Feinstein's Bumpfire Ban Bill

[magnumPi]

No, you in fact fight for what your twisted view of liberty is.

Liberty is not owning a gun, free speech is, a free press is (and despite the denigrations, they do a fair job and one you do not).

If fact your so called right to smoke has an impact on the rest of society, if you want to kill yourself I am ok with that (informed suicide as opposed to depressed)

But a smoker is a lower educated individual proportionally , they are a greater drain and far less contributor to society in all ways and they impact the health and well being of those who have to be in their vicinity. You can't smoke in a vacuum.

And the rest of us have to pay for your cancer costs, the cost of illness and cancer to your kids and SO as well as second hand smoke you inflict on me.

In short, there is no logic to your statement. Its selective and self serving.

James P has great points, he lives what a truly authoritarian giant not only looks like, his country lived with that giants fist on his country.

I have not lived his life, but I have read in depth the history.

Go live in NK for a while, come back and report.

I'm sorry, I find it hard to take anyone serious who actually makes the statement that they believe the media is doing a fair job.
Based on your many posts over many months RC20, it seems you can barely contain your disdain and disgust of most RTKBA advocates. Makes me wonder, why are you here?

And your tirade against smokers could easily be used against gunowners as well, simply substitute a few words here and there, and you have a reason to ban guns. Which implies an inconstancy in your belief structure, why are the arguments against smoking valid in your mind, but the same "for the public good" argument for guns not valid?

 

[Metal god]

I keep telling my self I'm going to stop posting in this thread because it seems to have run it's course . Then I see something I want to comment on . Maybe this will be my last

But for me the 2A is way more important and above such gimmick recreational add-ons.

I ask is it a "gimmick" only because the real thing has been restricted . There are many that feel full auto should not be restricted . There likely would not be bump/slide fire stocks if law abiding citizens had the same access to NFA items as they do to general firearms . This is one of those things that the government outlaws something . Then later justifies outlawing something else related because the related item is no longer "in common use" . I believe that has already been found unconstitutional .

You hear the anti's always saying the court has said it's not an unlimited right and we should compromise . I go back to the cake analogy I posted . We've compromised , if that's what you want to call having things kept from you with nothing given in return . It is time to say there are enough restrictions .

 

[JoeSixpack]

NRA is dead to me now Im planing on contacting them today about it and I won't be cashing in the 4 years coming to me from Taurus for buying their guns recently.
~
After I finish with the NRA im gonna compose a email and call my rep's just to tell them I don't support a ban before they think no one cares and they try to cash in publicly on the momentum..

Apparently the only way to cancel a membership is to send a letter to HQ.
Im not wasting a stamp so I told them to just kill the mag and not to call or mail me.

Now to contact my rep's.

 

[Pond James Pond]

Then I see something I want to comment on . Maybe this will be my last

Well, I won't bait you into further comment unless you actually want to but you raise a good point. All the same the fact is that FAs are restricted and bump/slide-fire stocks are, as most seem to agree, a recreational item that don't make the gun more accurate to use. As I understand it even the military seem to advocate semi-auto operation of M4s etc so the usefulness of FA longarms may well be in question anyway...

I can only say what I said before, albeit it in a different way: I feel that to use the RKBA/2ndA defence for owning these stocks cheapens the RKBA/2ndA... It becomes about owning gun stuff for fun more than other reasons.

The fun side, although most prevalent in my own shooting practices, is still the least important reason for having a gun.... SD is the main reason and I hope I never need to apply that reason.

That, and the fact that I think defending such an item under the RKBA/2ndA would ultimately undermine the RKBA/2ndA by making a ban lon semi-autos later more likely.

It's just what I think...

 

[zukiphile]

As for liberty, absolute liberty... there's no such thing.

It really doesn't require a state of absolute liberty to prohibit federal restrictions on a stock for a semi-automatic rifle simply because some people are having an emotion about it.

I don't suppose you'd support lifting all speed restrictions, would you?
I mean some people want to go fast, right?

No where in our jurisprudence or COTUS is there a right to fast travel.

PJP, I believe you are missing part of the theme here, and I attribute none of that to your location; there are plenty of americans who don't quite get the point of a right as a principled matter.

If you want to ask about restrictions on rights, there are rights that are exercised with regulation. We can regulate public speech so demonstrations don't screw up traffic; we aren't supposed to regulate speech according to its content, so a law prohibiting a stupid word, let's say using ask as a noun, will run afoul of the 1st Am.

I think slide-fire stocks are sort of stupid and I think treating ask as a noun is pretty stupid.

I suppose I could write "If you consider misuse of the word ask a 1A issue, then be my guest. Ultimately, your opinion and mine have little bearing as the courts will decide. But for me the 1A is way more important and above such linguistic gimmickry. Doesn't mean they should or shouldn't be banned it just means I don't see "ask" as a noun as something that comes under the umbrella of protection from tyranny."

However, that would betray a misunderstanding of the right itself. Rights are necessary not for the things people can justify independently and with political success, but for the less popular things that can't survive the political process.

To be frank, I haven't any real interest in genuinely fully automatic arms or slide fire stock. They aren't my area of interest. Linguisticly gratuitous neologisms also hold no allure for me. Yet, a congress that moves against either threatens the rights I hold against government.

 

[Al Norris]

In order to make sure we do not have confusion and cross-posting of threads, let's confine ourselves to discussing Feintstein's bill (or others bills of the same ilk that may come before the Congress), here.

If you must discussing the NRA's stance and/or motives, then another thread remains open for that discussion: NRA is calling ATF to review the bump stock!!

A third thread was closed. Let's continue to remain civil, but let's use these two threads for the ramifications of the Las Vegas incident.

 

[JN01]

Originally posted by Pond, James Pond

I think that if you fight a bump-stock ban (and especially if you win) I think you make the chances of bans on semi autos further down the line more likely, not less... Take that prediction or leave it...

I believe the opposite is true. If you concede that a semi-auto with a bump fire stock is essentially the same as a machine gun, it will be easier for gun control fanatics (who are always wanting to ban semi-autos anyway) to argue that ANY semi-automatic that can be bump fired (without any sort of attachment) is equivalent to the others as well.

 

[jrinne0430]

I believe the opposite is true. If you concede that a semi-auto with a bump fire stock is essentially the same as a machine gun, it will be easier for gun control fanatics (who are always wanting to ban semi-autos anyway) to argue that ANY semi-automatic that can be bump fired (without any sort of attachment) is equivalent to the others as well.

I agree. Bump firing has been around long before the stocks and banning beltloops and rubber bands are not on the anti's minds. If anyone will visit the anti's sites, you will see the stocks are not their target, they are focused on semi-autos, registration, denials, then 2nd amended repeal. The NRA, some congressional members, and some fellow gun owners believe that making a deal with the devil will somehow benefit us in the long run but they are mistaken. The beast will never be satisfied and when the next shooting occurs in the near future, it will demand to be once again fed. What will we be willing to sacrifice the next time?

 

[Pond James Pond]

Then I wish you all good luck!

I certainly hope to be wrong in this.

 

[Creek Henry]

We should be banning people on antidepressants from owning guns instead

 

[Rangerrich99]

What? I think your buddy has had a bit too much to drink. Scopes are in no way banned here.

Yeah, I should've done my due diligence about that, but instead I ASSumed he was properly informed. My bad. I deleted that from my original post. My apologies. Anyone who read that post (#134), please ignore that portion of it. Riflescopes, as far as I can determine, are just as available there as they are here.

 

[jrinne0430]

Here is Sen Kaine's bill. It should make Feinstein proud...It will never end.

Keep Up With Tim
10.6.17 Responding To Gun Violence in Las Vegas
Dear Friend,

Our hearts were broken by the news of another horrific mass shooting this week in Las Vegas -- the deadliest in modern U.S. history. My prayers are with the victims and their families coping with this terrible tragedy.

We continue to suffer horrific mass shootings -- in Virginia we know the unbearable pain they cause -- but Congress has remained unwilling to do anything to help stop them from happening again and again. We have to do better.

This week, I introduced four gun safety bills that seek to make common sense reforms. The first two bills would close dangerous loopholes that allow people to buy bump stocks and large capacity ammunition feeding devices. These accessories make weapons more dangerous and can make it more difficult for law enforcement to stop a shooter. I also introduced a bill that would require the completion of a background check before any gun sale, something the vast majority of Americans support. No one should be able to purchase a firearm before a background check has been completed. Finally, I joined legislation to repeal a shameless law passed in 2005 to shield gun manufacturers and firearms dealers from civil liability.

While no single legislative action can solve the problem of gun violence or wholly prevent another tragedy, Congress should continue to pursue solutions that would help reduce it. We need to take long overdue action on gun safety and quickly pass these bills that can save lives.

Sincerely,



Tim Kaine

 

[Metal god]

Slippery slope WHAT

Let me guess Mr Kaine you are willing to compromise and only insist on 3 of the 4 Hmm seems he wants my cake and eat it to .

No vote for you !

Finally, I joined legislation to repeal a shameless law passed in 2005 to shield gun manufacturers and firearms dealers from civil liability.

That one is absurd . No way Ford should be liable when a mad man runs over a bunch of people any more then S&W should be liable for a mad man using there firearms to shoot people . One has nothing to do with the other .

 

[Stats Shooter]

I'm going out on a limb here, but I think most gun owners of all shades do not mind slide fire stocks going away....springless versions of the Atkins Accelerator.

The problem is that there is all give on the part of gun owners, and all take on the side of gun controllers. The only wins for gun rights proliferation is though the courts.

Time after Time we see the left wing pass a restriction , only to pass another one, and another one. And we know already what the logical conclusion is....an outright ban on civilian ownership of most firearms, if not all. Let's not forget DC's ban on pistols, or all the kooky stuff California does legislatively.

It wouldn't be such a big deal if WE KNEW for sure that gun laws on owning AR's , AK's , pistols, buying ammo etc would never get more restrictive than it already is. But it will never be enough. If they can't ban them they make procuring them difficult, or ban where you can have guns...or neuter them to single shot only etc. And if that doesn't work make getting ammo difficult. And if that doesn't work, make it so you can sue all gun makers into bankruptcy so no one makes them anymore.

Again, me being presumptuous, but if we could sit down and discuss what laws made sense and what current laws are senseless, and discussed enforcement constructively. But when one side wants an almost all out ban, there really isn't much of a middle ground to be found.

 

[JoeSixpack]

Then I wish you all good luck!

I certainly hope to be wrong in this.

The problem is history has shown it does not stop, Steps are incremental.
That's why I don't wanna just roll over on the fight because it's like throwing your self in front of a run away bus, you're not gonna stop it, it's senseless sacrifice and when you show weakness on the subject and they see a gap to exploit....

few days ago it was ban bump stocks as you see you give a inch and now it's "gun show loophole", mag capacity, and civil liability for gun manufacturers (and im sure dealers)

They're loading up the truck.. Imagine that? The smart thing here would be to write a very narrowly focused bill and cash in on the other sides willingness to sacrifice bump stocks.. They'ed probably pass it quick and clean.. I hope they don't.. I hope they load that truck till the tires go flat.

The bigger the bite the bigger the choke.

Here is Sen Kaine's bill. It should make Feinstein proud...It will never end.

And here we go they're at the buffet.. This could actually be a good thing.
The more they ask for the less chance they get anything.

Unlike healthcare that keeps coming up they're only gonna get one bite at the apple.. least till the next shooting.

The longer they take to load up a bill the less chance it will ever even see a vote, and if it does get a vote the less likely it's going to go anywhere.

My US house rep is a lost cause didn't even bother msg'ing her she'd take Bidens shotgun if she could and she won reelection by to far a margin to threaten here with reelection, Senator Brown I sent a msg but he's a sold YES vote on anything anti gun... I just gotta keep my man Portman strong as a check on Brown in the senate.

 

[Metal god]

The family and I were talking about the bump/slide fire stock at dinner tonight and the new possible legislation came up . I brought Pelosi's comments up and how I knew if are side said we would give at all the anti's would add two or more things to any possible bill .

We talked about how that slippery slop we find are selves already sliding down would cause nothing to pass because everyone would dig in there heals and right then the light bulb went on .

My thinking now is the anti's in congress are going to add to and amend any bill that gets brought up to the point it has no chance of passing . I think this is there strategy to force nothing to pass while looking like they want everything to pass . This way they can campaign on it in 2018 & 2020 . They will claim they wanted to save lives but those darn republican just don't care about you .

It's actually brilliant because they'll push to a point there might not even be a vote . So some anti's can go back to there pro gun states and can honestly say they never voted to restrict your 2nd amendment rights . Win win

I wrote this on the 3rd in another thread about possible shortages do to panic buying . I hate to say I told you so BUT

I'd say buy stock in slide fire stocks ( bump fire ) I predict there will be a law signed banning any type of conversion regardless of how it operates or hardware that allows the firearm to be fired as if it were in full auto . They are going to be selling like hotcakes .

I not only think that , I believe it will pass on a huge bipartisan vote in both the house and the senate . I think this because it's the one bone the pro gun crowd can throw the anti's that will look like somethings being done while at the same time will not effect the vast majority of firearm owners . Allowing something like that to pass quickly will likely put the gun control debate to bed rather quickly allowing the country to move to finding better ways to prevent this thing from happening again that may actually work rather then beating that old gun control bell to death .

The question is what will they find the shooter did leading up to the shooting that they will try to ban and or restrict likely adding it to the bump fire ban .

Did he buy all 16+ long guns at once or in a very short period of time . Maybe they try to add that you can only buy 3 guns a month or some sort of restriction like that to the bill .

Maybe he bought all the ammo at once online . Now they want to add something like requirements that store must report people buying more then x amount of ammo a week or in one purchase to the bump fire ban .

I doubt it will have anything to do with reloading components but my bet is there will be some traction to pass something and banning the bump fire stocks seems logical and an easy give to have the debate go away . If it looks like something will pass regardless of what . Even if it does not seem like much . The anti's will be trying to amend the bill constantly and all that talk in the media will cause a panic .

 

[Stats Shooter]

My thinking now is the anti's in congress are going to add to and amend any bill that get brought up to the point it has no chance of passing . I think this is there strategy to force nothing to pass while looking like they want everything to pass . This way they can campaign on it in 2018 & 2020 . They will claim they wanted to save lives but those darn republican just don't care about you .

I have now reached the same conclusion. If the anti-gunners really thought that restrictions saved lives, then they would take anything , no matter how stripped down it was because anything would be better than nothing. Even if was just banning anything resembling a stock looking like a bump fire stock, if they really thought banning them would save lives, and that was their goal, it would quickly pass both chambers, trump signs it, and that's it.

But, it isn't all about saving lives, it is about politics and power, like it always is. There are a few I'm sure who are passionate about gun control, and some truly passionate about gun rights. But the majority, they are only passionate about winning elections.

 

[Prndll]

I know that politics in Washington can easily be seen as a game for many people. But for me, there are not only lives in the balance but also the future of the American way of life (and by extension perhaps the future of the world).

I would like to join the NRA. Really I would. But it is events like this....complete capitulation to the insanity and destruction that the Washington liberal power brokers (Clintons/Feinstein/etc.). This keeps me from it. There is no fight. No fight at all for the second. Perhaps the NRA feels they can't win against the 'Clinton machine'. Well it seems rather obvious that Trump is quite capable of it. But that's only really for not being such a coward. I personally couldn't care less one way or the other about bump stocks. As has been said, these things are just too gimmicky. I wouldn't be all that interested in Hornadys Zombie bullets either for the same reason. It's all gum-ball-machine sillyness. Just as silly as going nuts over the use of bump stocks in the Vegas shooting. But we are going to create laws based on it. This is exactly what created the anomaly that we see as California gun control. None of it makes any sense. The Clintons need to be defeated, NOT given in to. I want to be proud of having membership in the NRA. This would be disappointment. Not for any push in keeping bump stocks out there but for NOT pushing back against those that would repeal the 2nd if they could.

To me, this is not a game. 58 people are dead. Where is Obama's feet being held to the fire?

 

[Spats McGee]

After several days of turning all of this over in my head, I've decided to finally wade into this one. First of all, I was surprised when the BATFE approved the slide-fire stock as "not a machine gun." Surprised, because this is the same agency that (at least according to internet lore) ruled that a shoestring is a machine gun. I think it was the technically correct decision, though, based on my reading of the surrounding law and my decidedly lawyerly understanding of the engineering & function. I thought about getting one. It's kind of a neat device, but I don't need one. I first would have needed a rifle that one would fit. I also knew without a doubt that if I bought one, it would have been purchased with cash, because I figured that BATFE would reverse itself eventually.

I've looked at Feinstein's bill, and seen the snippets from the Tim Kaine. It's building exactly like I (and probably many of us) thought it would.

1. Shooting occurs. This one just happened to involve the use of a bumpfire stock.
2. The press goes nuts. The celebrities do a lot of crying on TV. The NRA is blamed and gun owners portrayed as heartless monsters who eat babies for breakfast.
3. Antigun politicians begin screeching, and the MSM promptly amplifies that for the American public.
4. Antigun crowd starts introducing legislation.
5. Antigun crowd also tries to ban anything they think they can get. UBCs, suppressors, shoulderthingsthatgoup, you name it.​

This is an RKBA issue. While I have never owned a bumpfire stock and may never own one, I'll be urging my representatives to fight any such ban. The antigun crowd is The Terminator of US Politics: "They can't be reasoned with, they can't be bargained with...they doesn't feel pity or remorse or fear...and they absolutely will not stop.Ever." There was a shooting a while back, I don't recall which one . . . DF rolled out some legislation about 48 hours later and proudly proclaimed in the news that she'd "been working on that legislation for a year." ..... IOW, she had just been waiting for the right tragedy to roll it out again. She introduces a new AWB in every legislative session.

I'll say it again: this is an RKBA issue. We gun owners complain in part and laugh in part because the AWB of 1994-2004 was based on cosmetic features that really didn't impact the function of semi-auto rifles. An AR was verboten, but that Winchester Model 100 in .308 was OK . . . . This one impacts function. Whether it involves an internal modification or not, bumpfire stocks do assist in firing faster.

They're already adding provisions to ban things that weren't used in the LV shooting. They're just going after low-hanging fruit. They'll add everything they can get. If we compromise, they'll immediately try to take back whatever we give them. After the AWB was passed in 1994, how long did it take before the anti-crowd immediately started introducing more legislation to ban guns? I'm operating from memory, but I did some research on that a while back and seem to recall that Schumer introduced a handgun-banning bill less than 72 hours after passage of the AWB.

If they get this, what's next? Aftermarket triggers? Those would seem to be included in Feinstein's bill and that reaches into the internals of our guns. At that point, we as US gun owners really are faced with the prospect of having all semi-autos banned.

Once again, LawDog's words bear repeating: http://thelawdogfiles.blogspot.com/2013/01/a-repost.html

Here we go again.

 

[ed308]

I've gone back and forth on this bump stock issue. My knowledge and experience with bump stocks and other devices designed to simulate full auto, they are difficult to control and wildly inaccurate. But when shooting from 30+ stories up and into a crowd, I guess anything is possible.

If a bump stocks or some other device is proven to have been used by Paddock, then maybe should be restricted. How to restrict these devices is difficult since they aren't a true automatic weapon. And more importantly, even if they are restricted the problems we face in this county won't be solved with this gun control measure or any other gun control measure. Removing guns from public's hands does nothing to fix the problem in the person pulling the trigger. The evil and desire to kill will still be there. If Paddock hadn't used guns, he could've easily crashed one of his planes into a crowd killing far more than he did. Remember Timothy McVeigh? He rented a truck back in 1995, filled it with ammonia nitrate and kill 168 people when he bombed the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City.

The ways to kill another person are endless. If someone wants to kill you, they'll find a way. Gun control isn't the answer to our problems.