

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

As is modifying a rifle to fire full-auto without an Class3 permit, oh, unless you have this item: Again: if the laws were enforced in any coherent fashion (as all of us would like) this wouldn't have ever been a mass-market item. A law (or ATF decision) to keep this off the of market would be consistent with the goals of long-standing Federal law. I would prefer the ATF decision. It's a bit ham-fisted but a poorly written law has consequences far beyond one item.

Also JSPack:
If he had used legally registered "machine guns" then what would you say?
Click to expand...
I wouldn't say a thing. The law provides a legal method of obtaining a class 3 weapon. If this person followed the procedure and passed all checks to obtain an FA weapon and used it illegally, there's no failure in the system and the system wouldn't be accountable. There's limits to everything. Free will is what makes humans great (even great failures).
 
The argument against this implement is specious to the point of incredulity:eek:. If you ban bump fire stocks you've got to do away with Jerry Miculek or at least prevent him from earning a living shooting firearms fast. Lmao. You even remoting believe he is the only person alive with those skills? I mean, think of the children. Give me a freaking break. I'm out. Takes at least two fools to argue an unassailable fact.
 
doofus47 said:
My point is that defending it using any sort of free market rationale fails. Citizens have been able to do something similar to this "on the fly" or with a modicum of mechanical tinkering, but that doesn't mean allowing a mass-market product that easily evades a law designed to keep non-registered weapons from firing FA is consistent policy on any level. This item should never come to market.
Click to expand...
From a technical stand point the gun is still firing semi automatic, the trigger is being pulled for every round.

Are we having an economics discussion? I thought your argument was based on end result outcome.

Since the outcome can be achieved without a stock in which case YOU COULD NOT REGULATE THAT unless you decide to have some sort of "speed limit" law for guns.. no firing more then 1 round per second.

All you need is 2 hands, a trigger that's light enough and a gun that recoils heavy enough and you can bump fire.

doofus47 said:
I wouldn't say a thing. The law provides a legal method of obtaining a class 3 weapon. If this person followed the procedure and passed all checks to obtain an FA weapon and used it illegally, there's no failure in the system and the system wouldn't be accountable. There's limits to everything. Free will is what makes humans great (even great failures).
Click to expand...
So again I state he had the means to secure true full auto weapons legally..
If your argument they should be banned is based on prevention I think you will agree it would not have prevented his plans.

In fact it would not even have altered his plans, He could have carried them out exactly as he did without modification.

Not only that but he did not need all of those guns and I bet you'll find most of them went unfired.. he could have done this with as little as 1 rifle.
bucket/bottle of water on the gun after every mag dump would have kept temperatures from going out of control.

I bet by the time everything is said and done not counting the handgun he probably killed him self with I bet 6 or fewer rifles was fired.
 
From a technical stand point the gun is still firing semi automatic, the trigger is being pulled for every round.

Are we having an economics discussion? I thought your argument was based on end result outcome.
Click to expand...
All due respect, you're a bit off concerning the mechnical details of a slide fire:
https://www.slidefire.com/how-it-works

No, apparently, we aren't having any type of discussion, b/c I'm pointing out that this item--by intent and design--circumvents a well-known law that governs full-auto firearms and that removing it from the market would be consistent policy enforcement--consistency being a positive trait in law enforcement policy. You keep talking about how I'm worried about outcomes. I'm not.

JSP:
So again I state he had the means to secure true full auto weapons legally..
If your argument they should be banned is based on prevention I think you will agree it would not have prevented his plans.
Click to expand...

A. But he didn't legally obtain a class 3 weapon to use for this attack, so that hypothetical topic is closed.
B. They should be banned b/c the law to ban their designed purpose is already on the books and has been for a generation not because I think they should be banned. Again, take this up with your representative.
C. I agree whole heartedly that a person who wishes to do ill to others will do so no matter what the law or human nature says about correct behavior.
 
zukiphile:
Actually, he is spot on. That trigger is being pulled once for every shot. The stock doesn't do anything but permit the shooter to keep his hand stationary relative to the stock.
Click to expand...

No>5. Control Rapid Fire

Recoil from the discharged round will cycle the action and return the firearm back to the rear position. Maintaining a light and consistent forward pressure will continue the firing sequence.
 
doofus47 said:
All due respect, you're a bit off concerning the mechnical details of a slide fire:
https://www.slidefire.com/how-it-works
Click to expand...
No I looked at these stocks when they hit the market years ago.. unlike you who apparently are just suddenly aware.

The rear of the gun slides back and forth, It has a place for you to rest your finger, The gun recoils and you put tension forward on teh gun's stock with your supporting hand.

As you do this the trigger hits your finger and is actuated and the gun discharges again.

Technically your finger is actuating the trigger every time, and the trigger is being manipulated every time.. in case you're unaware of how a full auto actually works you hold the trigger down and the hammer is automatically released.. meaning 1 trigger pull many cycles.

So like I said the gun is technically still firing semi automatic no matter how impressed you might be personally.


doofus47 said:
No, apparently, we aren't having any type of discussion, b/c I'm pointing out that this item--by intent and design--circumvents a well-known law that governs full-auto firearms and that removing it from the market would be consistent policy enforcement--consistency being a positive trait in law enforcement policy. You keep talking about how I'm worried about outcomes. I'm not.
Click to expand...
Obviously you are because the rate of fire impresses you.. = outcome.
The gun still falls short of what true full auto is not to mention the gun is jiggling around on you.. apparently the rate of fire worries you but you can't seem to quantify exactly at what point the rate of fire becomes a concern of your.

Media clocked the gunmen at 600rpm, wiki says full auto m16 700-950
so at the very least the numbers aren't up to full auto.. you can say well they're close enough but how close is close enough?


doofus47 said:
A. But he didn't legally obtain a class 3 weapon to use for this attack, so that hypothetical topic is closed.
Click to expand...
Right now everything is hypothetical since they ain't banned them yet.
But if that's your attitude Im not sure what else we have to discuss.

doofus47 said:
B. They should be banned b/c the law to ban their designed purpose is already on the books and has been for a generation not because I think they should be banned. Again, take this up with your representative.
Click to expand...
Actually uh you're wrong and the ATF approval letter even says so.
You wanna treat these bump stocks like automatic weapons but you don't wanna talk about automatic (classified under the law) weapons.

doofus47 said:
C. I agree whole heartedly that a person who wishes to do ill to others will do so no matter what the law or human nature says about correct behavior.
Click to expand...
Ok something we can agree on, I'll take it.
 
No>5. Control Rapid Fire

Recoil from the discharged round will cycle the action and return the firearm back to the rear position.
Click to expand...

All arms with recoil do that.

Maintaining a light and consistent forward pressure will continue the firing sequence.
Click to expand...

The shooter maintains the forward pressure. If the shooter keeps his finger in front of the trigger, that will result in his finger pressing the trigger for one more shot.

That's what all semi-auomatic arms do. The stock isn't doing anything magical and doesn't enable a rifle to shoot more than once per trigger pull.


That may be part of the reason people will be uncomfortable with any legislative language that outlaws slide fire stocks; it would be a prohibition on what is merely semi-automatic fire. That can be the not very thin end of a wedge.
 
Last edited:
JSP:
No I looked at these stocks when they hit the market years ago.. unlike you who apparently are just suddenly aware.
Click to expand...
I will alert slide fire that their description about a combination of steadily-held finger and inertial momentum continuing the firing process is wrong.
Yeah, actually, I have seen one, at a distance. A buddy (ex-mil, if that gives me reflected internet-ninja cred) sent me a video of him using one a few years ago. We agreed
A> it was very cool.
B> it was a borderline violation of NFA.
C> that someone was going to use one and get the rest of us in hot water. Here we are in the hot tub time machine.

JSP:
Obviously you are because the rate of fire impresses you.. = outcome.
Click to expand...
No, read the words.

JSP:
Right now everything is hypothetical since they ain't banned them yet.
Click to expand...
No, that is not what hypothetical means.

JSP:
Actually uh you're wrong and the ATF approval letter even says so.
Click to expand...
Thank you for providing exhibit B and proving my points about consistency and confusion.

JSP:
Ok something we can agree on, I'll take it.
Click to expand...
good enough for me.
 
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.
Click to expand...
It looks like the NRA may have had the same thought. If they could get this put to bed with a BATF ruling instead of new legislation, that would probably be preferable. BATF has definitely been known to reverse its previous rulings--laws are not quite so easy to undo.
 
What would the BATF need to do exactly . It was my understanding they correctly interpreted the law in saying these were legal . But of course that's what I think , I'm a gun guy haha . What doofus47 seems to be missing is that we are a nation of laws and those laws have detailed text explaining them . Under the current laws and how it reads , the slide fire stock is not illegal . One bullet is discharged for every one pull of the trigger . That is not the definition of full auto which has it's own legal definition . If the firearm does not meat that legal definition it's not a full auto firearm . Even if it shot 1k rounds a minute it would still be a semi automatic firearm by definition because it only discharges one round for every one pull of the trigger .

How does the BATF regulate around that with out screwing up the definition of semi automatic ? What might the wording be as to not be challenged in court because we know the owners of the slide fire patent sure aren't going to like what's about to likely happen .
 
I wrote the NRA and the ILA about how stupid requesting a new look at the legality of bump fire stocks was. I don't have one and I don't see me ever wanting one but there is nothing evil about the stock. One man used a bump fire stock to kill a lot of people while shooting from 320 feet in the air at a 5000 square yard area packed wall to wall with people. It is surprising that he didn't hit more but there was no accuracy involved in his act it was just spray and spray some more.
If the bump stock was the cause, what about the gun? or the ammo? or the 100 round magazines?
It's OK to let then take away bump stocks because I don't have one? NO! it's not OK! It is just one more piece of straw or one more small paper cut. Go after the real cause. If you deal with the violence then there won't be any gun violence. If you take away the guns then we will have more knife violence and more baseball bat violence and more physical violence. The violent use of a tool does not make the tool bad. Only the violence is bad.
I recommend that you all write, call, or email the NRA and ILA to tell them we don't want to feed the giant any more. We want to get rid of the giant and never have to feed it again, EVER.
 
Here is the problem with any more gun laws: They don't stop ANYTHING! Before making SCHOOLS GUN FREE ZONES- a few school shootings. AFTER making schools GUN FREE ZONES- many more school shootings. Banning interstate gun sales to private citizens after JFK's assassination stopped nothing. Strict rules on guns in Chicago and many large cities- stopped nothing. Banning bump fire stocks will stop nothing- Why? its EASY to bump fire a semi auto without ANY new stock or alteration. The anti-gun lobby ALWAYS wants to pass more gun laws, pass more restrictions on gun owners each time a madman or criminal commits murder. You can't legislate away murder. You can't stop murder by banning guns. Bombs, aircraft, trucks, cars, pressure cookers, poison, machetes, and thousands of other things can murder people. Are they going to ban all of these things? They will try if we let them! Its all about control and power over our RIGHTS.
 
How does the BATF regulate around that with out screwing up the definition of semi automatic ?
Click to expand...
The BATF can't change the legal definition of anything. They can only issue opinions about the existing law.

So right off the bat, a BATF opinion won't change any legal definitions and it won't be a new regulation.

There is no definition (nor mention) in the actual law of bump-fire stocks which is why a BATF opinion was issued on the topic. Assuming that they changed their mind after looking at the facts, they would reverse their previous ruling.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top