Bipartisan bill to regulate bump stocks
The Closing the Bump Stock Loophole Act. It’s not a loophole, unless loophole means something we don’t like. As to the bill, it looks like it would classify the devices as NFA items, subject to the $200 tax and all that. The bill was written with ATF “guidance and advice”.
This looks like a better* of other proposals that could outlaw after market triggers.
And, as I’ve said before, if this passes, gun owners need to get something in return.
* I’m using that word loosely. It’s still a dumb law. But at least it looks like it’s written by someone who isn’t ignorant of current law.
November 1st, 2017 at 5:59 pm
If Trump signs it, no second term as far as I’m concerned.
November 1st, 2017 at 6:16 pm
It’s what you do instead of something. But it’s not nothing– Those rotary Gatling adaptors will be next, and after that…because we now won’t have a fixed, technical definition of “full auto” it will come down to “potential rate of fire”. You’ll say “who cares about bump stocks anyway (and I don’t) but the definitions will henceforth be free to float, and THAT’S the problem.
And let’s never forget that criminals will then be the only people who have the most rapid firing guns. That grants a government-enforced monopoly on bump stocks, et al, for criminals. Feel safer now?
Suckers.
But no one is doing this to feel safe (and certainly not to BE safe). All the motives are ulterior. That’s how those genius “chess players” operate. So this is what was meant by the NRA being so very clever as to ask the ATF to “re-examine” the issue – we get a floating definition of a rapid fire weapon. Yeah; real geniuses (well, depending on which side you think they’re on).
Meanwhile no one’s talking about the meaning of the second amendment, and that’s the inportant thing. We’ll discuss mechanical esoterica instead.
November 1st, 2017 at 6:27 pm
The NRA would sell your mother’s soul for 30 pieces of silver.
November 1st, 2017 at 6:59 pm
@Lyle, good points.
Also the bottom line is that the Federal Government may do NOTHING, including passing legislation, without delegated powers according to the clear wording of the 10th Amendment. And there are NO enumerated delegated powers for gun control pertaining to the People enumerated in Article I, Section 8.
According to the Preamble to the Bill of Rights, they were “added declarative and restrictive clauses to prevent (such) abuses and usurpations”. That is, DECLARATIVE of the invioable rights of the People and RESTRICTIVE of the general government.
November 1st, 2017 at 7:31 pm
We will get nothing in return. BOHICA.
November 1st, 2017 at 8:02 pm
I dont like it the current language. “Substantially increases the rate of fire” How is that defined? What is “substantial”? Why cant they just ban reciprocating stocks?
Even with that language removed, I’d still want a concession, like HPA or NR.
November 1st, 2017 at 8:38 pm
That language is intended to give them the power to ban anything they want. It’s way too vague. Not just no, hell no.
November 1st, 2017 at 9:44 pm
Yeah, we need to be careful about that wording. If it says ‘increases the rate of fire’, I can imagine some too-clever lawyer trying to apply that to muzzle breaks, or short reset triggers.
However, I agree with Uncle, we need something in return. IMHO, as much as I’d love the HPA, that won’t fly, it has always been a stretch. However, CCW reciprocity– I can get on board with that.
November 1st, 2017 at 10:35 pm
Only way to support this is if it also means repeal of the Hughes amendment.
November 2nd, 2017 at 7:18 am
I wouldn’t budge an inch. What makes them think you can ban something that could easily be 3-d printed. It’s just a hunk of plastic and a spring.
It’s more asinine than a ban on detachable magazines. (which wouldn’t be far behind)
November 2nd, 2017 at 9:15 am
Why not ask for a repeal of the Hughes Amendment?
After all, it was the banning of newly manufactured machine guns that led to the creation of bump stocks in the first place. Remove the prohibition on newly manufactured machine guns being legal to register, and the whole impetus for bump stocks goes away, because it will once again be possible to own a reasonably priced machine gun, and since they are NFA weapons, they’d be highly controlled.
I know that “Machine guns are the hill we’re going to die on”, and all that, but if you make the argument that the very reason that bump stocks exist is because a gun that should cost about $1,000 (plus $200 tax) now costs more than a new car and thus people who want to shoot like that have really no other option, then it makes a lot of sense.
Otherwise, you’re just going to be playing catch-up. Gonna ban belt loops and thumbs next? How about fanning a single action revolver?
November 2nd, 2017 at 11:58 am
Brilliant, so the Vegas shooter would have had to pay $200.00 out of his million dollar bank account, and so the law abiding owners must now shell out more cash that will do nothing. What will they do about the ones already in private hands? How many people are going to jump at the chance to pay this fine for something they already legally own and have for years? I guess it is better than asking the question that should be asked by law makers, such as what the of drugs was this man on, as the bi-partisan bill makes its way on day 33 post shooting and no questions have been answered about this individual, the possibility of a second or more shooters, his ties to terrorist organizations, or anything else for that matter, just jump straight into legislation to charge the law abiding more and more.
November 2nd, 2017 at 12:21 pm
“…and no questions have been answered about this individual, the possibility of a second or more shooters, his ties to terrorist organizations, or anything else for that matter, just jump straight into legislation to charge the law abiding more and more.” –Blounttruth
Oh no, such questions are the stuff of “conspiracy theory” and have been deemed outside the parameters of “mainstream” political discourse.
Oh, by the way, if one happens to consult a dictionary, “conspiracy” and “collusion” are synonyms.
November 2nd, 2017 at 12:26 pm
“any other device which is designed to accelerate substantially the rate of fire of a semiautomatic weapon”
This would cover firearms magazines of greater than 1 round capacity!
November 2nd, 2017 at 3:12 pm
“A reciprocating stock, or any other device which is designed to accelerate substantially the rate of fire of a semiautomatic weapon.”
If this bill passes, the only thing we will “get” is aftermarket triggers, springs, buffers, bolts, bolt carriers, and who knows what else banned.
This is a horrible law, and it needs to die in a fire.
November 2nd, 2017 at 4:19 pm
Jonathan, think of this law being passed, then enforced by the ATF under another Clinton or Obama administration.
November 2nd, 2017 at 7:40 pm
Well MA just passed a ban which reclassifies bump stocks and trigger cranks as “machineguns” under state law as at taking without any compensation for current owners. No public hearings, not ordinary process, tacked it onto an emergency budget bill to avoid scrutiny. Cowards are a bunch of Bloomberg’s whores collecting campaign checks while screwing their constituents under the cover of darkness and outside the reach of FOIA requests.
November 2nd, 2017 at 8:14 pm
Blue Falcon, why didn’t the legislators just have Mara Healy, the AG, declare bump stocks verboten?
November 2nd, 2017 at 9:15 pm
“any other device which is designed to accelerate substantially the rate of fire of a semiautomatic weapon”
I want to see the math.
Understand the words, but into an objective formula, it is gibberish.
November 2nd, 2017 at 9:59 pm
If it goes to triggers, it’s even worse than that. I have 3 ARs with Timney short reset triggers. They’re much faster than a stock or two-stage. In one AR it’s a semi-custom from a reputable maker (IE, a factory trigger from a “pick your parts” maker). In the second it’s what I picked when I ordered parts from Brownell’s to complete a stripped lower. In the third, it’s a replacement in an ATI complete AR that came with a piece of crap that was all but unshootable.
The 3rd is subject to the law – the first two are not? How does that make sense. And how would ATF know the difference?
November 2nd, 2017 at 10:45 pm
“…any other device which is designed to accelerate substantially the rate of fire of a semiautomatic weapon…
Short answer: anything that the ATF says it is. They’ve always been reasonable before, right?