Active shooter at Mandalay Bay in Las Vegas...

[rob63]

Interesting thought. It is my understanding the ATF made the decision in 2010 that it was legal after evaluating it based on some aspects of how it affected reliable rifle use. Is it not within their prerogative to revisit that if they feel their original evaluation was flawed?

Related is my discovery this morning that Diane Feinstein introduced legislation in 2012 specifically banning the bump stock and the Gatling crank and any other devices designed to accomplish what they do. It obviously when nowhere. I suspect this may be what got dusted off in a hurry yesterday.

John

I agree that it would be within their prerogative to revisit their original ruling, and it wouldn't particularly worry me if they had done it 6 months ago. However, under the current circumstances I fear the consequences of opening that Pandora's box under the spotlights. There are enough people already convinced that there is no difference between a semi-auto and a machine-gun, I don't really want them to see an example of gun-owners approving of the ATF declaring something previously unregulated an NFA item without any new laws being passed. I think we can have considerably more influence upon the legislative process than upon a bureaucracy. To put it another way, do you really want the Republican leadership to witness the ATF solving a problem for them without them being involved?

 

[actaeon277]

Speaking of heroes, unarmed security guy has been named: Jesus Campos. Dude could hear the guy firing in the room and went up to the door. Unarmed.

I'm not sure I'd make that same decision.

Also, other reporting is that there was another door that police didn't find out about until after they entered.

Oops.

I'm still not sure of the speculation about trying to escape, unless there were other cameras that he thought showed that the escape route was also barred by police. His suicide, which is comprehensible if he thought he was cornered, is less so if he had a plan and means to escape.

I was just talking about the security guard at beeakfast.

 

[actaeon277]

Really.
Who cares how many guns he had.
Was he going to shoot 40 guns at one time?

 

[rvb]

The one thing that I find funny when I think about it, is that bumpfire stocks became legal under Obama, but may become illegal under Trump.

a couple of good things came about under Obama (eg carry in national parks), but I don't see him getting any pro-2A "credit" here. They weren't illegal, and he had nothing to do with making them "legal." I bet Obama never heard anything about these or heard of them; it was just an ATF interpretation letter... no legislation or EOs involved, and I seriously doubt he put pressure on ATF to rule the way they did...

Given the "multiple rounds per trigger pull" definition of an MG, they'll have a hard time solving this w/ just another ATF letter, IMO... I suspect it will take legislation, and if Trump signs it, then yes, he can take "credit/blame" whatever you want to call it for them becoming illegal...

-rvb

 

[Fargo]

The one thing that I find funny when I think about it, is that bumpfire stocks became legal under Obama, but may become illegal under Trump.

My recollection is that they didn't really become newly legal under Obama, it was just the first time that someone marketed one that didn't have springs or other mechanically significant parts etc. My recollection was that there was a previous model called the Adkins Accelerator or something but the ATF said they were a no go because they used a spring.

 

[87iroc]

The one thing that I find funny when I think about it, is that bumpfire stocks became legal under Obama, but may become illegal under Trump.

I am guessing that the majority of folks against guns don't realize the government had oversight of this and failed to realize the consequences(hell, I never knew it to today> I just thought it was new guns that had the oversite...not accessories). While its the user that did the crime...the government enabled it via not properly vetting it.

Is my logic wrong there?

 

[T.Lex]

I am guessing that the majority of folks against guns don't realize the government had oversight of this and failed to realize the consequences(hell, I never knew it to today> I just thought it was new guns that had the oversite...not accessories). While its the user that did the crime...the government enabled it via not properly vetting it.

Is my logic wrong there?

I hope so.

Rather, the gov't properly vetted it, reached the conclusion it was legal/not covered by the NFA, and a person misused the accessory to kill other people.

That's the logic that I think most accurately reflects the situation.

 

[KittySlayer]

My recollection is that they didn't really become newly legal under Obama, it was just the first time that someone marketed one that didn't have springs or other mechanically significant parts etc. My recollection was that there was a previous model called the Adkins Accelerator or something but the ATF said they were a no go because they used a spring.

So basically the bump stock could have been dealt with by the ATF? My thinking is that Congress could outlaw bump stocks and some creative person would simply invent something else that skirted the poorly written law that Congress passes and once again slides under the scrutiny of the ATF.

In the end, Congress voting on a bump stock ban is so they as a group can feel like they did something, no matter how useless, and in the end will have really done nothing to prevent evil people from doing evil things.

 

[Fargo]

So basically the bump stock could have been dealt with by the ATF? My thinking is that Congress could outlaw bump stocks and some creative person would simply invent something else that skirted the poorly written law that Congress passes and once again slides under the scrutiny of the ATF.

In the end, Congress voting on a bump stock ban is so they as a group can feel like they did something, no matter how useless, and in the end will have really done nothing to prevent evil people from doing evil things.

Kinda Sorta. The ATF reviewed the product to determine whether using one constituted firing more than one bullet per pull of the trigger. Since they do not, the ATF issued an opinion that they did not constitute a machine gun under the national firearms act. The ATF had previously issued an opinion that a similar product which used a spring to bring the weapon back forward did constitute a machine gun.

It is an engineering question related to a legal definition, not a question of dangerousness or end effect.

 

[eldirector]

will have really done nothing to prevent evil people from doing evil things.

Considering that isn't their goal, it shouldn't be surprising.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

Really.
Who cares how many guns he had.
Was he going to shoot 40 guns at one time?

I'm assuming you're responding to my post, since I had numbers in it... It's not how many he had, per se, it's when he started acquiring the weapons he used to carry out his attack. Assume his brother was correct and truthful for a minute, that prior to some time last year Paddock did not own a "gun enthusiast" level of firearms but only owned a "few guns", say a couple handguns, two shotguns and a squirrel/deer rifle. Then, at some point last year, he started buying ARs and bump-stocks, one at a time, including every single one of the twelve he had with him in the hotel room.

I would say that you start looking at what was going on with him immediately prior to his "shift" in firearm ownership patterns, when looking for motive.

 

[Ericpwp]

^I agree with this.^

 

[chipbennett]

Jet fuel ain't easy to ignite (think diesel or kerosene), and even gasoline doesn't usually light off from a bullet. There's a Mythbuster about this, I think.

I'm thinking the vapor concentration would be above the UEL.

 

[Kutnupe14]

a couple of good things came about under Obama (eg carry in national parks), but I don't see him getting any pro-2A "credit" here. They weren't illegal, and he had nothing to do with making them "legal." I bet Obama never heard anything about these or heard of them; it was just an ATF interpretation letter... no legislation or EOs involved, and I seriously doubt he put pressure on ATF to rule the way they did...

Given the "multiple rounds per trigger pull" definition of an MG, they'll have a hard time solving this w/ just another ATF letter, IMO... I suspect it will take legislation, and if Trump signs it, then yes, he can take "credit/blame" whatever you want to call it for them becoming illegal...

-rvb

Ok, how about this, "the Obama administration presided over the agency that put to rest the legality of certain bump fire stocks."? That work?

 

[indiucky]

You're clear on who runs Infowars, right?

Lizard people?????

 

[Kutnupe14]

I'm assuming you're responding to my post, since I had numbers in it... It's not how many he had, per se, it's when he started acquiring the weapons he used to carry out his attack. Assume his brother was correct and truthful for a minute, that prior to some time last year Paddock did not own a "gun enthusiast" level of firearms but only owned a "few guns", say a couple handguns, two shotguns and a squirrel/deer rifle. Then, at some point last year, he started buying ARs and bump-stocks, one at a time, including every single one of the twelve he had with him in the hotel room.

I would say that you start looking at what was going on with him immediately prior to his "shift" in firearm ownership patterns, when looking for motive.

He had 13 prior to going on his shopping "spree." How many guns does one need to be considered a "gun enthusiast?" I'm a woman "enthusiast," but can only afford one. And as far as I'm concerned, being an "enthusiast" is more about mindset and opinions.

 

[chipbennett]

Good Lord, I just read the BATFE letter that cleared Slide Fire “bump-stocks”, and anyone who knows anything about me knows where I come down on anything gun-related, but... they sold the concept on “limited mobility”?! That won’t survive even the most cursory re-examination. Maybe BATFE blocks YouTube in their offices? Of course, there are so many shooting enthusiasts whose trigger fingers don’t work, but they can pull forward with their other hand, right?

That being said (summary: “bump-stocks are history”), I hope nobody thinks we can bargain declassifying suppressors as Class III for killing off “bump-stocks” is a viable strategy for 2A damage control.

Still learning about bump-fire stocks, and the facts of the incident are still slowly coming out.

The murderer had 12 rifles with bump-fire stocks, and it is now being reported that most (all?) jammed. I think (DiFi's idiotic bill aside) the primary argument regarding bump-fire stocks is a) their limited usefulness, because b) semi-automatic rifles simply aren't designed for full-auto-approximating fire. Even in the few videos I've seen (such as the Hickock45 video posted in this thread), it seems that they are little more than a novelty: difficult to use, and prone to equipment failure (jams, broken firing pins, etc.).

I'd love someone with more intimate understanding of NFA to chime in, but I think DiFi's bill is a non-starter (too overbroad and ambiguous, and contrary to the engineering of semi-automatic firearms), and I think that, as-written, NFA doesn't cover bump-fire stocks (because they still require a separate trigger pull for each discharge). Is there precedent for ATF rulings in this regard?

 

[Fargo]

I seriously doubt he was trying to blow up the Jet fuel tanks. The report I read said that there were two bullet strikes to the tanks and I haven't seen anything about tracer, incendiary, or anything bigger than 308.

The dude had a ton of money, if that was his plan there are calibers and rounds which could potentially actually do it. Heck, it wasn't even like he dumped an ar10 mag into one of them.

 

[indiucky]

For all those antifa conspiracy theorists among us:

Las Vegas shooter may have been casing Chance the Rapper and Lorde concert

ABC News item.

Maybe Paddock just hated BAD music?

FIFY...And yes I like country music...Looking at the line up I just saw what the late Tom Petty called "Really bad pop music with a fiddle."

 

[Fargo]

Still learning about bump-fire stocks, and the facts of the incident are still slowly coming out.

The murderer had 12 rifles with bump-fire stocks, and it is now being reported that most (all?) jammed. I think (DiFi's idiotic bill aside) the primary argument regarding bump-fire stocks is a) their limited usefulness, because b) semi-automatic rifles simply aren't designed for full-auto-approximating fire. Even in the few videos I've seen (such as the Hickock45 video posted in this thread), it seems that they are little more than a novelty: difficult to use, and prone to equipment failure (jams, broken firing pins, etc.).

I'd love someone with more intimate understanding of NFA to chime in, but I think DiFi's bill is a non-starter (too overbroad and ambiguous, and contrary to the engineering of semi-automatic firearms), and I think that, as-written, NFA doesn't cover bump-fire stocks (because they still require a separate trigger pull for each discharge). Is there precedent for ATF rulings in this regard?

Slide fire stocks are actually more difficult to run cleanly then is popularly believed. Unless you practice on them quite a lot, you are likely to get a two to four round burst most of the time. Getting a mag to dump requires a good bit of skill and more than a little bit of luck.

Having used other people's a good bit, I never really had an interest in buying one, there just wasn't much that appealed to me. If you want to go back through the ATF rulings on the matter, go back to the Atkins Accelerator which I believe was initially given an OK by the ATF but then reversed.