Bump Fire Regulation Comment Period Open

[touchoneoff]

Well they did it in Florida (SBP 7026) says bump stocks are banned on 1 oct 2018. Sooo the state of Florida just stole my property from me. Yes I think bs are bs, I used it once and put it away. But, if it can be said something like (bump stocks) make a msr more lethal what’s next? Red dots, scopes, target triggers,lights,lasers ,match grade ammo?
Semper paratus

I noticed that your a police officer. Does this bump stock ban apply to the police as well?

 

[Kevin J.]

If the government were to reclassify bump-stocks as MGs, and open the registry, then at the VERY least, there is a compromise that offers more options than unwilful destruction of property. In this case, there has been no compromise, and it is legislature by fiat, which every US Citizen should oppose outright, regardless of the cause, IMHO.

Very well stated and interesting post. Question, if they were to open the NFA to add bump stocks what is to stop them from adding all semi auto center fired rifles with a detachable magazines to class III list? Would this be a congressional amendment or a just a BATF classification?

 

[jag312]

How is this for a comment:

"You don't get rid of a bad situation with a badly written law, or cut off a foot to cure a sore toe.". John Wayne

 

[Wise_A]

In a larger conflict it is necessary to choose your battles.

IMHO Bump sticks are a done deal and it is wise to move on to engagements that can be won.

I'd have offered to support a legislative bump-stock ban 6 months ago, if we got something useful like suppressor deregulation or CCW reciprocity. But a bunch of people flipped out when I said that because :reasons:.

Sorry guys, I don't have the answer but I sometimes wonder if the framers of our Constitution might have used different wording if they could envision automatic weapons, especially in the hands of lunatics.

And that, ultimately, is why grrr-MUH-RIGHTS arguments are doomed. Nobody who actually agrees that your rights can't be modified, and that your rights include [insert firearm of choice here] is going to do anything but support you anyway.

Yes, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are nice. But using them as an argument rings hollow, as if you can't come up with any actual reasoning behind your position. If you want to form effective arguments, you have to start from the perspective of the people you're trying to convince.

You could make a case for bump stocks--criminalizing law-abiding citizens and the confiscation of property would be good, that's the sort of thing that makes sense to regular folks, while "slippery slope" arguments are inherently weak--but really, there's nothing special about bump stocks that you couldn't say about anything else. Which makes them not really worth defending, from a practical perspective; there will be stronger positions to take later, which we can expend less resources to hold. Especially if the bumps were traded for something more defensible, for which a specific case could be made.

But since you made me...

The Second Amendment doesn't say "except for blunderbusses" or "except for Kentucky long rifles". The blunderbuss could mow down whole swaths of a crowd in a single blast. A Kentucky long rifle could kill from 100 yards away (or two to three times further) before a victim could know he was in danger, or defend himself.

Hell, there's nothing anywhere about cannons or mortars.

The only problem with this logic is that private purchasing played a big role in outfitting the armed forces. So if you restricted military arms from "civilians", it'd be awful hard for those purchasing a commission to equip a unit. So they wouldn't want to do that.

 

[Muss Muggins]

. . . what is the persuasive argument in favor of devices that make semi-autos fire like machine guns?

" . . . shall not be infringed."

 

[Wise_A]

Without a doubt, the other side’s goal is to get rid of all guns in private hands and if you give them an inch they will take a mile.

That's exactly my point. Right now, we take an "oppose everything, all the time" strategy. Sometimes we win, which is good. Sometimes, we lose, and when we lose--they still get that inch.

What I'm proposing is, instead of just losing an inch, we gain an inch somewhere else. Sometimes that'll work. Sometimes it won't. But if it doesn't work, than we lose nothing. You don't give before you get. And even if it doesn't work, it's a lot easier to shape legislation when you're taking part in the negotiation.

Some things deserve to be opposed at all costs. Universal national background checks qualify for 100%, never-back-down opposition.

 

[Muss Muggins]

What is the argument that will persuade a decision maker judge or legislator who is fine with a closed machine gun registry?

Unfortunately, there isn't one. There's not a good one that will persuade me, either . . .

 

[stansdds]

What I'm proposing is, instead of just losing an inch, we gain an inch somewhere else. Sometimes that'll work. Sometimes it won't. But if it doesn't work, than we lose nothing. You don't give before you get. And even if it doesn't work, it's a lot easier to shape legislation when you're taking part in the negotiation.

That concept works when you are governed by statesmen, however, we seem to have few statesmen remaining, most are ideologues and we end up simply giving away more liberties.

 

[Wise_A]

Then--and this is the key part--if you don't get the thing you wanted, you don't give the support you offered. You don't "give away" anything. Legislation is made in bundles, not voted-upon line-by-line.

The larger problem is that, contrary to what many think, there's absolutely no reason for the Republican Party to do anything for gun rights. We have no advocates, because we have no influence or leverage over anybody, specifically because the overwhelming majority of the gun-voting community, due to our own ideology, cannot conceive of voting for the evil Democrats.

Look at Florida. There was no reason any legislation had to be passed at all. Democrats were outnumbered in the legislature 2:1, with a Republican governor in office. If gun owners are such an important constituency, why was that law passed?

In Vermont, the Republican governor could have veto'd that state's onerous and draconian infringements. Instead, he said his thinking on gun control "evolved".

No--the problem is that politicians are pragmatic, and they're slowly learning, while we are the ideologues.