-
ODT Gun Show & Swap Meet - May 4, 2024! - Click here for info
ATF/bumpfire
- Thread starter Zeake
- Start date
I had the pleasure of meeting Adam Kraut and voting for him for the NRA board this April in Atlanta.
This is a good article.
I'm surprised that ATF wants to limit the input from consumers to just how bump fire stocks are marketed, and where they are sold, and how much.
Those kinds of questions the agency can determine for itself by looking at ads and reading gun magazines.
What ATF should ask the public is FOR WHAT PURPOSES do you use the stocks, and what legal and appropriate uses have you used them in, or would you like to use them for, in the future.
That's the kind of survey that would give the ATF info that they can't easily get through other sources.
I think the main value in bumpfire stocks is that they're FUN.
Range toys.
They make me smile.
(or, I speculate they would. I've never used one. I've done bump-firing from my hip without any stock, and I've owned machineguns and shot many full autos owned by others. I did it because it was fun. (Especially when the ammo only cost 12 cents a shot, not 25 cents or whatever the going rate is today).
Full autos and bump stocks are very similar in that regard, and I don't really care about the technicalities of what "a single function of the trigger" means, when such a definition came at the NRA's suggestion 83 years ago, before the inventor of the first bump fire stock was even born.
This is a good article.
I'm surprised that ATF wants to limit the input from consumers to just how bump fire stocks are marketed, and where they are sold, and how much.
Those kinds of questions the agency can determine for itself by looking at ads and reading gun magazines.
What ATF should ask the public is FOR WHAT PURPOSES do you use the stocks, and what legal and appropriate uses have you used them in, or would you like to use them for, in the future.
That's the kind of survey that would give the ATF info that they can't easily get through other sources.
I think the main value in bumpfire stocks is that they're FUN.
Range toys.
They make me smile.
(or, I speculate they would. I've never used one. I've done bump-firing from my hip without any stock, and I've owned machineguns and shot many full autos owned by others. I did it because it was fun. (Especially when the ammo only cost 12 cents a shot, not 25 cents or whatever the going rate is today).
Full autos and bump stocks are very similar in that regard, and I don't really care about the technicalities of what "a single function of the trigger" means, when such a definition came at the NRA's suggestion 83 years ago, before the inventor of the first bump fire stock was even born.
P.S. But, as a strictly academic legal matter, I don't think ATF should be encouraged to make a "rule" that has the effect of greatly expanding the definition of a Machinegun. Congress passed a statute that has a certain definition.
If we don't think that definition is still a good one to use today, CHANGE IT the same way it was created: by act of Congress. By our elected representatives passing a bill, and putting it on the President's desk.
If we don't think that definition is still a good one to use today, CHANGE IT the same way it was created: by act of Congress. By our elected representatives passing a bill, and putting it on the President's desk.
I don't care if you use a bumpkin stock to clean your rectum, it's not illegal and not regulated and I don't think anyone needs to give any explanation of an "appropriate use" of the damned things, especially to a ****ing tax collection agency.
Skimming that article, it sounds to me like they have made their decision & are gathering that info in preparation to ban them.
While bumpstocks are "fun" and thats an aspect to them but I feel the original intent was to make what people were already doing with a set of levi's a safer more controllable experience, and i use "controllable" in the sense of safety not marksmanship cause thats basically gone with its use
"If ATF classified bump stock devices as “machineguns” under the Gun Control Act of 1968, as amended, and the National Firearms Act of 1934, as amended, do you believe that there would be a viable (profitable) law-enforcement and/or military market for these devices? If so, please describe that market and your reasons for believing such a viable market exists."
LOL, ****ing retards. Yeah, let's give cops only an option that makes them even worse marksmen (if that's even possible).
LOL, ****ing retards. Yeah, let's give cops only an option that makes them even worse marksmen (if that's even possible).
Stand up America.
This is wrong.
We shouldnt have to plea and beg for a natural american right. Changing the meaning of the word "machine gun" to cater to liberal needs is the dumbest thing ive heard all year.
This is wrong.
We shouldnt have to plea and beg for a natural american right. Changing the meaning of the word "machine gun" to cater to liberal needs is the dumbest thing ive heard all year.
