Looks like the bumpstock ban is about to become real

[Hkindiana]

If bumpstocks are outlawed, does that mean shoelaces, and belt loops & thumbs will also be illegal?

 

[T.Lex]

If bumpstocks are outlawed, does that mean shoelaces, and belt loops & thumbs will also be illegal?

No. Not by the terms of the proposed rule. In fact, that those things exist to allow for the same experience is used (in part) to support the ban - there's no reason to have this specifically-designed product if those other makeshift items will work.

There's a bit of an analogy with the use of vertical v. angled foregrips for purposes of pistol/SBR differentiation. At a practical level, angled v. vertical makes no difference (IMHO). But, under the interpretation of the ATF, it can be the difference between legal and illegal.

 

[lonehoosier]

If bumpstocks are outlawed, does that mean shoelaces, and belt loops & thumbs will also be illegal?

You don’t need any of those things to bump fire.

[video=youtube_share;7RdAhTxyP64]http://youtu.be/7RdAhTxyP64[/video]

 

[T.Lex]

From the proposed rule.

ATF has now determined that that conclusion does not reflect the best interpretation of the term “machinegun” under the GCA and NFA. In this proposed rule, the Department accordingly interprets the definition of “machinegun” to clarify that all bump-stock-type devices are “machineguns” under the GCA and NFA because they convert a semiautomatic firearm into a firearm that shoots automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.

...

Instead, bump firing without an assistive device requires the shooter to exert pressure with the trigger finger to re-engage the trigger for each round fired. The bump-stock-type devices described above, however, satisfy the definition. ATF's classification decisions between 2008 and 2017 did not reflect the best interpretation of the term “automatically” as used in the definition of “machinegun,” because those decisions focused on the lack of mechanical parts like internal springs in the bump-stock-type devices at issue. The bump-stock-type devices at issue in those rulings, however, utilized the recoil of the firearm itself to maintain an automatic firing sequence initiated by a single pull of the trigger. As with the Akins Accelerator, the bump-stock-type devices at issue cause the trigger to “bump” into the finger, so that the shooter need not pull the trigger repeatedly to expel ammunition. As stated above, ATF previously focused on the trigger itself to interpret “single function of the trigger,” but adopted a better legal and practical interpretation of “function” to encompass the shooter's activation of the trigger by, as in the case of the Akins Accelerator and other bump-stock-type devices, a single pull that causes the weapon to shoot until the ammunition is exhausted or the pressure on the trigger is removed. Because these bump-stock-type devices allow multiple rounds to be fired when the shooter maintains pressure on the extension ledge of the device, ATF has determined that bump-stock-type devices are machinegun conversion devices, and therefore qualify as machineguns under the GCA and the NFA. See infra Part V.
...
Alternative 3—Opportunity alternatives. Based on public comments, individuals wishing to replicate the effects of bump-stock-type devices could also use rubber bands, belt loops, or otherwise train their trigger finger to fire more rapidly. To the extent that individuals are capable of doing so, this would be their alternative to using bump-stock-type devices.

 

[Beowulf]

I'm not either. Courts seem to be political animals. If bumpstocks were wildly popular among the people, then yeah, I could see them overturning this. But they're not. Even among "gun people" they're widely disparaged and looked down upon. Then there's the wild-eyed anti-gun people screaming about these being defacto machine guns...no, I don't see them looking too deep to find a way to overturn this reinterpretation.

With some estimates showing that there may be 500,000+ of these devices in circulation, that's hardly what I would consider unpopular. It's one thing for the ATF to go after Len Savage's RPD M11 upper, with only a handful sold. It's another to round up half a million bump stocks (and I don't believe that's including other things, like the old Hellfire and GAT trigger systems, or binary trigger systems which might just get rolled up into this).

They'd be on much stronger ground if they decided to open the NFA registry and had all the owners register them (with a married gun/receiver) as machineguns and damn all new production into post-sample hell (and none would be produce cause, why bother).

This has potential to go all the way up to the Supreme Court because an executive branch agency is trying to force hundreds of thousands of people to give up their property with no compensation, which is unconstitutional.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

With some estimates showing that there may be 500,000+ of these devices in circulation, that's hardly what I would consider unpopular. It's one thing for the ATF to go after Len Savage's RPD M11 upper, with only a handful sold. It's another to round up half a million bump stocks (and I don't believe that's including other things, like the old Hellfire and GAT trigger systems, or binary trigger systems which might just get rolled up into this).

They'd be on much stronger ground if they decided to open the NFA registry and had all the owners register them (with a married gun/receiver) as machineguns and damn all new production into post-sample hell (and none would be produce cause, why bother).

This has potential to go all the way up to the Supreme Court because an executive branch agency is trying to force hundreds of thousands of people to give up their property with no compensation, which is unconstitutional.

I'm not trying to denigrate them. I've thought about buying one or more likely, a binary trigger, just to play with...but for their costs. But let's face it, among non-gun people they are undoubtedly unpopular. Among many gun people, they're unpopular--I've read several comments (a few here) that people I would assume are gun people dismiss them, make fun of them and say things like how dumb they are.

Obviously to the 500,000+ they probably aren't but I'm talking about public perception, not what the owners think of them.

 

[worddoer]

Man, all you guys are getting worked up. I don't know why. The NRA is going to save us...right?!?!?!

Earlier in the year, I questioned the NRA's stand and public comment and was promptly and strongly told I was a traitor to the 2nd amendment cause by questioning the NRA and not automatically supporting them. They knew what they were doing and nothing bad could ever happen. I was just too stupid to realize what was going on and to understand how the NRA was playing the game to spike this and kill it.

I was insulted by people locally and I was insulted by people over the internet about this. The NRA will never, never, never, ever let this happen. They will fight it tooth and nail and dirty and they will do whatever it takes to keep this from happening. Yet, to this very hour, their statement SUPPORTING GUN CONTROL is still on their website. Link to the quote below, please reference the 7th sentence in the paragraph.

https://home.nra.org/joint-statement

So many people told me "I know they said that, but that is not what they mean". Often the simplest answer is the correct answer....ie....the NRA just said what they meant. No 3D chess, no master strategy, no great plan.

So far in this thread BehindBlueI's is the only person I have seen who has been adult enough to admit that they might have been wrong. There are dozens here on INGO who were verbally aggressive and strongly adamant that the NRA would never betray us....strangely they are silent on this thread.

I find it interesting that there are those who were so readily willing to ignore the NRA's own words and lash out at others who question those words. They were so easily bold about bashing those who questioned the NRA's actions. Yet, they are not so easily bold to stand up for the 2nd amendment right now. Why is that? Why were some so willing to attack other 2nd amendment people but now they are silent when our rights are actually being taken away?

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Man, all you guys are getting worked up. I don't know why. The NRA is going to save us...right?!?!?!

Earlier in the year, I questioned the NRA's stand and public comment and was promptly and strongly told I was a traitor to the 2nd amendment cause by questioning the NRA and not automatically supporting them. They knew what they were doing and nothing bad could ever happen. I was just too stupid to realize what was going on and to understand how the NRA was playing the game to spike this and kill it.

I was insulted by people locally and I was insulted by people over the internet about this. The NRA will never, never, never, ever let this happen. They will fight it tooth and nail and dirty and they will do whatever it takes to keep this from happening. Yet, to this very hour, their statement SUPPORTING GUN CONTROL is still on their website. Link to the quote below, please reference the 7th sentence in the paragraph.

https://home.nra.org/joint-statement

So many people told me "I know they said that, but that is not what they mean". Often the simplest answer is the correct answer....ie....the NRA just said what they meant. No 3D chess, no master strategy, no great plan.

So far in this thread BehindBlueI's is the only person I have seen who has been adult enough to admit that they might have been wrong. There are dozens here on INGO who were verbally aggressive and strongly adamant that the NRA would never betray us....strangely they are silent on this thread.

I find it interesting that there are those who were so readily willing to ignore the NRA's own words and lash out at others who question those words. They were so easily bold about bashing those who questioned the NRA's actions. Yet, they are not so easily bold to stand up for the 2nd amendment right now. Why is that? Why were some so willing to attack other 2nd amendment people but now they are silent when our rights are actually being taken away?

Yep...this statement was very disappointing. (there's 2 of us).

 

[T.Lex]

My posts bashing the NRA generally are legion. (I will admit they get things right on occasion, mostly by accident.) I never had any confidence that they'd fight this.

I'm a bit more surprised at the GOA. They say they have a lawsuit ready to go (or did), but I can't find any comment recently on it. (Although, I may be looking in the wrong place.)

 

[cce1302]

Anybody who says they're against gun control and for the NRA either doesn't understand gun control or doesn't understand the NRA. The NRA has repeatedly come out in support of gun control. Ever hear them say "enforce the gun control laws on the books"? All the time.

You NRA supporters who are against gun control need to start talking to them about repeal.

 

[JTScribe]

What - like INGO doesn't count?

Heh.

 

[MCgrease08]

Anybody who says they're against gun control and for the NRA either doesn't understand gun control or doesn't understand the NRA. The NRA has repeatedly come out in support of gun control. Ever hear them say "enforce the gun control laws on the books"? All the time.

You NRA supporters who are against gun control need to start talking to them about repeal.

I agree with you on the last part. As members we need to push the NRA hard to go on the offensive and stop playing defense only (or at least pretending to).

But what really chaps my hide is folks that complain about the NRA all day long but do nothing to try and change the direction of leadership. You can't do that if you don't join. Becoming a member and getting involved is the only way to make it known that we don't like the capitulation and/or outright support for gun control.

No matter how you feel about it, the NRA is still the big dog on the block. I just wish it had 1/10th the influence that the left claims.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

But what really chaps my hide is folks that complain about the NRA all day long but do nothing to try and change the direction of leadership. You can't do that if you don't join. Becoming a member and getting involved is the only way to make it known that we don't like the capitulation and/or outright support for gun control.

No matter how you feel about it, the NRA is still the big dog on the block. I just wish it had 1/10th the influence that the left claims.

Nice try, LaPierre.

The only way to change the NRA isn't to keep giving them money...

I don't give money to places I disagree with, the NRA shouldn't be treated differently. Yes, we all recognize they certainly are the big dog, and probably the most influential organization when it comes to 2A... but we shouldn't give up our morals for that.

I don't plan to give "Mom's Demand Action" any of my money in an effort to change them... and until the NRA gets their head out of their ass with regards to modern entertainment and culture, they won't be seeing any more of mine.

 

[T.Lex]

I like a bunch of things that the ACLU stands for. I've never given them any money though. Nor tried to change them from the "inside" to get them to treat the 2A as a civil liberty.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Nice try, LaPierre.

The only way to change the NRA isn't to keep giving them money...

I don't give money to places I disagree with, the NRA shouldn't be treated differently. Yes, we all recognize they certainly are the big dog, and probably the most influential organization when it comes to 2A... but we shouldn't give up our morals for that.

I don't plan to give "Mom's Demand Action" any of my money in an effort to change them... and until the NRA gets their head out of their ass with regards to modern entertainment and culture, they won't be seeing any more of mine.

Wait...are you saying you don't do business with someone unless you agree with them on everything? The NRA certainly deserves the criticism they're getting from INGO on this bump-stock equivication. They've let us down in the past on other issues as well. I'm not going to be their apologist. But it's not like they're diametrically opposed to gun owners like Moms Demand. If this is the level of agreement we'd have to have to do business with folks, there'd be few businesses a gun owner could do business with...especially tech companies.

 

[T.Lex]

Each consumer gets to make that determination - that's how a market works. The NRA is one stall in the marketplace of ideas.

I don't really begrudge those who, like yourself, find them on-balance to be worth the expenditure.

I do not. (Other than when Indy hosted the convention, so I paid to get in the door; that level of investment was tolerable for me as a cost of admission to see some pretty cool stuff.)

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Wait...are you saying you don't do business with someone unless you agree with them on everything? The NRA certainly deserves the criticism they're getting from INGO on this bump-stock equivication. They've let us down in the past on other issues as well. I'm not going to be their apologist. But it's not like they're diametrically opposed to gun owners like Moms Demand. If this is the level of agreement we'd have to have to do business with folks, there'd be few businesses a gun owner could do business with...especially tech companies.

Not everything. Just things that are important to me.

Business wants to ban guns? Fine, I'm done with you.

Business wants to ban certain websites from their wifi? Meh, don't care. I'll manage.

Business wants to ban certain words from being uttered on their property? Bye.

Business wants to ban booty shorts that say "JUICY" on them? I don't care, where's the beef jerky section?


I don't think it's effective to join an organization with the intention of changing it. No amount of pro-gun money is going to make MDA be pro-gun. I don't currently see how my pro-gun money will change what the NRA thinks about video games and other forms of media. That'll require the old people that still think that stuff to retire, and young-folk like Loesch and Noir to influence the direction of the org.

If you're saying and doing things that are against my interest, I'm not going to keep paying you to say and do those things.

 

[actaeon277]

You can't elect anyone in the leadership of "business".
Members of the NRA can vote on it's leaders.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

You can't elect anyone in the leadership of "business".
Members of the NRA can vote on it's leaders.

That's fair*. I don't have confidence that enough members of the NRA care about my qualms to want anything other than the status quo. Nor do I think I'm influential enough to explain to them why the NRA is wrong.



* assuming 'no vote' isn't a default for current leadership.

 

[actaeon277]

That's fair*. I don't have confidence that enough members of the NRA care about my qualms to want anything other than the status quo. Nor do I think I'm influential enough to explain to them why the NRA is wrong.



* assuming 'no vote' isn't a default for current leadership.

No vote is just one less tallied.
They have a list of people running.
And you can "write in" names.
Maybe the list has 60 people, or more, or less.
You submit your ballot with however many spots there is, say 15.
You can vote for less, but not for more.
They count the ballots. The top 15 fill the spots of the 15 leaving.

(15 is just a number I picked).


I understand being fed up with the NRA.
But, it's leadership is picked by it's members.
The only way to get it to "change" or "fight" more in terms of what you want, is to get more people in that agree with you.
If people don't join, then guess what, nothing will change either.

There are other organizations, sure. They're not as big.
Also, where are they in this fight?
If they aren't fighting, then do you join NO organization?