Bump Stock etc... "Banned"!

[dswancutt]

Never said wasting ammo was a bad thing. Have done some of that myself. I over reached saying the "up to no good" thing.

There's only been one use of a bump stock that I know of that was for no good. Should of said don't know what good they are for (ok, fun aside).

Could somebody school me on what they are used for?

Hunting, maybe trying to bring down a group of flying quail?

Target shooting, better have a big target.

Bringing out the manly-man that full auto shooting does? I know all about that, having carried a M16 for 18 months. Glad uncle Sam was footing the bill for that ammo .

Again, using this logic we don't "NEED" anything more than a single shot pistol, rifle or shotgun. It is a dangerous precedent to allow someone else determine what rights you "NEED".

 

[OttoLoader]

They BATFE are claiming the bumpstock makes the semi auto fire automatically by using the recoil combined with forward pressure simultaneously provided by the person. The one pull of the trigger function is provided by resting the finger on the bumpstock attachment, not the actual trigger
Twisted wordgame logic.
Let's see how the court cases go.

 

[OttoLoader]

The new BATFE rule uses word game logic to make the attempt to say this new rule is legal per NFA and GCA.
They claim the bumpstock makes the firearm fire automatically by using the recoil yet simultaneously reguire the person to provide forward pressure with the support hand. How is that automatic?
They use tortured logic to say the person only pulls the trigger once by placing the trigger finger on the bumpstock even though the entire gun moves so the trigger finger is no longer in contact with the trigger.
This is not per the existing laws yet they claim it is.
Process wise, they need another round of public comment on the final text. I did not see mention of that yet. Maybe they will announce that in a couple of days.
Let's see how the court challenge goes.

 

[Grayfox]

I'm with the don't own/don't want group. However, I see this as a very dangerous assault on our rights. I also believe it will be struck down by the courts.
This whole thing is about politics, not guns.

 

[bushmaster1313]

Remember, it's the same BATFE that says a Mossberg Shockwave is NOT a shotgun. Logic has very little to do with it.

Note, the U.S. Supreme Court in a long line of decisions holds that the interpretation of a statute by a regulatory agency given responsibility for enforcing that statute is given special deference. In other words, when the BATFE says a gun statute means something, the courts listen.

 

[Bill Bates]

The ban concerns me. I understand the politics of the ban. It gave some politicians the ability to say they did "something". They picked on the bump stock because it was low hanging fruit. Only a few small companies build them and only a few people buy them. It was because they were easy to go after without to many people raising a fuss. Heck, even many gun owners see no reason for anyone to own one. Yup, bump stocks were easy low hangin fruit. They could do it without using up much political capital.

I worry that it is a camels nose thing.

Sadly, large capacity magazines sort of fit in the same spot; low hanging fruit. Sure more people own them but most people don't understand why anyone wants or needs a large capacity magazine. Then you can kind of stretch that to "modern sporting rifle and pistols". Can you see where it might go.

Next what worries me is the logic and what the actual wording of the bump stock ban will be. I worry that it will run along the lines of anything that increases the normal rate of fire of a semi auto firearm. How will they define that. A bump stock still requires a single trigger pull for each round fired. That means the ban is about rate of fire. Will that lead to defining what is too high a rate of fire. The devil is in the details. If rate of fire is the question all semi automatic firearms could be too fast. This ban is a very slippery slope

Will Jerry Miculek have to cut off his trigger finger?

 

[johngalt]

This is bad for a couple reasons:

It is a taking of private property without just compensation.

It is the creation of law out of thin air by the executive branch, which is a power held exclusively by the legislative branch.

The bump stocks themselves - I won't miss them.

 

[TTSH]

Very sad to see the "this isn't my thing so happy to see them banned" attitude here. Oh yeah! Let's ban everything guns & ammo that's not my personal thing. Yeah, great. That's a real winning strategy for protecting our 2A rights. Geesh!!!

 

[Cardboard_killer]

When the community starts fighting harder for my right to build explosive devices in my garage, I'll start fighting for bump-stocks. Until then, it's a novelty device for people who simply make gun owners look bad.

Of course, I reserve the right to change my mind, like big organizations do.

"Despite the fact that the Obama administration approved the sale of bump fire stocks on at least two occasions, the National Rifle Association is calling on the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) to immediately review whether these devices comply with federal law," the statement reads.

"The NRA believes that devices designed to allow semi-automatic rifles to function like fully-automatic rifles should be subject to additional regulations."

 

[292]

To me bump stocks are gimmicks that I have no desire to own. But I hate that they are being banned. I also hate the "I don't think we NEED them so I don't care if they are banned" attitude. I knew an avid waterfowl hunter that saw no use for handguns.

 

[stansdds]

Hooray! We banned bump stocks, you have x number of days to destroy or turn them into local law enforcement. Just compensation? Well, we are taking away your bump stocks, but we will let you keep the firearm and detachable magazines, so your right to have firearms is safe.



Congratulations, you traded a little liberty for safety. Someone really famous once said something about those who are willing to trade liberty for safety. I don't think it ended well.


Seriously, I have never held, let alone possess, a bump stock or a bump fire trigger. I have no use for such gimmicks. But I recognize this as another step down a very slippery slope. We trade in the bump stocks so that we have "safer streets" today, in a few more years we may trade our detachable magazines for the same reason. If you continue these trades long enough you end up with nothing left to trade and your liberty is gone.

 

[ladder13]

Very sad to see the "this isn't my thing so. I'm very happyto see them banned" attitude here. Oh yeah! Let's ban everything guns & ammo that's not my personal thing. Yeah, great. That's a real winning strategy for protecting our 2A rights. Geesh!!!

FIFY ....

Thank you GOA for taking this up.


I have a better chance of being killed by a dog than a bumpstock equipped firearm, ban large agressive dogs for which I have no use.


OMG! Rubber bands next.

Are we going to have a ban on rubber bands too? [ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PVfwFP_RwTQ&fbclid=IwAR3DiFajnRKb4ydphoa6OdTlPkYe-szPNPjNffEyYwH8T8kh4Llo1piHzn4[/ame]

 

[03hemi]

I see no use for bump stocks unless your up to no good, or want to waste some ammo.

Your view of usefulness shouldn't infringe on my right to own something. I too think they are stupid, but I don't have the right to tell you what to own.

 

[LoboGunLeather]

A "Ban" by regulation is what should make all of us concerned.
Lack of compensation should also make every one of us concerned. My legal education says the regulation will be struck down as an unlawful taking under the 5th amendment.

Here lies my greatest concern. The adoption of regulations having the same legal effect as statutes, including criminal penalties, has become common since the 1930's, but is an affront to the entire concept of representative government.

There can be no meaningful accountability when appointed bureaucrats (accountable only to political patronage) exercise law-making authority rightfully reserved to the Congress (accountable to the electorate). How or why our elected representatives have abrogated these responsibilities is a matter beyond the scope of discussions under the rules of this forum, but certainly a matter of concern for all US citizens.

 

[LoboGunLeather]

My money well spent

Gun Owners of America to File Suit Against Arbitrarily ATF Bump Stock Ban | GOA News

Will owners be compensated for their property?

It would be very interesting to see legal action addressing the issue of just compensation. First an injunction halting enforcement until final court rulings, which could tie things up for a year or two, then proceedings to establish "fair market value" to be paid for the banned items.

I remember when the Assault Weapons Ban took effect during the early 1990's. Prior to the AWB a trip to WalMart with $200 would bring home a Ruger Mini-14; then after AWB the same Mini-14 jumped to over $600 almost overnight. Pre-ban 30-round GI surplus AR magazines went from =/< $20 to over $60. Standard capacity Glock pistol mags jumped from $30 to $100-plus.

Short version: It should not be terribly difficult to enforce the just compensation clause for property taken for the public good, and the fair market value can be expected to triple or more within a short period of time. Hence, just the sort of action any number of law firms would drool over for 40% contingency fees, and just the sort of action that would allow NRA, GOA, and other advocacy groups to tabulate and report the true costs of knee-jerk reactions to isolated incidents.

 

[Cardboard_killer]

It would be very interesting to see legal action addressing the issue of just compensation.

Yes, mildly. However, that is not a second amendment issue and winning that argument doesn't do anything to protect the second amendment. Don't you think that paying for confiscated weapons is the least of the problems of the people that borrow trillions of dollars whenever needed? And print benjis on demand.

 

[Grayfox]

I saw an ad just this morning on Armslist. AK bump stock - $400.

 

[biku324]

This one is on Trump. Do recall he wrote about supporting an assault weapons ban and waiting periods back when he was going to run for president at the turn of the century.

Lived in a small city in the Southwest several years ago where every gang-banging *** with enough money earned however they earn it had an SKS and a bump stock and would "...go bumpin'..." wherever they chose. I think GOA makes regular gunowners look unreasonable with this lawsuit.

More people were murdered in our country by a mutant using bumpstocks than were murdered in all ways in Finland the same year. Fifty-eight dead, more than 400 wounded by gunfire. Nope, not a bumpstock fan. Don't believe we should be allowed grenades either.

 

[10ring]

Personally, I have no interest in bump stocks and would not lose sleep if they were banned, despite the fact that banning a thing is a dumb way to try and prevent bad people from doing bad acts.

Perhaps if someone had been on their toes we could have negotiated to ban bump stocks and remove suppressors or short rifles from the NFA in exchange?

On the other hand, banning bump stocks requires legislation, by the legislative branch of government, signed, vetoed or allowed to become law without signature by the executive branch, and subject to constitutional review by the judicial branch.

The ATF evaluated these things and opined they did not fit within the NFA and any sane person would agree these are not prohibited by that law. People relied on that and bought them. Just as they did with wrist supports and those popular "not a shotgun" guns.

If the government wants to ban them, then there is a means to do so and that is through a new law. What just happened violates the Constitution and is a very dangerous precedent. Love Trump or hate Trump; this was wrong and should not stand because of how it was done; and not because it involves bump stocks.

Just my opinion, of course.

 

[10ring]

This will end up in court. the Guzment cannot make you surrender without compensation. what's next?

Actually, they can. The Takings Clause in the Fifth Amendment has been pretty consistently found to only apply to the government taking something for its use; not to banning something and requiring its destruction or other disposal. If they take your bump stock and issue it to someone, then they have to pay you. If they "take" them and destroy them, or make you destroy them or get rid of them, you are owed nothing.

Not my decision...I am just describing the law as it exists.

Now, the question of whether the U.S. Attorney General can unilaterally decide to take your possessions...that is whole different issue.