NRA Supports Bump Stock Regulation

[ghuns]

Even Feinstein said no proposed law known to her would have prevented this incident. Quite an admission from a dedicated gun grabber.
Feinstein: No law would have stopped Las Vegas gunman | TheHill

Of course she then went on to say...

“Regulations aren't going to do it. We need a law,” she said. “It can't be changed by another president. Right now we're seeing one president change actions of a – of a president that came before him, and that would happen in this area.”

So... Wait... No proposed law would have prevented this... But... We need a law?

 

[Dirtebiker]

So I guess then all the anti-gunners need to do, is ban stocks of any type then. They are not a firearm, and therefore not protected.
Got it.
I guess magazine are also not a firearm.
Front sights
Rear sights

my thoughts exactly!
It'd be kind of hard to fire an M-1 without a stock!

 

[Floivanus]

On the Sunday news shows, Wayne LaPierre made it pretty clear he wants bumpstocks listed as NFA items.



https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...ot-congress-should-ban-bump-stocks/744138001/

[Pardon the source, but I saw the show and the quote is accurate.]

This line of "if it blurs the line then everything is at risk" does not seem accurate. Plus, this appears to be a cave-in, not a negotiation.

I remain disappointed in the NRA's position.

IF we somehow get bumpfire devices 'grandfathered in as machine guns, can we 'marry' them to a particular receiver and just do the conversion like mighty kalashnikov or stoner intended? Can they just re-open the damn registry instead?

asking for a friend.

 

[jamil]

On the Sunday news shows, Wayne LaPierre made it pretty clear he wants bumpstocks listed as NFA items.



https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...ot-congress-should-ban-bump-stocks/744138001/

[Pardon the source, but I saw the show and the quote is accurate.]

This line of "if it blurs the line then everything is at risk" does not seem accurate. Plus, this appears to be a cave-in, not a negotiation.

I remain disappointed in the NRA's position.

I agree with LaPierre that I don't want the mechanism by which bump stocks are dealt with to be any new law. In that I do believe if it comes to legislation, then everything is at risk. I don't think it's possible to get a clean bill through that only deals with bumpfire stocks, or gat cranks, or the like. Getting anything done will end up being a compromise where we get screwed on something.

And I can see where the NRA is coming from. That if the BATF revisits this, and then rules they're illegal, it will at least give Republicans cover for saying no to any new legislation, because the evil devices that singlehandedly killed and wounded 500 people are now banned by the bureaucracy. Without that it's probably harder for many Republicans not to be seen as "reasonable" unless they go along with compromises.

So I get that, and I do agree that it would be better, if bump fire stocks were going to get banned anyway, if it was done through the bureaucracy of a gun friendlier administration than a split congress. But I disagree with the NRA that all this is necessary. I think a good case can be made that, either way, it would not have stopped the impact of a mass murderer with a high IQ and the resources of a rich guy, hell bent on hurting people.

 

[T.Lex]

But I disagree with the NRA that all this is necessary. I think a good case can be made that, either way, it would not have stopped the impact of a mass murderer with a high IQ and the resources of a rich guy, hell bent on hurting people.

This is my fundamental issue with the NRA's current position - and how it got there.

It starts with the supposition that regulation of bumpstocks makes sense.

Oh, and they completely omit any horse trading (from what I can tell).

It would be more nuanced, but they could say, "There's re-regulation of hearing protection in legislative limbo right now. If we move forward on that, we can then take up the re-examination of these accessories."

But they don't say that.

 

[Dirtebiker]

I think people can be anti-bumpstock (well, really, bumpstock-neutral) and pro-2A.

Guns are guns.

Accessories are accessories.

There is a difference.

So, accessories (stocks, sights, grips, magazines,etc.) shouldn't be protected the same as firearms?

 

[Dirtebiker]

What I am talking about, here, is every person that has posted a comment such as, they (bump stock) are a worthless piece of plastic, range toy, gimmick. The ones that said they are a cheat to get around the NFA regulations, the ones that said they would trade a bump stock for National reciprocity or suppressor. Anyone who has said this is not their hill to die on or they will not fall on their sword for a bump fire stock.
The ones that can't see past the end of their nose on this issue. The ones that seriously think the Left will compromise with them. The ones that think it will end when the bumpfire stock dies an agonizing death. Until the next mass shooting, when the guy uses strategically placed Tannerite or a 14" Shockwave, non NFA shotgun or a ____________(insert whatever firearm/accessory you wish, here)
You know, the yellow ones.

Agreed!
I must spread some rep around before I can hit Scout again.

 

[KLB]

Erich Pratt of GOA was set to be on Fox News Sunday, but I can't find a transcript. Looks like he was scheduled, but they had an NRA guy on instead.

Oops.

I saw a couple of examples on Facebook where they were on CNN.

 

[Dirtebiker]

Well, if the gun functions just as designed with a 10rnd mag, then there is no reason for the 30rnd mag. Is what they'll say.

Or one round!

 

[thecapn2004]

I simply shake my head at them asking for a government review. They should know better by now.

 

[T.Lex]

So, accessories (stocks, sights, grips, magazines,etc.) shouldn't be protected the same as firearms?

Well, there are several layers to the onion of that question. Or ogre of that question, depending on your choice of analogy.

Accessories aren't in the 2A. Nor is ammunition. There are solid arguments that we don't have a constitutional right to an unlimited Pandora's box of those items.

Personally, my general framework is effective operation of the firearm in reasonable scenarios and how that balances against reasonable definitions in legislation. This is not an easy balance to strike. Arbitrarily choosing 10 round magazines (or 5, or 7 or 50) is silly. Mechanically, an external box magazine is designed to hold rounds and feed them into the firearm. I'm not sure how to legally define that mechanism in a way that "protects" a legitimate state interest.

However, I can see the rationale for FA v. semi auto. Which, now, is the problem with bumpstocks.

Night sights, skeleton stocks, vertical/angled foregrips don't really have any material effect on the operation of a weapon. They are for comfort, aesthetics, and tacticoolness.

That's my gut-reaction answer to your question. To the extent those things can be defined in a way to focus on a compelling state interest, then it'll pass my personal test for regulation - assuming I agree that the compelling state interest is really a compelling state interest.

 

[Dirtebiker]

Read above. I don't see the need for redundant posts.

Then they should be banned!?

 

[Alpo]

How about a post number?

That is on the verge of a necro-quote.

I don't remember what I had for dinner yesterday.

But, yeah. I'm in favor of getting those things out of the hands of John Q Public. And if that is the BATFE ruling that they are NFA items or new law, I'm comfortable either way.

 

[actaeon277]

Well, there are several layers to the onion of that question. Or ogre of that question, depending on your choice of analogy.

Accessories aren't in the 2A. Nor is ammunition. There are solid arguments that we don't have a constitutional right to an unlimited Pandora's box of those items.

Personally, my general framework is effective operation of the firearm in reasonable scenarios and how that balances against reasonable definitions in legislation. This is not an easy balance to strike. Arbitrarily choosing 10 round magazines (or 5, or 7 or 50) is silly. Mechanically, an external box magazine is designed to hold rounds and feed them into the firearm. I'm not sure how to legally define that mechanism in a way that "protects" a legitimate state interest.

However, I can see the rationale for FA v. semi auto. Which, now, is the problem with bumpstocks.

Night sights, skeleton stocks, vertical/angled foregrips don't really have any material effect on the operation of a weapon. They are for comfort, aesthetics, and tacticoolness.

That's my gut-reaction answer to your question. To the extent those things can be defined in a way to focus on a compelling state interest, then it'll pass my personal test for regulation - assuming I agree that the compelling state interest is really a compelling state interest.

I thought there was a court case, that a ban of ammo was a defacto ban on guns?

 

[Dirtebiker]

Looks like your vid was taken down, but I guarrntee your poor excuse for tequnique won't give you half the accuracy of a bump stock. It's pretty appalling, all the excuses being made for an aftermarket part invented recently to circumvent the NFA.

If you think someone could replicate the damage this guy did with finger tricks then

We all know the stock was intended to replicate full auto. Stop pretending.

Just curious, why do you keep referring to how long bump stock have been around? Would it make a difference if they had been around for 20 years?

 

[Dirtebiker]

I would agree with this! I own both a FA and a bump stock and even though there is a huge difference between 1200 rounds per minute and 600-700 rounds per minute most of my non-shooting friends don't know the difference. My guess is bump stocks will soon be classified as an AOW NFA device and have to be registered with the ATF. That being said, Paddock was a multi-millionaire with no criminal background, he could have legally purchased and legally owned as many machine guns as he wanted. So even without the bumpstock he could have still legally committed this crime.

How could he "legally commit a crime"???

 

[Mgderf]

How could he "legally commit a crime"???

I think he meant, by a "legal" definition, he could have committed the same crime sans the bump fire stock.

 

[T.Lex]

I thought there was a court case, that a ban of ammo was a defacto ban on guns?

Oof. I'm not familiar with that, but its possible.

 

[Dirtebiker]

So the Left commits a horrific crime and we all have to lose rights because of it?

That's not just.

The left?
One man (as far as we know) did the shooting! And I haven't heard any reports of his political leaning, have you?

 

[actaeon277]

I thought there was a court case, that a ban of ammo was a defacto ban on guns?

Oof. I'm not familiar with that, but its possible.

I'm probably wrong.
All I can find is
https://www.thedailybeast.com/you-cant-save-gun-control-with-word-games