Looks like the bumpstock ban is about to become real

[BigRed]

Politicians and lobbyists betrayed our trust and infringed upon our rights... and we're surprised?

**** em. All of em.

Politicians and lobbyists would have to have my trust before they could betray my trust.

They are nothing but bastard spawn of Hell....and they must be sent back to Hell from where they came.

 

[Trigger Time]

When Santa leaves you some extra Christmas cash & you want to donate to the GOA lawsuit (I'm a GOA member but waiting to see once they file suit)...

https://www.gunowners.com/contribute?src=bumpstocklink

They filed it yesterday

 

[alabasterjar]

A little comic relief:
Tragic: Every Single Bump Stock In Nation Suddenly Lost In Boating Accident.
View attachment 73030

 

[T.Lex]

the only clean way out of this for the government is to re-open the registry. PERIOD

I believe this to be false hope.

The gov't will be around a long time. They can wait.

They won't need to go door to door for this. This could basically become a sentence enhancer. They find you doing something illegal and have a bumpstock? Boom. Another felony charge.

People won't take these out in public anymore. They will be popular because they are illicit, in dark rooms and basements across the country.

When I was a kid, my grandfather kept a 'snake charmer' near the front door of his house. It was his home defense shotgun. He never made a big deal out of it, but I'm pretty sure it was a short barrel shotgun, and there ain't no way he had a stamp for it.

He didn't make a big deal, and he never had to use it, so it wasn't a big deal.

This'll be the same thing.

Oh, that is - assuming the litigation doesn't succeed. My point is, that opening up the registry is probably not going to happen. (Unless, by some miracle of miracles, this is the case that busts open the whole NFA. Yeah... THAT is probably even more false hope.)

 

[Herr Vogel]

Oh, that is - assuming the litigation doesn't succeed. My point is, that opening up the registry is probably not going to happen. (Unless, by some miracle of miracles, this is the case that busts open the whole NFA. Yeah... THAT is probably even more false hope.)

I'm actually curious to see where this goes, especially how it plays into Kisor v. Wilkie (the upcoming Supreme Court case challenging the ability of regulatory agencies to arbitrarily interpret federal law with zero oversight). It won't outright end the NFA, but it could stop the BATFE from pulling these sorts of stunts.
Still, I wouldn't let my enthusiasm go above 'cautious optimism'.

 

[Beowulf]

But it wouldn't be letting a few million "guns" into the transferable market would it? It would be letting a few million plastic accessories and some gun parts into the transferable market. I must be misunderstanding something.

Since bump stocks aren’t readily serial numbered, they’d have to be “married” to a registered gun. There are a bunch of machine guns that were made that way (in particular, a lot of HK type guns, where the receiver is the registered portion, but it’s the trigger pack that is the actual conversion device).

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Since bump stocks aren’t readily serial numbered, they’d have to be “married” to a registered gun. There are a bunch of machine guns that were made that way (in particular, a lot of HK type guns, where the receiver is the registered portion, but it’s the trigger pack that is the actual conversion device).

But how is this going to lower the price of existing transferables? I know next to nothing about anything NFA (I'm too poor ).

 

[MRP2003]

Extremely upset about this decision. Decision was made like an extreme liberal. The government could have banned the further production of such devices and forced registration of currently existing devices like they did decades ago with fully automatic weapons. Just forcing people to either voluntarily turn them in or destroy them with no compensation is total BS. Not sure what it was like when prohibition was put in place, but my guess, it probably felt similar to this for a lot of Americans.

 

[mergatroid]

If the government can call a bump stock a machine gun, just wait until they come for your mixer! Or blender as some may choose to call them!

Way too stupid even for Trump.

Doubt this will stand.

 

[AmmoManAaron]

Seems the lawsuit route might have some legs. I doubt Feinstein would do this if she thought it was on solid legal ground.

https://www.feinstein.senate.gov/pu...eases?id=A8A811CC-3F01-45B2-9006-CFFA8B109124

 

[Beowulf]

But how is this going to lower the price of existing transferables? I know next to nothing about anything NFA (I'm too poor ).

Well, the theory would go that if they allowed a million new ARs and AKs with bump stocks into the registry, unless they changed other regs, you add those guns as machineguns, without real mention of what made them so (since the gun is the registered machinegun and the unserialized bumpstock is the conversion device). So, if you had to go ahead and register the gun anyway, you can just destroy the bumpstock and convert the receiver properly, drilling that naughty third hole.

Of course, they might be smart enough to see through that and require the manner of conversion (bump stock vs other methods) to be listed on the Form 4, in which case, you just end up with a million bump-stocked guns that cost an extra $200 to sell to someone else.

But if they just open a general amnesty, like they have the ability to do, then you can register whatever you want (and I'm sure a lot of people would just register the bejeezus out of their whole collection, cause, why not). The 1968 change to the NFA gave them the ability to open 90-day amnesty periods if they want, but so far, they've only done a single one (also in 1968).

 

[snorko]

Has anyone seen the actual wording on how the bumpstock is considered equivalent to a machine gun? Fifth amendment issues aside, what most bothers me is since the current definition of a machine gun is a firearm capable of firing more than one round with a single pull of the trigger, and the bumpstock does not do this, the definition must be changed.

 

[cbhausen]

Has anyone seen the actual wording on how the bumpstock is considered equivalent to a machine gun? Fifth amendment issues aside, what most bothers me is since the current definition of a machine gun is a firearm capable of firing more than one round with a single pull of the trigger, and the bumpstock does not do this, the definition must be changed.

You hit it right on the head. This has been the crux of the argument against the new rule.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Has anyone seen the actual wording on how the bumpstock is considered equivalent to a machine gun? Fifth amendment issues aside, what most bothers me is since the current definition of a machine gun is a firearm capable of firing more than one round with a single pull of the trigger, and the bumpstock does not do this, the definition must be changed.

I can see that now... "Machine gun shall be defined as any gun capable of a rate of fire higher than we like*"

*"Rate of fire that we like" shall be subject to change at any time on a whim, down to and including 0 rounds per minute.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Well, the theory would go that if they allowed a million new ARs and AKs with bump stocks into the registry, unless they changed other regs, you add those guns as machineguns, without real mention of what made them so (since the gun is the registered machinegun and the unserialized bumpstock is the conversion device). So, if you had to go ahead and register the gun anyway, you can just destroy the bumpstock and convert the receiver properly, drilling that naughty third hole.

Of course, they might be smart enough to see through that and require the manner of conversion (bump stock vs other methods) to be listed on the Form 4, in which case, you just end up with a million bump-stocked guns that cost an extra $200 to sell to someone else.

But if they just open a general amnesty, like they have the ability to do, then you can register whatever you want (and I'm sure a lot of people would just register the bejeezus out of their whole collection, cause, why not). The 1968 change to the NFA gave them the ability to open 90-day amnesty periods if they want, but so far, they've only done a single one (also in 1968).

Ah, now I'm following. That makes sense, but like you said, they'd probably cover their collective asses by adding that additional line on the form.

 

[DRob]

Seems the lawsuit route might have some legs. I doubt Feinstein would do this if she thought it was on solid legal ground.

https://www.feinstein.senate.gov/pu...eases?id=A8A811CC-3F01-45B2-9006-CFFA8B109124

Just about Feinstein says would serve better if it were on a roll hanging in a Senate bathroom stall.

 

[Floivanus]

I can see that now... "Machine gun shall be defined as any gun capable of a rate of fire higher than we like*"

*"Rate of fire that we like" shall be subject to change at any time on a whim, down to and including 0 rounds per minute.

I think it might be WA that defines a machinegun as “firing more than 5 rounds a second”

so, yeah... that’s only 300rpm, which isn’t impossible to make a semiauto do

 

[Floivanus]

Seems the lawsuit route might have some legs. I doubt Feinstein would do this if she thought it was on solid legal ground.

https://www.feinstein.senate.gov/pu...eases?id=A8A811CC-3F01-45B2-9006-CFFA8B109124

Would’ passing a law, instead of saying “we messed up, those can’t be legal, John didn’t know what he was approving” basically have to have some sort of amnesty, compensation or grandfather clause?

 

[DoggyDaddy]

I think it might be WA that defines a machinegun as “firing more than 5 rounds a second”

so, yeah... that’s only 300rpm, which isn’t impossible to make a semiauto do

In 1999, Jerry Miculek fired 12 rounds from a 357 revolver (6, reload, 6 more) in just under 3 seconds. So just a touch over 4 rounds per second (including a reload!) with a revolver...

 

[churchmouse]

Seems the lawsuit route might have some legs. I doubt Feinstein would do this if she thought it was on solid legal ground.

https://www.feinstein.senate.gov/pu...eases?id=A8A811CC-3F01-45B2-9006-CFFA8B109124

If she sees this as political capital yes it would benefit her.