NRA is calling ATF to review the bump stock!!

[SonOfScubaDiver]

I supported the previous administration and have no problem saying that it made a mistake in approving bump stocks. That doesn't mean that I'm naive enough to actually think any decision like this comes across the President's desk for his personal approval.

44 AMP, I doubt that the NRA's statement is simply a ruse to make the ones wanting to pass bans now become the unreasonable ones. I admit to being surprised by the statement, but I'm hoping that it ultimately opens the door for people on both sides to begin discussing areas we can reach agreements on. In another thread, someone suggested a tit for tat compromise. While I don't think one will be reached on this bump stock issue, I do think compromise can be reached on some other issues like suppressors, national reciprocity, universal background checks, people on terrorist and no-fly lists, etc. I definitely think there are ways both sides can get some of what they want, and maybe the NRA coming out and saying bump stocks should be reevaluated will start a broader dialogue among lawmakers.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

SAAMI seems to have followed the NRA lead:

Statement from the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) and the Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers’ Institute (SAAMI):

Our thoughts and prayers continue to be with the families and loved ones of all those killed and injured in the criminal attack in Las Vegas. The manufacture, distribution and sale of automatic firearms and their components has been stringently regulated by federal laws since 1934. We believe the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) should interpret and enforce existing laws and regulations. We call upon ATF to conduct a prompt review and evaluation of aftermarket trigger activation devices such as bump stocks to determine whether they are lawful to install and use on a firearm under the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA), or whether, if they have no function or purpose other than to convert a conventional firearm into an automatic firearm, they are regulated items under the NFA. We urge Congress to allow ATF to complete its review before considering any legislation so that any policy decisions can be informed by the facts and ATF’s analysis.

As if the BATFE has ever been scientific or objective ...

 

[Aguila Blanca]

The NRA's move did not give the anti's any pause. They took the stock and just added it to their list of demands, no compromise. VA Sen Kaine's bill.

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

Why should any manufacturer be liable for the acts of a madman? If this is going to be a legislative approach, then it also has to apply to the manufacturers of any cars or trucks used to mow down pedestrians.

 

[JoeSixpack]

They shouldn't.. but think about it if you can sue them maybe you can bankrupt them..
I honestly don't know how you could make a case against a manufacturer for bad actors..

but then again if I remember the betamax trial correctly the argument was it was a piracy device cause it could record video.. but failed because it could be shown legit good uses existed.

I suppose they could make the same argument that X Y Z gun is only used to kill people so the mfg is complicit in murder, I don't think it would work but coffee is hot right?

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

The argument is that firearms are purposed primarily as weapons. You use them against people and animals as weapons. Second, their existence as weapons primes aggression in people to use them as such.

Saying they are used for sports (including hunting as a sport) is irrelevant as the 2nd Amend. is not about sport. The target sports are derivative of the weapons usage. Next, the sporting argument was used in Australia and the UK for a reason to have guns. It failed. In the UK, before their ban, the gun sporting organizations used to mock the humanoid targets used in IDPA and IPSC for demonstrating our blood lust.

Here is the 'sporting' use attack on the RKBA from a responsible gun owner -
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/07/...t&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=sectionfront&_r=0

The author is a gun owner in a pleasant and safe enclave in Oregon, who might go hunting. That's the model for the responsible gun owner. No mention of self-defense or defense against tyranny.

Thus, denying the purpose of the firearm is a useless attempt to defend the RKBA. The right exists for them to be weapons. Other activities are side effects.

Now, can you sue companies and store for providing weapons? That is the issue. The argument is that their mere existence causes harm. The aggression hypothesis is debatable in the scientific literature and the devil is in the details. If a store or company breaks the law in selling them (as some gun stores - small percent) seem to have been, they are liable IMHO. However, if the gun is purchased legally, then can you sue because it exists as a weapon and used as such.

That is what the anti folk want to do. They also will claim that the potentially destructiveness of one weapon as compared to another is a cause for a claim. If you only had a O/U ducky-wucky gun, you couldn't produce such horror. You know that a bump stock or 60 round Surefire mag can do that and are they attractive nuisances as they attract folks prone to do such.

You might argue that you need such for self-defense or defense against tyranny. Make the case. In our own threads, we see folks state:

1. 5 is enough
2. A pump shotgun with 5 rounds is all you need for HD.
3. I am not competent enough to use more rounds

Interestingly, the shotgun mantra is echoed by Joe Biden. On SNL, a comedian said that why do you need more than 6 rounds? If you can't do the job in six rounds, learn karate. In one thread, some poster said the exact same thing - if you can do the job with one round, you ain't doing the job. I heard the same crap in a good ol' boy, let's posture gun store in Austin from a clerk with the body profile of the Hindenburg.

Thus, you need to not try to mitigate the weapons use by appealing to sport. Saying they are just a tool is flat out stupid as that avoids the agency and purpose of the firearm and the 2nd Amend.

Protecting stores and companies who follow the law should be a primary goal. Getting rid of that is a way to destroy companies. Does that happen? Sure, it does - American Derringer in TX used to produce a full line of guns. I read that it was reduced to almost nonexistence by a law suit from a cop who dropped one or somehow ND'ed and they didn't have the resources to fight the suit.

Are there limits on available weapons - an old debate. Should you have a nuclear weapon? Is the BOR a suicide pact because of allowing some unfettered risk?

You can weaponize Anthrax - as a terrorist did in the USA. Is that protected as 'arms'?

Folks are correct that the push to legislation has an end goal of total bans. It is not a small correction that bump stocks are stupid and bought by idiot fan boys. They are not needed for the purpose of the 2nd Amend. and thus a regulatory look is warranted as they exist as an attractive nuisance with little purpose. However, a small fix in regulations won't cut it.

The goal is an expansion of bans to reduce guns to the responsible gun owner paradigm. Reading various sources and watching commentators - we hear:

1. We should ban all semi-auto guns (WaPo - but they did have another OP-ED saying bans were stupid)
2. The problem is that we have 300 million guns and we need an Australian buy back (confiscatory in nature).
3. You don't need an assault rilfe with a 30 round clip of cop-killer bullets to take your 8 year old son hunting (a paraphrase of Morning Joe - a waste of organic matter). BTW, he denounced Trump (merits of Trump are off limits) for saying the police's quick response to the Vegas shooter was a miracle. Why - because it took 72 minutes till they breached. That isn't what happened.

Hope I touch on the comment about suing companies and stores in this long exposition.

 

[jrinne0430]

Since the NRA, NSSF, etc. have asked for a review, I wonder if and when the BATF will review it. In addition, if viewed that the stock serves no purpose other than to convert semi to full auto, I wonder if tannerite (or similar) can be reviewed since it serves no purpose other than exploding...slippery slope.

 

[5whiskey]

I am pretty familiar with legal principles, but I am not a lawyer. Will never profess to be one. The point of clarity and following the letter of the law is pretty much a layman principle. The California bullet button is an example of a legal loop hole being exploited. Don't think of it as dirty, of a trick. Its using ingenuity.

I think slide fire is similar to the bullet button. I don't believe ATF can do anything about slide fire because of the definition of machine gun in the NFA. One round fired per one trigger pull with no mechanical assist... It will take congress to do something about this IMO.

Or ATF could just make a rules change anyway and wait for a legal challenge. Sad as it is to say, as it runs afoul of the "rule of law" IMO, I would prefer this to any new legislation.

 

[44 AMP]

the stock servers no purpose other than to convert semi to full auto,

The problem with it is that the bump fire stock does NOT convert the gun to full auto. But, rapid semi auto fire can be, and is mistaken for full auto fire.

There are two DIFFERENT things at work here, one is the mechanical process involved firing the gun, and the other is what firing the gun bump-fire SOUNDS like.

Additionally, there is the issue of confusion about the cyclic rate of fire, and the ACTUAL rate of fire.

First, the initial review and approval was based on the fact that the bump-fire stock does NOT change the semi automatic function of the rifle. The trigger is being pulled once, for each shot. What the bump-fire does, is help you pull the trigger very fast. Until they re-write the legal definition of machine gun, they cannot classify the bump-fire stock as a machine gun, because it isn't one.

Now, we come to the sound of rapid fire. This is where you get people thinking it converts a semi to full auto, because of the sound of rapid fire mimics the rapid fire of a machine gun.

Machine guns fire at different cyclic rates depending on the design. From a "low" of 450-500rpm to a high of 1100-1200+rpm.

A skilled shooter, with the right gun, can manage burst in the 400rpm rate range. A few of the world's fastest shooters can hit rate speed almost double that. WITHOUT ANY a bump fire stock.

I understand that when a bump fire stock works properly a rate of fire approaching 600rpm can be achieved, Briefly.

This is another important difference between fast semi auto and full auto, getting that speed with a semi is fully dependent on the skill of the operator. With a full auto, its "built in".

Our legal definition of what is, and isn't a machine gun is defined by HOW the gun functions when fired, NOT on how fast the gun fires. Period.

The law doesn't recognize or even address how FAST a gun can be made to shoot. ONLY the mechanical method used to fire the gun. A machine gun with a cyclic rate of only 200rpm would still be a regulated NFA item, because it is a machine gun (by mechanical operation) no matter how fast or slow it shoots.

I understand there is (at least) one select fire 12ga (looks like an oversized AR) that has a very slow full auto fire rate, for controllability. The shooter can actually fire a aemi auto gun FASTER than that gun's the full auto rate.

But its still a machine gun, mechanically.

The "ban them because they make them shoot like machine guns" crowd has a huge legal stumbling block, currently. It's the fact that by law, machine guns are defined by mechanical function of the trigger, NOT cyclic rate.

Until/unless they make new laws defining a "speed limit" for how fast a gun can legally shoot, they don't have any law to base their desired ban on.

On the down side, many of the people who will actually vote on this issue don't know this, and many don't CARE!

 

[JoeSixpack]

Good point 44, I remember quite a few people on here listening to the video's that picked up on the tempo and didn't think it was a real full auto.

Trigger crank, binary trigger, bump fire.. (actually my money was on trigger crank).
But the point is a lot of us could pick up on the difference but to someone who doesn't know anything about guns it's just "scary" and that's, that.

The anti's have been very good at showing off AK's and AR's and linking them to what the uneducated see on TV/Movies.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

When you point out that a semi can fire just as fast all you do is tell folks to ban them also.

There is a fundamental disagreement that folks should be able to own such weapons at all.

That point is out there. As I said - semis have been banned and confiscated. Saying, well - I can fire just as fast as a bump stock so there.

SO - ban them all.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Now, can you sue companies and store for providing weapons? That is the issue. The argument is that their mere existence causes harm. The aggression hypothesis is debatable in the scientific literature and the devil is in the details. If a store or company breaks the law in selling them (as some gun stores - small percent) seem to have been, they are liable IMHO. However, if the gun is purchased legally, then can you sue because it exists as a weapon and used as such.

That is what the anti folk want to do. They also will claim that the potentially destructiveness of one weapon as compared to another is a cause for a claim. If you only had a O/U ducky-wucky gun, you couldn't produce such horror. You know that a bump stock or 60 round Surefire mag can do that and are they attractive nuisances as they attract folks prone to do such.

That's the argument ... pretty much. Except that the AR-15 manufacturers don't sell rifles with bump-fire stocks -- those are aftermarket accessories. But the anti-gunner aren't seeking to hold the maker(s) of bump-fire stocks liable (which is equally illogical), they're still after the firearms manufacturers. And the manufacturers have zero control over how their widget is used by the end purchaser. Ergo, in order for such legislation to even be entertained, it can't (logically) be limited just to firearms. It has to apply equally to anything used in mass assaults: cars, trucks, knives, fertilizer, diesel fuel, dynamite, Tannerite -- not just guns.

But they're only after guns, which shows that their purpose isn't prevention of mass assaults, but gun confiscation. So it has to be countered.

 

[TDL]

I think Glenn has distilled a very large amount of insight into gun control strategy and narratives as it affects this issue.

Glenn E. Meyer The argument is that firearms are purposed primarily as weapons. You use them against people and animals as weapons. Second, their existence as weapons primes aggression in people to use them as such.

Saying they are used for sports (including hunting as a sport) is irrelevant as the 2nd Amend. is not about sport. The target sports are derivative of the weapons usage. Next, the sporting argument was used in Australia and the UK for a reason to have guns. It failed. In the UK, before their ban, the gun sporting organizations used to mock the humanoid targets used in IDPA and IPSC for demonstrating our blood lust.

Here is the 'sporting' use attack on the RKBA from a responsible gun owner -
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/07/o...tionfront&_r=0

The author is a gun owner in a pleasant and safe enclave in Oregon, who might go hunting. That's the model for the responsible gun owner. No mention of self-defense or defense against tyranny.

Thus, denying the purpose of the firearm is a useless attempt to defend the RKBA. The right exists for them to be weapons. Other activities are side effects.

I think this is really sage advice on how to understand this whole "I don't object to hunting" or worse yet, "I own firearms for hunting" aspect. Hunting is not a right and it can be denied though basic legislative simple majorities.

Self defense and defense or deterrence of tyranny or illegal tyrannical actions of any authority are the basis for the actual right. And the hunting aspect is also a trend problem in the tactics of defending the right, in that firearms hunting is declining as a portion of primary reason for firearms ownership.

The goal is an expansion of bans to reduce guns to the responsible gun owner paradigm. Reading various sources and watching commentators - we hear:
....2. The problem is that we have 300 million guns and we need an Australian buy back (confiscatory in nature).

It is interesting that it is not just raw numbers of guns they wish to reduce, but are now explicit in wanting laws that reduce otherwise qualified persons with access to the RTKB as a stated goal. I really think this is something Gura saw in the opposition arguments in Wrenn and Grace and which he framed as a "rights rationing" regime being argued by DC and its amici.
http://michellawyers.com/wp-content...a-801-F.3d-264-D.C.-Cir.-2015_2.8.2016_40.pdf

In terms of the long term goal, we are less than ten years from every gun control lobby organization of note taking the position that any jurisdiction can completely ban handguns, ban even revolvers from people who can show or obtain a large threshold of training, citizens and legal permanent residents who pass not just basic 4473 NICS, but fingerprint based background checks, hold for wait period, and keep their firearm in a safe. Even under all those conditions it was argued that even revolvers could be banned with simple majority of a state or cities government. I'm not inclined to paint all with the same brush, but it looks like they all painted themselves. Were there any gun control organizations that did not support that full ban, no matter what, in amicus, testimony, press releases or statements of support for DC in Heller?

The argument is that their mere existence causes harm. The aggression hypothesis is debatable in the scientific literature and the devil is in the details

Yes this per se harm to 'population health" (an expansion on "public health' now used in a lot of paternalistic legislative initiative) was also something to justify reduction/rationing that I think Gura was ready to go after in SCOTUS. As you note the hypothesis in both gun crime to defensive gun use ratios and "elevated aggression" in the individual is debatable. But you can see from the material being promulgated that these are major themes.

On aggression from seeing an image of a gun or handling one, the methodology of measures of aggression get really funny. They remind me of "measures of aggression" elevated in children who eat meat on the bone. What often is measured is docility in the face of random commands from authority. Peer reviewed work shows children eating meat on a bone are "more aggressive" -- if you measure the aggression as compliance to arbitrary commands to stay within a 9' circle for 30 minutes. Frankly this seems a measure of mindless docility and deference to even absurd authority in kids who do obey.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2425389
On the "weapons effect" in other words the thesis that presence of guns is itself a per se stimulus, of the 50 studies I have looked at, they do not control for legal gun owners, non gun owners, and illegal gun owners. Hemenway's 2006 study on road rage and guns in cars doesn't even properly control for gender which is the huge elevation,nor does it control for the fact that gun owners who tell a anonymous person calling for a survey, that they drive aggressively may simply be a cohort more reflective and honest and open to reflecting to strangers.

As far as the NRA and bump stock specifically, I think rational people can see this both ways. We can see different aspects legal issue, the poltical tactics and counter tactic on what legislation may arise, and the different aspects of public perceptions given the Las Vegas massacre. Yes the slippery slope exists, the is no fallacy in pointing out its danger since incrementalism is demonstrated strategy of the other side. Certainly the Feinstein language opening it up to anything that increases rate of fire blurring the mostly bright lines between semi, select and full auto is unacceptable.

That said, my feeling is both public perceptions and defensibility of elected officials aligning with NRA matter more in the overall picture. NRA makes mistakes but this is more likely to be a very good tactic on their part. It deflects away from unfairly making the NRA, and all of us, the punching bag and has disoriented the gun control lobby lashing out in way no one would ash out against the ACLU if a person out of confinement due to ACLU driven lower thresholds on institutionalization commits a mass murder.

Sorry to be longwinded but I have been in DC for a fairly long while, and been both an LA on the receiving end, and in public affairs adovacy as professional end. Although not at directly dealing with in Second Amendment rightsh I did sit in on a lot of meetings with Bloomberg's people when I was on the hill). NRA is a an actual grassroots organization. That is both legitimate -- and messy -- even if some aspects are top-down. Its opponents are all top-down astroturf with a bunch of lucre for both a much larger processional adovacy footprint and money for races.

The biggest win for the gun control lobby would be creating divisions among NRA and its consistency. United opinions don't have to be present, but united front is a good idea. The long game is what matters.

 

[TDL]

They shouldn't.. but think about it if you can sue them maybe you can bankrupt them..

Oh you don't even need to do it directly. You can grind them with legal costs, you can "chill" them, or better yet make a business activity uninsurable.

 

[bandanabandit1]

Okay I have a compromise everyone would like. Bumpfire stocks are banned. Also 18 U.S.C. § 922 Subsection (o) is repealed.

That's the legal name for Hughes.

Everyone wins.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Jerry Miculek races a Slidefire stock and achieves about 430rpm (10 rounds in 1.39 seconds): http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2017/10/daniel-zimmerman/jerry-miculek-vs-bumpfire-stock/

The Slidefire stock won on speed. Miculek won on accuracy.

And actually, repealing the Hughes Amendment would kill bumpstocks dead and make sure their replacements were background checked and registered. I bet if you sold it that way, you'd have 90% of the gun control crowd signing on before they figured out the hook.

 

[Ghost1958]

The pessimissum in this thread is what is scary.
Gun control by and large is a loser with the nation.

If you depended on the NRA, the culprits in our now suffering under the GCA, NFA, and NICS, you were depending on a broken stick horse anyway.

Write your reps state and fed and in NO uncertain terms promise them the office exit should they take this bump stock infringement into consideration.

Dump the traitor NRA and turn one of the real origin orgs that aren't sticking their finger in the wind, like GOA into the major player.

Not one more darn inch.

Best tactic. Point out this is a far cry from the largest mass shooting in history.

That distinction belongs to the first Federal gov backed gun confiscation at Wounded Knee.
After the natives in the village had peacefully turned over their weapons the entire 297 soul village was murdered. All but 96 or 97 were women and children.

THAT type of gov action is why the 2A prohibits any regulation of weapons by gov.

 

[JoeSixpack]

I wasn't depending on the NRA to make things all better just not worse and I thought their stand and fight motto meant they turned over a new leaf after the DC/Heller win they seemed to "get it" or so I thought.

I already wrote my senators.. Portman is already Pro2a so it's just a matter of sounding off support no need to threaten.

Brown is anti gun, I can threaten his reelection, He only won by 51% last time but the truth is I already have voted against him twice and wouldn't vote for him no matter how he votes so he probably does not care what I think.
I wrote him anyway but I know it won't matter.

My house rep Beatty is rabidly anti gun to the point she goes to and speaks at anti gun rallies like the kind bloomberg puts on occasionally, and won by 68%.. I didn't even bother writing her.

Nothing I can do but keep trying to vote them out.

 

[FrankenMauser]

THAT type of gov action is why the 2A prohibits any regulation of weapons by gov.

...Didn't stop them at Wounded Knee...

 

[JohnKSa]

A skilled shooter, with the right gun, can manage burst in the 400rpm rate range. A few of the world's fastest shooters can hit rate speed almost double that. WITHOUT ANY a bump fire stock.

I haven't been able to find any convincing evidence that a human can reliably pull and release a trigger (without bump-firing) at a rate faster than about 550rpm 600rpm.

Miculek's world records work out to the low 400rpm range and McGivern's record is in the low 500rpm range 600rpm if we trust the accuracy of his mechanical timing equipment..

 

[armoredman]

It is not a small correction that bump stocks are stupid and bought by idiot fan boys. They are not needed for the purpose of the 2nd Amend. and thus a regulatory look is warranted as they exist as an attractive nuisance with little purpose.

Actually, there are two purposes for bump fire stocks that directly fit into the original purpose of the 2A, and in that context, these purposes are presented with the basic assumption of NOT having access to current military supplies. One, training devices to show recruits how difficult it can be to control a fully automatic firearm without requiring the use of one. Two, and this is the one that will get me yelled at - a rifle may be converted to a somewhat LMG configuration using existing stocks of firearms in a time of need, using AR10s or other similar rifles for the extra push of .308. Inaccurate, unreliable, inadequate, but as a stop gap fill in for genuine need, potentially useful, marginally better than a Chauchat.
However, also within the purview of the 2A as under Heller, where the lawful possession of arms is divorced from the need to serve in a militia, the device has but one purpose - fun. I personally find them useless and bothersome, but they can be fun for people who feel the need to waste vast quantities of ammo quickly. They have been around for some time...but I have to to point out how well the Democrats diverted and divided us again, to place the blame for the murderers on a piece of plastic that has never before surfaced about the goofy level, not the murdering scumbag. What would we say if someone used a pistol "bayonet" to murder someone - would we scream to outlaw pistol "bayonets" as useless for any practical purpose under the 2A?
Pardon me, but I see the chasm growing that we ourselves are making, and all it goes it make Hillary and her cronies dance and cackle.