SCOTUS Strikes Down Bump Stock Ban

[Thom_44]

Originally Posted by cololab

I hear it cited as a basis for the ban that the Las Vegas shooter used bump stocks. I seem to recall that there were photos of bump stocks in the shooter's room, but was there any confirmation that the bump stocks were used as opposed to other full auto weapons?

Have there been other instances of alleged bump stock use that were listed as a basis for the ban?

Moderators: If this post belongs in another forum location, please move it.

When the las vegas event happened, the news released footage, that well how do you say, the noises of the weapons being used, were full automatic.

[biku324]

Originally Posted by cololab

I hear it cited as a basis for the ban that the Las Vegas shooter used bump stocks. I seem to recall that there were photos of bump stocks in the shooter's room, but was there any confirmation that the bump stocks were used as opposed to other full auto weapons?

Have there been other instances of alleged bump stock use that were listed as a basis for the ban?

Moderators: If this post belongs in another forum location, please move it.

Sorry, I missed this.

Yes. Police have been dealing with bumpstock issues for years. In my area we started seeing these with local gangsters (non-prison affiliates of Syndicato Nuevo Mexico) in Roswell, Artesia, Las Cruces, and Deming, NM around 2005/06. The first calls were complaints of 'people using machine guns' but quickly calls soon morphed into 'bumpers' becoming commonly used drive-by shooting weapons. For those unfamiliar with how border stuff works, border gangs recruit juveniles to move dope for them as juvies usually get probation when caught. The adults in the gang will promise to pay the kid's family x dollars a month if they do end up in detention. So; what's cheaper - paying a detained kid's family $500 a month, or putting out the word that the kid snitched when he didn't, then shooting up his family's house a few times and no longer paying?

Please tell your friends to quit buying dope and this will stop.

Did I mention that people suck?

[AlHunt]

Originally Posted by sodacan

Putting the legalities aside, things like bump stocks just give fodder to the anti-gun crowd when it tries to perpetuate the stereotypical "gun nut" persona.

They make fodder out of thin air. I no longer worry about "how it looks" (whatever it is) to any particular group.

[BC38]

Originally Posted by sodacan

Putting the legalities aside, things like bump stocks just give fodder to the anti-gun crowd when it tries to perpetuate the stereotypical "gun nut" persona.

...and do you really think they will demonize us gun-owning "gun nuts" any less if we give up our bump-stocks, and binary triggers, and AR-15s?
Exactly how much do WE have to give up to get off their "enemies list"?
IMO, the answer to that question is EVERYTHING. Because the anti-2nd-Amendment folks won't stop until we are all completely disarmed.
So, in your opinion, how much capitulation and compromise is enough? How much do WE have to give up to satisfy THEM?

[Waldo]

Originally Posted by Well Armed

You have to realize that the average age on this and many other gun forums is 50-80 years old. It's an other crowd of mostly what many have deemed as being "Fudds." Ounce this older democratic of gun owners are mostly out of the picture in the next couple of decades, support for gun rights and resistance to any type of gun control will be strengthened.

There's a pretty large demographic of older gun owners who hate most newer in style firearms and firearm accessories. They don't own or think highly of AR/AK pistols, pistol braces, bumpstocks, binary/FRT triggers, red dots, Mossberg Shockwave, etc.... They think the aforementioned are all stupid NFA items that should be banned and/or regulated. I've even seen some that support Universal Background Checks and make an argument for then on gun forums.

I think you might be surprised at how many older gun owners have been fighting gun laws for many years. I also know a whole bunch of older guys who don't fool with bump stocks because they have legal machine guns.

[GaryS]

"But for everyone, surely, what we have gone through in this period — I am addressing myself to the School — surely from this period of ten months this is the lesson: never give in, never give in, never, never, never, never-in nothing, great or small, large or petty — never give in except to convictions of honour and good sense. Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy."

Originally Posted by sodacan

Putting the legalities aside, things like bump stocks just give fodder to the anti-gun crowd when it tries to perpetuate the stereotypical "gun nut" persona.

[Well Armed]

Originally Posted by Waldo

I think you might be surprised at how many older gun owners have been fighting gun laws for many years. I also know a whole bunch of older guys who don't fool with bump stocks because they have legal machine guns.

I recall seeing a few of the gun owners who owned legal machine guns who wanted bumbstocks banned because they believed it hurt their investment. They didn’t like that they shelled out tens of thousands in some cases when others could get a similar experience for a couple of hundred.

Other than that, I agree that there are a lot of older gun owners who are very pro 2A and have fought to get some of these unconditional ATF regulations overturned. That said, 9 times out of 10, it's either older Fudds or liberal gun owners who live in Liberal states who support ATF overreach and more gun control.

[AlHunt]

Originally Posted by Well Armed

That said, 9 times out of 10, it's either older Fudds or liberal gun owners who live in Liberal states who support ATF overreach and more gun control.

I think you'll find that the younger crowd tends to skew anti-gun at a higher rate than us fudds who grew up before guns turned evil.

Maybe I'm wrong and I'm not going to go look for it at the moment.

[BC38]

Originally Posted by Well Armed

I recall seeing a few of the gun owners who owned legal machine guns who wanted bumbstocks banned because they believed it hurt their investment. They didn’t like that they shelled out tens of thousands in some cases when others could get a similar experience for a couple of hundred.

Other than that, I agree that there are a lot of older gun owners who are very pro 2A and have fought to get some of these unconditional ATF regulations overturned. That said, 9 times out of 10, it's either older Fudds or liberal gun owners who live in Liberal states who support ATF overreach and more gun control.

Yeah, that is a great example of people placing their own self-interests ahead of more important, fundamental principles.

How sad is that?

Thankfully our founding fathers weren't so short-sighted...

[Waldo]

Originally Posted by Well Armed

I recall seeing a few of the gun owners who owned legal machine guns who wanted bumbstocks banned because they believed it hurt their investment. They didn’t like that they shelled out tens of thousands in some cases when others could get a similar experience for a couple of hundred.

Other than that, I agree that there are a lot of older gun owners who are very pro 2A and have fought to get some of these unconditional ATF regulations overturned. That said, 9 times out of 10, it's either older Fudds or liberal gun owners who live in Liberal states who support ATF overreach and more gun control.

I think blaming a few gun owners for wanting to keep MGs banned is like blaming a few gun owners for crime. I know a lot of guys with machine guns and have never heard them saying they want to keep MGs banned. Most of the guys I know have had the guns for many years. Most would gladly see the MG ban go away, and prices drop. Then they could afford to buy more guns.

[SnidelyWhiplash]

Bill Ruger supported gun control as long as didn't hinder his sales.

[Well Armed]

Originally Posted by Waldo

I think blaming a few gun owners for wanting to keep MGs banned is like blaming a few gun owners for crime. I know a lot of guys with machine guns and have never heard them saying they want to keep MGs banned. Most of the guys I know have had the guns for many years. Most would gladly see the MG ban go away, and prices drop. Then, they could afford to buy more guns.

Originally Posted by Well Armed

I recall seeing a few of the gun owners who owned legal machine guns who wanted bumbstocks banned because they believed it hurt their investment.

No, your analogy makes no logical sense whatsoever, and it's not the same. Next, I clearly stated I saw a few, not all and not every last person, who owned legally owned machine guns wanted bumpstocks (NOT MGs like you accused me of saying) to be banned. I mentioned nothing about them wanting the machine gun ban to stay in place, although I fully suspect many, not all, and not every last one of them, like the status quo. There are even gun owners in this very thread who want bumpstocks banned and added to the NFA because they don't think civilians should have access to fullauto weapons, and there are NFA owners who don't think the general public should have access to what they have without jumping through the same hoops and spending the same amount of money.

I think the people you know who would happily like to see their tens of thousands of dollars investments, the cool factor, and the accolades go out the window overnight are the exception and not the rule. It would be bitter sweet win for them. That's just my opinion though, but I'm sure you believe otherwise. We can agree to disagree.

Even when the pistol brace rule went into effect and the ATF was giving out free tax stamps (yes I know you didn't actually get a tax stamp), I can not begin to tell you how many gun owners on gun forums and social media were highly upset and jealous because they paid $200 for each of their several SBR's AND had to get them engraved when everyone else was getting it for free without the engraving requirement. People who are in a special class don't typically like it when they're not considered special anymore.

[Magnum_PI]

Any day is a good day when the courts knee-cap the ATF and remind them they don't write laws.

[ladder13]

I’m shocked it took so long to be proposed.


Senate GOP blocks effort by Democrats to pass bump stock ban after Supreme Court ruling | CNN Politics

[BC38]

Originally Posted by ladder13

I’m shocked it took so long to be proposed.


Senate GOP blocks effort by Democrats to pass bump stock ban after Supreme Court ruling | CNN Politics

Yeah, hopefully we have enough true 2A supporters in both the Senate and the House to keep it from moving forward.
But I'm not holding my breath...

[LVSteve]

Originally Posted by cololab

I hear it cited as a basis for the ban that the Las Vegas shooter used bump stocks. I seem to recall that there were photos of bump stocks in the shooter's room, but was there any confirmation that the bump stocks were used as opposed to other full auto weapons?

Have there been other instances of alleged bump stock use that were listed as a basis for the ban?

Moderators: If this post belongs in another forum location, please move it.

There is a very long and complete list of what the Vegas shooter used and what else was in his room in terms of ammo and guns he never used. None of them were true machine guns, registered or otherwise. He achieved the effect of full auto fire using bump stocks on AR-10s and AR-15s. There is considerable evidence that at least one of his bump-stock equipped weapons jammed in some manner, forcing him to change guns. The full Las Vegas Metro and FBI/ATF reports describing the timeline and weapons used and where they were obtained are available online, but I don't have the links.

A later FBI report made a vain attempt to come up with a motive. The best they could come up with was that the shooter felt slighted by the casino industry because he had suffered a run of substantial losses. He left no notes or manifesto. Personally, I believe that was entirely deliberate, a last act to satisfy his desire for control.

Interviews with survivors and family of victims showed that this has created as much, if not more, angst than the actual death and injuries. People these days don't do well with tragedies where the nicely packaged determination of where, who, and motive has failed. Also, in the instant gratification age, authorities saying "we don't know" are met with incredulity, leading to repeated cries of "But somebody must know!" or "AHA! What aren't you telling us?" I'm unsure which is more sad and pathetic.

[GaryS]

Well said. Sadly some people just can't accept that things happen randomly sometimes and that bad people don't owe the world an explanation for why they do the bad things they do.

Everything is some sort of conspiracy. A guy goes crazy for some reason and kills people, it's a "false flag" operation by the government to start something or other. The Newtown shootings were a prime example of that. The government arranged to kill a bunch of children in an affluent CT town to further gun control. And people actually believed that.

The CIA killed JFK. The fact that there is no evidence to support that is all the evidence needed to prove that it's true.

The ship that ran into the bridge in Baltimore was a terrorist attack and the government is covering it up.

I could probably go on, but I'm confident that you get the point.

The downside of the Internet (which I use a lot) is that stupidity can at the speed of light (literally). As Albert Einstein said, "The difference between genius and stupidity is that there are limits to genius."

Originally Posted by LVSteve

There is a very long and complete list of what the Vegas shooter used and what else was in his room in terms of ammo and guns he never used. None of them were true machine guns, registered or otherwise. He achieved the effect of full auto fire using bump stocks on AR-10s and AR-15s. There is considerable evidence that at least one of his bump-stock equipped weapons jammed in some manner, forcing him to change guns. The full Las Vegas Metro and FBI/ATF reports describing the timeline and weapons used and where they were obtained are available online, but I don't have the links.

A later FBI report made a vain attempt to come up with a motive. The best they could come up with was that the shooter felt slighted by the casino industry because he had suffered a run of substantial losses. He left no notes or manifesto. Personally, I believe that was entirely deliberate, a last act to satisfy his desire for control.

Interviews with survivors and family of victims showed that this has created as much, if not more, angst than the actual death and injuries. People these days don't do well with tragedies where the nicely packaged determination of where, who, and motive has failed. Also, in the instant gratification age, authorities saying "we don't know" are met with incredulity, leading to repeated cries of "But somebody must know!" or "AHA! What aren't you telling us?" I'm unsure which is more sad and pathetic.