Is the Slide fire going to be history?

[lrrifleman]

But this isn't just a suggestion for a review. This is gun regulation advocacy.

“The NRA believes that devices designed to allow semiautomatic rifles to function like fully-automatic rifles should be subject to additional regulations,” NRA leaders Wayne LaPierre and Chris Cox said in a statement.

True. But the second half of the release (based on what I saw), is missing from this discussion, the call for passage of national reciprocity.

 

[Walkingwolf]

If your being attacked why waste that much ammo? Isn't the semi auto fast enough. While under attack we need to conserve ammo. (Like our country was under attack) just saying.

The Gatling gun was designed for charging line of attackers/invaders. The modern machine gun was for the same purpose to lay down a field of fire. Semi auto one shot at a relatively low pace would be like trying to kill a swarm of wasps one at a time.

We are, or at least I am the last line of defense for this country, and it's people. I took a oath that I take very seriously, and I do not want interference from Fudds, or antis, or government to protect my country.

The second amendment is not about hunting, or target shooting.

 

[ChattanoogaPhil]

True. But the second half of the release (based on what I saw), is missing from this discussion, the call for passage of national reciprocity.

That just adds insult to injury as far as I'm concerned. I'm against the national reciprocity scheme. There's a few threads on that subject.

 

[Walkingwolf]

That just adds insult to injury as far as I'm concerned. I'm against the national reciprocity scheme. Besides, this topic is about bump fire.

And the bump fire clearly points to the danger of national reciprocity. It points to federal control of states rights which can backfire big time when the wind shifts in DC.

The government gets away with regulating guns, and related equipment/accessories by using commerce. Put carry into commerce and they can get away with ignoring your state right to carry.

There are reasons for a tax stamp, because it is not a complete ban. There is a reason that antique firearms are regulated different than firearms, it was done intentionally to avoid a challenge of the GCA. Some states have elevated antique firearms to the same level as firearms, but that is on a state level.

I just stay out of anti gun states, why should I reward them with any money. NR would bring a court challenge which with the current court might win. That is the second nail in the coffin, more nails come when antis get control of congress, and the white house. And that WILL happen eventually.

 

[WCCPHD]

I feel it is a mistake to offer any appeasement to the anti's. The House Minority Leader, Former Speaker of the House, was quoted as saying when asked if banning slide fire stocks was a slippery slope she said that she certainly hoped so. Then went on to say that the enhanced background checks that the anti's have been clamoring for is merely a compromise and not what is actually wanted. Folks, they are not even trying to hide their contempt for gun owners.

Gun owners need to wake up. The anti's are patient. They see every inch they gain as a major victory. They will never be satisfied. If guns/ammo were banned and confiscated today they would not be satisfied. They would just move on to taking another set of rights from those they hold in disgust, i.e. the average US citizen.

I find it interesting that the gun owners always have to compromise, but the anti's never compromise.

Maybe someone can answer why gun rights are always under attack. The anti's in/out of government are always trying to ban something or place further restrictions on our rights. However, pertaining to all other rights the same group is trying to either expand the rights themselves or to apply them to more and more people/groups.

Just an observation.

 

[usmc2427765]

I think the real loss here is not going to be the bump fire/slide fire issue , but rather the loss of the suppressor legalization and whatever other rights will be at risk.

 

[petepeterson]

I find it interesting that the gun owners always have to compromise, but the anti's never compromise.

Maybe someone can answer why gun rights are always under attack. The anti's in/out of government are always trying to ban something or place further restrictions on our rights. However, pertaining to all other rights the same group is trying to either expand the rights themselves or to apply them to more and more people/groups.

Just an observation.

Because it's "common sense" of course.

 

[iPac]

Not everyone here is "selling out." Some are just asking questions to inform themselves. It's a discussion among gun owners, not a negotiation.

I understand what you're saying, and I wasn't referring to everyone here. Some are on other boards even. However, I've seen quite a few "gun" guys openly ready to support legislation and some even drafting letters to officials in support of it. When you're supposedly a member/supporter of the gun community, I consider that selling out. Especially when it's over something as trivial as a SlideFire whose operation can be replicated with a finger, rubberband, piece of wood, etc on just about any semi.

When did it become mandatory that we as gun owners are required to defend every accessory ever manufactured for use on firearms?

It's not mandatory, but you have to look at it as a never ending battle. The anti's will never be happy until guns of all types are illegal. Do you want to help them slowly chip away and continue setting more precedents? So it stands to reason we should support each other even in the face of differing firearms interest.

I’ll never support banning anything, but I find the suggestion that the 2nd Amendment creates some sort of moral obligation to actively defend the “right” of some fringe element to give the law the finger quite ridiculous. These aren’t my “brethren” either.

I didn't quote your whole message, but SlideFire stocks were completely legal and I'm not sure how you could even insinuate that owners of them are law-breakers or miscreants.

It seems to me you are stereotyping/profiling the folks that may enjoy these items as "bad apples". Saying they are not YOUR brethren. If this is how you view other gun enthusiasts who don't share your same tastes, then fine, I'm glad you're not my brethren too. Classic case of "I'm not interested, so I don't support others interests".

I'm not going to waste much more time, because there will always be those who don't care or just think differently, but this is a forum and everyone's opinion can be given.

My opinion is - United we stand, divided we fall.

 

[Watchdog]

Will they be history? I would bloody well hope so.

After hearing the thump thump firing in Vegas, I finally gave up on persuading my Aussie wife to retire with me in America. Ever.

My last trip to SHOT with her a few years ago, after a 20 year absence from that venue, I thought, "this is what you lot have been spending your time developing? And silencers?! And open carry?!!"

Y'all have lost the plot. To the point where my own country, USA, is no longer welcoming to an American citizen like me. I've avoided unnecessary dangers all my life and it's not going to change now.

God be with you all in your time of need.

Condescend much?

 

[BB57]

"Is the Slide fire going to be history?"

IMHO, no. They may be outlawed but I'm certain there are thousands of such devices out there, all unregistered, and most likely will be changing hands at a premium price on the street if made illegal so if you want one you can still get one. There's a trick with a shoestring or jeans with a belt loop. Are they going to outlaw shoes strings? No, most likely they will try to make semi auto rifles illegal, mag cap restrictions, pistol grips etc.

What I see as more of a problem are the antis, some who know little to nothing about firearms, getting the other antis and the other low firearm information public behind them, including lawmakers and going after drastic changes to owning firearms and their types.

Just my .02.

Way back in the day the shoe string thing was done with the GI .30 carbine, where it worked well because the slide continued forward a bit after the bolt was fully in battery.

However the ATF pretty quickly said "no" on the basis that it was activated by a single pull of the trigger by the shooter, with the subsequent trigger pulls being made by the slide itself.

With the "bump fire" stocks, the ATF applied the same legal logic, that while the rifle might slide back and forth in the stock, essentially throwing the trigger against a stationary finger, it was still the finger doing the "pulling".

The problem is that while the logic regarding the legal elements is correct in both cases, the ATF attorney's lost sight of the bigger picture.

For example, you could do a 30 round mag dump pretty effectively with a .30 carbine. You could even stop it in mid burst by tightening your grip on the stock to trap the string from moving. However that also meant you had to hold the carbine's stock very loosely for it to function, and consequently, it was not practical to aim or control. That made it wildly impractical to use, even in a crime like the Las Vegas shoot.

The same is not the case with a bump fire stock where you can in fact still firmly hold the rifle or carbine. It's not horribly accurate, but against an area target, the resulting dispersion is actually a benefit - just like the cone of fire produced by an M60, an M249 or an M240 machine gun, which are intended, in part, to engage area targets.

In my job I have to work with attorneys every day who for the most part have no clue about the actual use of the things or programs they regulate, and instead base decisions on very narrow reads of statute and regulation. The end result is that they make "legally" sound interpretations that are often entirely at odds with the larger intent of a provision in a law.

That's what they did when they approved bump fire stocks, as despite meeting a narrow legal read of the law, their sole purpose is in fact to accelerate the rate of normal semi-auto fire to levels that are practically indistinguishable from full auto weapons that a) must be registered, and b) have been illegal to make (for civilian sales) since 1986. ATF massively screwed that one up, and he irony is that now law abiding gun owners are going to pay for their error.

For what it's worth, ATF did the same thing with their approval of "braces" for AR and AK style pistols. They approved them, knowing they could and would be shouldered, just like an SBR, but apparently missed the fact that people would want to use them to build "SBRs" without having to register them.

Then ATF got really stupid trying to fix the mess they'd created, and determined that mere "use" could change the category of a firearm, and that shouldering a brace equipped pistol made it an SBR. The industry response was along the lines of "if I use a can of corn as a hammer, then the can of corn becomes a hammer".

A larger issue was that the determination that use outside the original design intent determines category, if allowed to be followed to it's natural conclusion, would have potentially made it illegal to shoot your 1911 with two hands - since it had been designed so that it could be fired with just one hand, and two hand use could arguably be a "misuse" intended to make it more accurate and more deadly.

A little too late in the process sanity reigned and they re-determined that "use" doesn't define the category of a firearm.

Thus, you can in fact shoulder a brace equipped pistol, without ending up with an SBR - provided 1) you did not modify the brace, 2) the receiver has been a "rifle", and 3) you did not intend to build an SBR in the first place.

The saving grace with ATF's pistol brace fiasco was that SBRs and brace equipped pistols are almost never used in crimes.

The risk of course is that prior to the Las Vegas shooting, the same thing could be said about bump fire stocks. All it will take is for some nut to use a brace equipped pistol in a mass shooting, and those will be on the banned list as well.

That's actually unfortunate, as a brace equipped AR-15 can be a very useful tool. It doesn't have the same limitations when it comes to applicability under a concealed carry permit. In addition, it does not have the same limitations and hoops to jump through in terms of interstate transport, and it's legal in states that just don't allow SBRs.

Had the Las Vegas shooting not occurred, I suspect suppressors would have in fact been de-registered (they are generally not outlawed in Europe (in countries that allow guns)and are in fact encouraged to reduce noise complaints. Once that proved a non problem, I suspect SBRs would have been de-registered not to long after, given their almost complete absence in the crime stats. Now neither will be de-registered anytime soon.

Banning them also won't keep them out of the hands of criminals. For example, Australia's gun ban has been in place for 21 years now, yet in 2016 firearms were used in 31% of homicides. That isn't close to replacing the knife as the most common weapon for homicide in Australia, but it might explain why their rates of violent crime have increased and in particular why their rate of sexual assault is four times the rate in the US.

Australia had another gun amnesty in 2017 to try to get guns off the street. If anyone thinks a gun ban would work in the US, where we have a) way more guns, b) more violence in general due to more densely populated areas, and c) much more porous borders, they need to re-think it.

The Bump Stock is not in same bracket as Magazines, and stupid
cosmetic limitations. The definition of a automatic weapon is one
that fires multiple times with one pull of the trigger. The Bump
Stock for some reason was approved by BTAF. It seems to me
that it fit the definition perfectly. We should not be having this
discussion, it should never been legal.

We still have people who need educated. A assault rifle is a rifle
that has semi auto and full auto capability, select fire. The civilian
versions of these rifles are not assault rifles they fire in semi auto
mode only.

The fact that this Bump Stock issue is causing arguments in the
pro 2nd group is not helpful. Common sense must be used, this
device has nothing to do with the other issues brought up and
it should be kept separate. If they go after magazines or certain
guns, whether I like them or not, I would not cave to Anti gun
people. This is where you have to question whether you want
to champion the right to own a device that should have never
existed. What I would like to know is the background on the
BTAF allowing this device.

I agree with you in terms of the bump fire stock being something that clearly circumvented the overarching intent of GCA 1934 requiring registration of full auto weapons, and the FOPA of 1986 banning the building of more full auto weapons for civilian use.

I also agree that bump fire stocks are posing a major problem, as in theory we don't want to cave to the anti-gun camp by sacrificing a lamb, but on the other hand we're not going to win any points by trying to refute the common sense reality of what a bump fire stock actually does - i.e. replicate full auto fire to the point that it makes the semi and full auto a distinction without a difference.

Worse, bump fire stocks do indeed put semi auto rifles at risk, as by adding a bump fire stock you can readily convert a semi-auto rifle into one that produces the same effect as a full auto rifle. That won't play well with anyone.

 

[ChattanoogaPhil]

When did it become mandatory that we as gun owners are required to defend every accessory ever manufactured for use on firearms?

It isn't mandatory here if that's what you're asking.

In general, I would suggest it's the duty of every American, including gun owners, to read and understand the Constitution. If more folks did this I believe the default position would be to defend against all Federal 2A infringements instead of picking and choosing the infringement flavor of the week for capitulation.

 

[nimbly]

You're three times more likely to die in a car crash than getting killed by a gun in the US. Better walk to work buddy, Australia's automotive death rate adjusted for population is comparable to the US.

In the US, if you don't live in a high crime, or gang area, your chances of being murdered are infinitesimal.

And of the gun deaths in the US, even after this mass shooting make up less than 2% of all gun deaths in the US.

This whole thing is alarmist, reactionist garbage.

 

[WCCPHD]

Because it's "common sense" of course.

It may be common sense, but I'm betting "its for the children."

 

[ladder13]

Could be prohibited in many states
Might even get done in by Congress

Don't have one and would be fine to see it go

I also have no problem limiting centerfire rifle mags to 10 and pistol mags to 10, 12 or 15

I don’t have a Shockwave, a circumvention of the NFA, and think they’re useless and need to go.

See how that works?

 

[ChattanoogaPhil]

I don’t have a Shockwave, a circumvention of the NFA, and think they’re useless and need to go.

See how that works?

Yikes!

I hope none of those rifles in Vegas had a 16in barrel. Those of us with carbines will be accused of circumventing SBR regs by a fraction of an inch.

 

[jsfricks]

Well, a new in plastic Bump stock just sold on Gunbroker for $1250 and $1500 with Buy Now. If the Feinstein bill is passed as it is, they will have to turn it in or hide it from the ATF. But also, if the Feinstein bill passes as is, drop in triggers for AR's will be history, unless the language is changed from what it is now showing.

http://www.gunbroker.com/item/705217546

http://www.gunbroker.com/item/705047603

 

[Jessie]

Well, a new in plastic Bump stock just sold on Gunbroker for $1250 and $1500 with Buy Now. If the Feinstein bill is passed as it is, they will have to turn it in and hide it from the ATF. But also, if the Feinstein bill passes as is, drop in triggers for AR's will be history, unless the language is changed from what it is now showing.

http://www.gunbroker.com/item/705217546

http://www.gunbroker.com/item/705047603

Well then, maybe a person does have to be insane if they'll pay that much for one.

 

[jlrhiner]

It isn't mandatory here if that's what you're asking.

In general, I would suggest it's the duty of every American, including gun owners, to read and understand the Constitution. If more folks did this I believe the default position would be to defend against all Federal 2A infringements instead of picking and choosing the infringement flavor of the week for capitulation.

I'm still trying to wrap my head around this. So, a question;

If Vegas had not happened, and ATF issued a ruling to the effect of "we've continued to review bump-fire devices and have come to the conclusion that they serve only to circumvent the GCA of 1934. Therefore, they are deemed to be an NFA item and must be registered or surrendered." Would there have been "the line in the sand" drawn for this issue? Or would most of us have went "Ehh, they're right" and went on about our business?

 

[shocker]

I don’t have a Shockwave, a circumvention of the NFA, and think they’re useless and need to go.

See how that works?

I have to say the first thing that came to my mind when I first saw a Shockwave is "how is that thing not Title 2?". Well it's 26" long and doesn't have a vertical grip or a shoulder stock, that's how.

Defacto autofire from rifles greatly increases the difficulty of providing security to mass gathering events, since it just takes one nut with a plan to produce battlefield type carnage. The general populace simply won't stand for that and if all that comes out of this is a ban on slide fire stocks we are lucky.

 

[deadin]

There's the "Rule of Law" and the "Intent of Law".

I'm siding with the "Intent of Law" on this one....