Post Las Vegas legislative proposals

This would outlaw "bump fire" stocks, as well as "any part or combination of parts that is designed and functions to increase the rate of fire of a semiautomatic rifle but does not convert the semiautomatic rifle into a machinegun." That language is vague enough to include any replacement trigger, even one that simply makes a hunting rifle more accurate or a pistol easier to shoot for someone with weak hands. While it might seem to be relevant to the shooting, bump fire can be performed without the silly stock, and the language about triggers is vague enough to snare innocent people in a statutory trap. And that's exactly the idea.
Click to expand...

Is there a "legal" definition for "Rate of Fire"?

Isn't the "rate of fire" a physical constant specific to the type of firearm and it's action design?

Isn't the rate of fire the speed at witch a round is fired, ejected, re-chambered and the resetting of the sear allowing for the next pull of the trigger?

Does a bump stock actually alter the firearms "rate of fire" by speeding up the cycling of the action itself, or just give the shooter a faster way to pull the trigger without altering the "rate of fire"?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ddPTyoV-Irc
 
To Steve’s question, the bump fire rate of fire is based on the mass of the weapon and the forces applied to the weapon by the recoil and shooters shoulder. The larger the mass involved the slower the rate of fire. Conversely the same weapon as a Class III only has the mass of the bolt carrier to fire in full auto, which could be a significantly higher rate of fire than a bump Stock.
 
Ok, based on mass, and the ability of the shooter. But does it change the "legal" definition of "rate of fire" of the weapon? If there is one?

Is there a Legal" definition as it pertains to this proposed Bill?

A bill that restricts an increase of "rate of Fire" should not that term "rate of fire", be defined in the bill or elsewhere in Legal definitions?

Does the ATF have a definition of "rate of fire" as it pertains to Semi-Autos?
 
I do not know what, if any "legal" definition they have come up with for "rate of fire", and IF they do, better watch what it says.

There are two terms commonly used in the shooting world (and this also includes some of the military)

"rate of fire" and "cyclic rate".

And while connected, they ARE different.

Cyclic rate refers to the rate at which the action cycles. usually expressed in rounds per minute (rpm)

Rate of fire refers to the rate at which the weapon can actually BE fired. Time is needed to pull the trigger, change magazines, reload a belt in the gun, and while that is being done, the gun isn't firing.

So, the rate of fire is ALWAYS less than the cyclic rate. (the only possible exception is with a belt fed machine gun, and a belt of enough rounds to keep it firing for a full minute without having to reload. and that has its own problems, such as heat, and feeding issues, etc.)

Keep this in mind when you hear them talk. Your M16 may run full auto at 700-900rpm, but its not humanly possible to fire that many rounds through the gun in a single minute.

Let's take 900rpm (just for the ease of the numbers). 900rnds is 30 (thirty) loaded 30rnd magazines. 900rpm means 15rnds per second, so 2 seconds to empty a 30 round mag. Now add in the human element (reaction time) for the shooter to #1) realize the gun needs to be reloaded, and drop the spent magazine, then #2, grab a loaded one, lock it in the gun, and release the bolt to resume firing.

Even if you have everything prepared, and can swap mags and resume firing, in ONE SECOND, you would have to do it 30 times to get 900 rounds, and that's 30 seconds of your minute used up. So, its not possible to get 900 rounds fired in one minute, using 30rnd magazines.

No matter how fast the cyclic rate is, you can't match that in actual shooting.
(at least not from a magazine fed weapon)

What a bump fire stock does is assist the shooter firing fast, and help them do it longer than most people can do just by rapidly pulling the trigger. And, again, the bump fire while it can be faster than just pulling the trigger, it also cannot match the cyclic rate of the action working.

So, when you hear someone talking about how these "military weapons" are designed to "spit out 900 rounds a minute" (or whatever number they use), remember that while the action may function at this rate (and so "designed to..." is sort of correct) they cannot actually fire that many shots in a minute, so the statement is intentionally misleading. (aka, a lie!)

The great danger to us is that they will use that lie as their justification to create a blanket (and possibly open ended) definition in law, that could be applied to a huge number of ordinary and fully legal firearms, making them illegal or more highly regulated.

You can write a law that says an elephant is a duck. You can put a definition in that law that "proves" an elephant is a duck. With the law in place, you can be prosecuted for not having a duck stamp for your elephant. You can even be convicted of violating the law. But that doesn't make an elephant a duck in the real world, it just means the law is ...stupid.

There is a serious risk here, because the people who will define "how fast you can legally shoot" are the barking legislators. IF they define "legal" by cyclic rate, but then USE the numbers from "rate of fire" to set the limits, then say goodbye to every semi auto there is.

That might just be their plan....
 
Great information. Has anyone in the legislative branch specifically come out against any or all of these proposed bills? Seems as though the Pro Gun lobby has been silent for the most part while they let the anti gun lobby do all the talking again. To remain silent implies consent which will lead to more consolation laws in effort to appease the outspoken.
 
The proposed legislation states "...prohibit the manufacture, possession, or transfer of any part or combination of parts that is designed and functions to increase the rate of fire of a semiautomatic rifle..."

By that definition, doing finger exercises could throw you in jail or get your trigger finger cut off. :D :D :D
 
Last edited:
I sincerely doubt that finger exercises would constitute "manufacture, possession, or transfer of a part or combination of parts." Not to mention the A4, A5, A14 and A8 implications.
 
I sincerely doubt that finger exercises would constitute "manufacture, possession, or transfer of a part or combination of parts." Not to mention the A4, A5, A14 and A8 implications.
Click to expand...

No, but how about a guy like Jerry Miculek? It could be argued that the Bump-Stock does not give him an increase in "Rate-of-Fire". Would he or anyone with similar physical skills be exempt from a bill such as this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ddPTyoV-Irc
 
Would he or anyone with similar physical skills be exempt from a bill such as this?
Click to expand...

Of course they would be.

The "rules committee" can decide you can't wear a particular shoe in the race, but they cannot decide or make a rule on how fast the runner can run.
 
carguychris said:
I dunno, Tom. It goes well beyond simply barring the shipment or receipt of mail-order ammunition.

It bars anyone without an FFL from selling OR shipping ammunition to anyone other than an FFL, whether or not this is done in the course of conducting business;
It requires FFL record-keeping of ammunition sales (not this again!); and
It requires FFL reporting of ammunition sales totaling 1,000 or more rounds to the same non-licensed individual within 5 consecutive business days.

IOW this legislation should be more honestly titled the "Substantially Reducing the Availability and Driving Up the Cost of Ammunition in General Act."

This legislation is likely DOA as written but I think it's important for us to understand what's in it.
Click to expand...
It could also be titled the "Encouraging Americans to Reload Act."
 
Yeah, they'll come after reloading supplies next
Click to expand...

No, they won't. Not "next" anyway. Unless the "next" mass killing is done with reloaded ammo. And, IF that happens, then reloading supplies will be their "target of opportunity", but generally they don't give a snit about reloading, after all, if they can get rid of the guns, reloading goes away, as well.
 
I'm not really sure where the "Business Insider" falls in the political spectrum but here is the headline:
Every major gun control bill proposed since the Las Vegas massacre is losing ground in Congress
Click to expand...
and here is the link to the story:
http://www.businessinsider.com/las-...ber-4-bump-stocks-gain-traction-in-congress-1

A couple things I though were noteworthy, 'smart gun' legislation was mentioned and a repeal of the 'Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA)' came up again. Both of which, IMhO are silly...we've discussed the technicalities of 'smart guns' before, no need to rehash that again. And as far as the PLCAA goes it is a sad testament to common sense that the PLCAA is needed but it IS needed to prevent frivolous lawsuits against gun companies.
 
44 AMP said:
No, they won't. Not "next" anyway. Unless the "next" mass killing is done with reloaded ammo. And, IF that happens, then reloading supplies will be their "target of opportunity", but generally they don't give a snit about reloading, after all, if they can get rid of the guns, reloading goes away, as well.
Click to expand...

You could also say that if they get rid of the ammo, guns will go away :) It would probably be easier for the antis to ban or heavily restrict ammo than trying to completely ban manufacturing guns and confiscate existing ones.
 
They have tried various things to ban ammo, and to date, all they have been able to do is ban certain ammo based on bullet construction (AP, and some places ban JHP). They have not been able to ban ammo just because it is ammo.

Even the most ...interpretive.. courts recognize that the ammo for our guns is also covered under the same rights as the gun are.

Which, of course, doesn't mean the anti's won't try, and keep trying...
 
44, I mostly agree. My earlier post was made in a fit of rhetorical grumpiness. ;)

I agree that outright ammo bans—or administrative near-bans—are seriously unlikely to pass Constitutional muster. Furthermore, IMHO the mere idea that gun bans are off-limits but ammo bans are A-OK is an obviously puerile sham, and I suspect that most gun-control advocates beyond the Politico-commentator level are intelligent enough to realize this even if they don't say it openly. :rolleyes:

I am concerned, however, with the creeping incrementalism we see with certain types of ammo (i.e. the Sporting Purposes test, and attempts to classify ammo as AP when it clearly fails to meet the legal definition). Our main focus should be to make sure that additional types of ammo do not fall under similar legal umbrellas.
 
44 AMP said:
They have tried various things to ban ammo, and to date, all they have been able to do is ban certain ammo based on bullet construction (AP, and some places ban JHP). They have not been able to ban ammo just because it is ammo.

Even the most ...interpretive.. courts recognize that the ammo for our guns is also covered under the same rights as the gun are.

Which, of course, doesn't mean the anti's won't try, and keep trying...
Click to expand...


I agree that a complete ban on ammunition is unlikely. If the courts treat ammo/reloading supplies like they treat guns, then almost anything short of a complete ban will be seen as "reasonable," and upheld. There could be bans on just online sales of ammunition/reloading supplies. After that they could put the screws to the local retailers with onerous regulations like daily inventory requirements, special cases/storage for ammo/reloading supplies, etc. For the buyer, things like limits on amount of ammunition/reloading purchases, retailer reporting to the ATF on certain ammunition purchases, etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top