NRA is calling ATF to review the bump stock!!

Status
Not open for further replies.
tony pasley said:
Regulation can be over turned with a stroke of a pen.....
Click to expand...

That’s not accurate. The Administratve Procedures Act must be complied with for the adoption, amendment, or repeal of a regulation. While that’s not a political action requiring a vote of an elected body, it is a formal, involved, and public process that is more complex than “the stroke of a pen.”
 
No matter how I look at this, I cannot fathom how the NRA, and the congressional members that followed suit, would think giving in on this is best for our movement...immediate compitulation, no fight, nothing. As indicated by posts here and elsewhere, this move appears to not only have stoked the disagreements among us, but also is pulling support from the NRA, and support for many of those congressional members. I hope I'm wrong but I can see a potential train wreck coming.

As for Ed Gillespie, who needs every bit of the votes from the Trump supporters in hopes of winning the VA governorship, I do not see how him joining the call for a ban helped his position. Many of us were not enthusiastic about him and now he does this...?
 
Last edited:
jmorris,

You are correct. The BATFE describes a fully auto weapon as one that will fire with one pull of the trigger and as long as the trigger is in the rear position. A bump fire requires the action of the trigger finger each time.

But, I'll be honest with you. The first time I saw a bump fire, about five years ago, I thought it wouldn't be long before they are banned. I'm not for banning them.
 
As mentioned in another thread, maybe it's time for new leadership at the NRA. I believe the amount of damage done by the NRA's stand, and thus; having many congressional members jump on board, is more than Feinstein, Pelosi, Soros, could have ever hoped of achieving.
 
Last edited:
Cox stated this morning while being interviewed (interrogated) by Chris Wallace that the NRA believes the bump stock should have more regulations placed on it.
 
Did Cox specify who should be doing that - Congress or ATF? Because if it goes to Congress we'll end up with more gun control being added to the bill than just bumpstocks.

Aside from that, it seems we have someone in charge of NRA-ILA who likes to open negotiations by making an immediate concession to opponents without receiving anything in return. I think, as I mentioned in the other thread, it is way past time for Cox and LaPierre to go. They aren't even good spokespeople.
 
The push is for legislation as Diane F. said on the tube today, not a regulation. The argument is that legislation can do more to encompass many items, rather than a specific hit on this gadget or identical ones.
 
Country where we all are entitled an opinion
I personal see no value of a bump stock....and I see a LOT of potential for the thing to severely damage any future GUN RIGHTS arguments.

BUT-- I do want to live where any adult can buy or make what ever gives him/her satisfaction or joy as long as that satisfaction or joy does not negatively impact any other citizen

I have long watched the NRA and all the anti gun folks. I don't think the NRA is on ANY BAND-WAGON...But it may be IMO they are acting pragmatically

IN this, me first, selfish, and entitled citizenry; that seems to demand daily the Federal government to manage EVERY aspect of their lives...

I tend to think fighting a battle to have Fred's right play with a bump stock is not smart...YES defending my absolute right is important

BUT ---considering the event... trying to convince the government and the ... citizens that ALL of US should have access to, an (in essence) AUTOMATIC WEAPON is just a loser position

Each time these events happen...we WILL loose freedoms.. Just a matter of holding fast for the VERY most important battles.... Bump stocks are NOT that important a battle IMO
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Wayne La Pierre just ate a crow:

On Sunday, the organization said it was open to regulation but opposed any legislation banning the devices.

"We don't believe that bans have ever worked on anything. What we have said has been very clear - that if something transfers a semiautomatic to function like a fully automatic, then it ought to be regulated differently," Chris Cox, the NRA's chief lobbyist, said on "Fox News Sunday."
Click to expand...
 
thallub said:
Wayne La Pierre just ate a crow:
Click to expand...
"We don't believe that bans have ever worked on anything. What we have said has been very clear - that if something transfers a semiautomatic to function like a fully automatic, then it ought to be regulated differently," Chris Cox, the NRA's chief lobbyist, said on "Fox News Sunday."
Click to expand...

That statement is what I was referring to in the post above.

Thanks for posting it. My internet is very slow today so I didn't try to find it online.
 
"Regulated differently"

This is not the same as "banned" nor the same as making bump fire stocks an NFA item.

what are the regulation on them now?? None that I know of. Its a stock, not a firearm.

PERHAPS it ought to have SOME level of restriction, but I don't see the NRA's stance as anything more than that, saying it ought to be reviewed.

They aren't jumping to the extreme end of the list of options like the anti's always do.

Personally, I think this was a brilliant move on the part of the NRA, it just about cuts the legs off the anti's arguments, and it does cut the legs off their attempts to blame the NRA.

For those of you who can't stand the thought of them "giving in" on anything, that's your opinion, but remember that when you fight to the last man and the last bullet for a worthless position, most of the time, you wind up out of ammo, and dead.

Being able to maneuver can mitigate a defeat, and sometimes can even turn one into a victory.
 
I think the NRA is trying to leverage the 'bump stocks' into being declared an NFA item, in order to use them as another point in arguing for opening the registry to post-'86 machine guns.
 
The NRA gave in with no fight. It appears the move allowed many in congress to jump behind the NRA and to save face. I still see this as a slow moving train wreck. By stating that something that can make a semi act as a automatic ought to be regulated, just opened the doors for all semi auto to be viewed under the same lense. With practice, I can bump fire holding my belt loop and from the shoulder....no device needed. When the next shooting occurs, what are the anti's going to demand? The NRA offered the stock, and it is not enough (see Sen Kaine's bill in this thread). The anti crowd will never be satisfied.
 
They'd just regulate the bump stocks as something else other than a machine gun.. that registry ain't opening up anytime soon and I never had any faith even before all this that the NRA would ever fight to that end.

@44 that's fine man, chill out in the back for a bit and rest up.
BTW we should probably know what worthless position you're willing to uh? Die? For so we know when to wake you.


Now me personally Im ready to have the ultimate show down.. all or nothing.
We lost so much before I was even born Im not willing to give an inch.

If they wanted to have a serious conversation I'd be willing to make concessions but the stuff I want in return will NEVER happen.. Im hungry, I want steak on my plate, I'm not willing to give away anything without some reciprocation.

You want complete and total registration? fine, You want a complete and total elimination of private sales fine, you can know everything I have I don't care.. you're not gonna come to my door looking for it we all know that.. no the anit's way is thru piece meal law, bit by bit, bite by bite, like a damn piranha eating its' prey.

But in exchange we wipe everything else out, I own what I want..
NEVER GONNA HAPPEN.. Look at the history they don't give only take.
Well I want everything left on my plate and I don't care if all you want is a french fry "bump stocks" Im gonna stab your hand with my fork.

You may sneak off with that fry after all but im not gonna just sit there and let it happen.
This ain't a battlefield, We loose the fight we loose the fight.. we'll have another one tomorrow.

Actually we'll have another one tomorrow WIN or LOOSE.
Ya'll remember the arcade games.. especially the fighting games?
Looser pays, Winner stays.. Our quarter is already in the machine.. the only way we don't loose is if we keep winning, Beating back challenge after challenge.

They only gotta get it right once, we gotta get it right 100% of the time.
 
Last edited:
What happens if the ATF doesn't make the leap to regulate bump stocks? I would think there might be a court challenge based on the federal definition. Federal law defines machineguns as:

The term ‘‘machinegun’’ means any weapon
which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be
readily restored to shoot, automatically more
than one shot, without manual reloading, by a
single function of the trigger. The term shall
also include the frame or receiver of any such
weapon, any part designed and intended solely
and exclusively, or combination of parts designed
and intended, for use in converting a
weapon into a machinegun, and any combination
of parts from which a machinegun can be
assembled if such parts are in the possession or
under the control of a person.
 
...by a
single function of the trigger.
Click to expand...
It isn't a single function of the trigger. It's a single function of the finger.
The trigger is being pulled and reset for each and every shot fired.
That's why it was approved in the first place. (Just like the 3MR trigger, even though its operation is mechanical and not based on recoil.)
 
FM, I think the point is that the gun goes bang once each time the trigger is pulled with a bump stock and that doesn't meet the definition of a machinegun under federal law. If the ATF decides their first ruling on the bump stock is correct (and I think it is), what happens then?
 
I think the definition as it is makes it pretty safe as far as it IS your finger that's pulling the trigger and the trigger is still operating as designed without modification.

So I don't think the ATF could reverse course on that grounds.. They would probably have to find some thing else about the stock they could attack.. I mean there ain't much to them.

They targeted the spring in the Atkins as a mechanical device, but the slide fire came out after and specifically avoided that pitfall by requiring you to do the springs job and pull forward.

So I dunno.
 
Possibilities???

I've been thinking about the NRA's statement(s) and possibilities. Yep, a clear and blatant betrayal...or is it??

I wound up watching one of the liberal anti gun, anti trump, anti everything but their way, tv shows, and they did talk about guns, and politics.

It was rather enlightening. They are stunned by the NRA's "reasonableness", and don't know quite what to do, and are arguing amongst themselves over what is the best way to proceed.

PERHAPS, the NRA's position was intended to do this. TO buy time.

TIME for emotions to cool, facts to be determines, and hopefully reason to prevail.

Face it, what are the "standard" tactics of the gun haters after such a tragedy? Scream, often and loudly that
#1 SOMETHING MUST BE DONE!!
#2 The NRA and the gun lobby is evil because they resist something being done.

Then they trot out bills they have been preparing for just such a crisis, with their entire wish list, in whole, or part, and anything we oppose, is opposition to "common sense".

By calling for a review (especially since the administration that ALLOWED bump fire stocks was Obama, and beloved of so many,...on their side, anyway, they cannot blame Republicans "controlled by the NRA" for the LEGAL existence & sale of the item.

They also cannot just come out and say the decision was wrong, or flawed or faulty, because that also reflects poorly on that administration. They are trapped, because they cannot appear disloyal to the party, and besides, the decision WAS the correct one, legally. Like free speech for Nazi's they may not like the item, but if it does not violate existing law (and the stocks don't), they're stuck with accepting it, or being publically exposed as hypocrites.

The only acceptable political path now open to the "Ban it! BAN IT NOW!" crowd is to WAIT for a review (or they will be seen as even more unreasonable than they currently are), and AFTER a review, they will, sadly admit that they previous administration erred in allowing the stocks. (of course they are assuming they can pressure the ATF into a different finding than they made before.

And having to wait takes a LOT of the wind out of their sails. If they don't get to pass their ban them all laws while people are still very upset and not thinking long term, they usually lose. After things cool down, people start thinking about their rights, and not about the body count.

Striking while the iron is hot is best, the more it cools, the less malleable it is.

SO, PERHAPS the entire point of the NRA's change of tactics is to buy time for the "iron" to cool??

It has, at least the novelty of being something different, and may actually work out. Doing what we have been doing, has been a losing proposition for our side, while emotions are running high. We make gains when emotions are cool and logic and reason prevail. After a mass shooting, emotions prevail, and the tactics we have been using have not been very effective, particularly in metro areas.

My point here is that anything, even a perceived "betrayal" that delays the other side getting bills PASSED (they can introduce as many as they want, introduction of a bill machts nichts) is a good thing for our side.

In the eyes of the public not already in one camp or the other, if the NRA is being reasonable, calling for further review, then the ones wanting to pass bans NOW, become the unreasonable ones.

In other words, the "betrayal" might just be a clever ruse. I'd like to think so.

America is the land of "if it seems stupid, but it works, its not stupid". I hope this is one of those, and if I'm wrong, I'm wrong. But what if I'm not, and it works???
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top