Looks like the bumpstock ban is about to become real

[T.Lex]

Except that is not what happens. I refer you to the gif below. It's really no different than Jerry M. firing his revolver at the super speeds he is capable of. We are heading down a dangerous road where how fast you can fire your gun determines if your gun is a machinegun. Lighter trigger springs or shorter trigger reset helping you shoot your revolver super fast like Jerry does? Machinegun!

Yes. I agree.

Well, not about the finger part.

But this bumpstock paradigm shift signals that all sorts of other, let's say "mechanical" means of speeding up the trigger pulls could be considered "machine guns."

If only we knew who in government started this shift....

ETA: And the courts should NOT think or be like "normal" people. Most "normal" people are not all that informed, rational, or objective. And most people don't have any commonsense either.

Dude - you brought up commonsense.

I say it cannot. Commonsense says it cannot.

The courts will look in all sorts of directions for a reasonable way to interpret the legislative phraseology. But, ultimately, if the agency's interpretation is "reasonable" in light of all those definitions then there's a good chance the ban will stick, in one form or another.

 

[T.Lex]

There are NO springs in a bumpstock and there are NO springs utilized in it's operation.

Again, while what you say is technically true, the sentence that is most damning is also true. "Shooter can achieve something close to automatic fire."

I should also emphasize, I'm not really arguing with you and I'm sorry if it comes across as if I am. I just think your posts can also provide important information about the process and what's going on.

 

[KLB]

Except that is not what happens. I refer you to the gif below. It's really no different than Jerry M. firing his revolver at the super speeds he is capable of. We are heading down a dangerous road where how fast you can fire your gun determines if your gun is a machinegun. Lighter trigger springs or shorter trigger reset helping you shoot your revolver super fast like Jerry does? Machinegun!

ETA: And the courts should NOT think or be like "normal" people. Most "normal" people are not all that informed, rational, or objective. And most people don't have any commonsense either.

Jerry will have to have his fingers amputated because they are illegal machineguns.

 

[AmmoManAaron]

If only we knew who in government started this shift....

Chicken or egg/Trump or NRA. Same-y same to me and discussing it is not going to help us at this point. We need to be goal oriented.

The courts will look in all sorts of directions for a reasonable way to interpret the legislative phraseology. But, ultimately, if the agency's interpretation is "reasonable" in light of all those definitions then there's a good chance the ban will stick, in one form or another.

I don't disagree. It's just that I (and perhaps many others) don't see any "reasonable" way to say that bumpstocks are machineguns given the long statutory history of the definitions in question, two previous BATFE findings, and just knowing what we know of the technical/mechanical aspects. The courts may see it differently...sadly, I think avoiding a "controversial" ruling a la John Roberts and the ACA is going to be the primary motivation - and that absolutely disgusts me.

Again, while what you say is technically true, the sentence that is most damning is also true. "Shooter can achieve something close to automatic fire."

I don't disagree. The achieved fire rates are essentially the same. I think we agree though, that is a very slippery slope considering how many different ways you can create those types of fire rates - and there are several, including the use of traditional competition shooting parts. A semi-auto pistol (say a 1911) with a very short trigger reset will pretty much bumpfire on its own just due to the elasticity of a person's hand...some competition shooters discovered this decades ago quite by accident.

I should also emphasize, I'm not really arguing with you and I'm sorry if it comes across as if I am. I just think your posts can also provide important information about the process and what's going on.

No apology necessary, we are having a good civilized discussion that I hope readers will find illuminating. Likewise, I hope you do not take me as being combative or mean-spirited.

As far as the process and what's going on...I have seen something similar first hand where I work...several people in leadership who don't know anything, told some other lower-level people who actually do know what's what (in this instance BATFE Firearms Technology Branch), that their two previous studies and conclusions were all wrong and that those are to be changed 180* riki-tic. Now we are watching the courts handle it poorly due to some combination of personal desires and optics issues...again, strangely familiar to this "technical staff" person. Funny how the story goes the same and probably has since the first human chieftain had advisors...no less frustrating though, and with real consequences for a whole bunch of people who are now involved through no fault of their own.

 

[cbhausen]

If I was Slidefire or Daniel Defense I would sue the **** out of whoever did that graphic.

 

[CPT Nervous]

How many illegal uses of a bump stock have we had since the first?

When has there ever been an illegal use of a bumpstock? Name one time one was ever used in a crime.

 

[CPT Nervous]

I got an email from my department today. It said that effective March 26th, bump stocks will be federally illegal. It went on to explain what to do if someone brings them in for destruction.

Someone came in today and turned in two.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

When has thereever been an illegal use of a bumpstock? Name one time one was ever used in a crime.

It's alleged that one (or more) was used in the Las Vegas shooting which is why we're where we are today. That's the only one I'm aware of.

 

[Mongo59]

John Q Public would have no idea what a bump stock even is if was not for the shooting in Lost Wages...

 

[DoggyDaddy]

John Q Public would have no idea what a bump stock even is if was not for the shooting in Lost Wages...

Exactly.

 

[KLB]

Where are you guys getting that he didn't actually use any in Vegas?

 

[T.Lex]

Where are you guys getting that he didn't actually use any in Vegas?

I think it is a variation of "since no one saw him using it, then there's no proof he used it."

 

[T.Lex]

It's just that I (and perhaps many others) don't see any "reasonable" way to say that bumpstocks are machineguns given the long statutory history of the definitions in question, two previous BATFE findings, and just knowing what we know of the technical/mechanical aspects.

So, this brings me to a personal pet peeve: the NFA generally.

Now, we can define tanks and nukes and even grenade launchers pretty easily. Let's take remove those from the discussion.

When we talk about "machine guns" or (back in the day) "assault rifles," the definitions become really difficult. Before this bumpstock brouhaha, I'd even be willing to concede that "full auto" was definable. The whole "single press of the trigger" framework made sense from a mechanical standpoint. (Philosophically, I can oppose the regulation while still allowing that the way it is written/interpreted is defensible.)

But when it comes to semi auto rifles/pistols, once a legislature starts defining things, then artificial lines are drawn that at some point stop making sense. The stock/arm brace or AFG/VFG differences become nonsensical from a definitional perspective, but carry huge ramifications. Without any meaningful difference in how people behave.

Don't want the tax stamp for an SBR, make a pistol with an arm brace. It'll look/shoot just like an SBR, but it magically won't be.

This is one where I don't know what the answer is. I agree with some amount of firearm regulation, but less (and different) than what we have now.

 

[Mongo59]

I used to be with you on "some amount of firearm regulation", but I now am of the belief that even a small hole in the dam constitutes dire concern.

Look at NZ, when did they change their mascot from a kiwi to a lemming?

ANY alteration to the original draft of our constitution does nothing more than alter the futures stance on what "shall not be infringed" means. And I include the GCA of '68 in that statement.

Once one "idea" makes it over the wire, no matter how many promises they make, others will be right behind it. (AKA "only the tip")

NZ thinks they have become some kind of beacon of light to prove how empathetic and trusting they have become and call for others to follow suit.

If I was some tyrant with conquest on my mind I could try the age old direct attack with piles of dead or even trench warfare OR send just on expendable person in ahead to do something stupid, wait a few months for the target nation to willing disarm themselves and then walk in and take over.

If Mr Stupid comes in and performs his task and the response is, "this is a cowardly despicable act and we plan to react by getting MORE guns into the hands of more members of society that have proven themselves to be responsible, forming a well trained militia to immediately respond to any and all threats..." then which does the tyrant a service and which makes him look elsewhere?

But I did forget to add in the "cross your fingers" aspect to disarming yourselves and placing your trust in your fellow man...

 

[ditcherman]

Where are you guys getting that he didn't actually use any in Vegas?

Post #436 of this thread is where I get that idea.

 

[T.Lex]

I used to be with you on "some amount of firearm regulation", but I now am of the belief that even a small hole in the dam constitutes dire concern....
ANY alteration to the original draft of our constitution does nothing more than alter the futures stance on what "shall not be infringed" means. And I include the GCA of '68 in that statement.

So... even the framers of the constitution allowed what was "reasonable" gun regulation back then.

I'm thinking of issues like people with verified (through due process) mental disorders, violent felons, people who've proven they can't be trusted with firearms, and things like bazookas and RPGs. (Which, it seems to me, aren't firearms at all, but that's probably a different thread.)

When we're talking about rifles/pistols, then a bare minimum of regulation - including some GFZs, like prisons and courthouses (if the judges want that) - would be acceptable to me. Probably also something like "possession of a firearm while intoxicated." I think there is a non-zero amount of "reasonable" gun regulation. But, like I said, it is less regulation than what currently exists.

 

[KLB]

Post #436 of this thread is where I get that idea.

Yet everything I found said 13 of 18 rifles had one and were used.

 

[cbhausen]

GOA filed more court papers today:

https://gunowners.org/alert31919/

INGO lawyers, your analysis?

 

[T.Lex]

Procedural mechanism to force a decision in the trial (district) court. There's no decision to appeal, so the GOA is asking the Court of Appeals to order a decision.

It is an uncommon situation to ask the appellate court to intervene, but not unheard of. The ironic thing is that there's no requirement for them to rule before the 26th either.

 

[INPatriot]

https://www.guns.com/news/2019/03/22/looming-bump-stock-ban-blocked-by-federal-court-order?fbclid=IwAR1cjX2zKv7PB_qHF_KLUosyCfFNpAuABjrRRn9yVhHIPVRRfluAym-qal8

Per Guy Relford on Facebook