Status of Bump Stocks

[Fatal_Bert]

This is the federal law on what a machine gun is

Bumpstocks do not meet that definition, that's why they were approved and remained legal for years. It wasn't until they got media attention that the executive branch decided to bypass Congress and the Constitution and write it's own law.

 

[SirBannedAlot]

Laws are written in black and white and don't have spirits. Enforcing some magical spirit or intent of a law is illogical and dangerous. Also might as well ban all these braces if we're enforcing emotional spirits of the law. Yay for gun control!

They wrote the law to keep organized crime in NY and Chicago from having automatic weapons.

A weapon that can be fired in an automatic fashion is what they were going after, right or wrong.

So taking a weapon and just finding a different piece of metal or plastic to make it fire in an automatic fashion, was clearly gonna get taken off the market at some point, IMHO...

As for braces, I expect at some point that will change as well.

The better approach here is to not play semantics, but to try and get rid of the stupid NFA laws. That's the root of the issue here. But leaving NFA on the books and just trying to find clever gimicks and semantics to sell what is in essence an SBR or an automatic weapon, is just asking to get banned.

I have had and would still have a braced pistol, but we all know that people want them because it's a "legal" way to have an SBR without all the paperwork, taxes, trust and hassle. Let's not kid ourselves.

So use it while we can, but when they decide to reverse their stance on that, again, I don't feel like I can pretend to be surprised.... Change the law, rather than trying to find new ways to get around the law.

 

[Falcon1]

I know how it works, goober. But if the intent of the law was to keep citizens from owning automatic weapons, then the mechanism by which you got there is kinda irrelevant.

Now, we should just get rid of the NFA, but so long as we have it, then taking a gun, and simply using a different mechanism to accomplish the same result, is obviously a way around the law.

The law wasn't to keep people from having a certain kind of sear assembly. It was about the RESULT of that sear assembly, and so skirting the issue by just making a mechanically different assembly, that gives almost identical results, is clearly an attempt to get around the law.

Has nothing to do with Trump or whatever other inane argument someone without the ability to be logical will invariably blurt out...

I don't think that ANY of this crap should be illegal, but if automatics ARE going to remain on NFA, then the bump stock's days were obviously numbered... Regardless of how it works, in the end it allows you to pretty much make your AR into an M4... Deny it all you want, you don't have to like it, but it is what it is...

Your fallacy is your “spirit of the law” argument on this. Laws are not living breathing things to be interpreted in any other way than exactly as how they are written. If Bumpstocks were to be banned then legislation should have been drafted to clearly describe bumpstocks and voted on by congress, or an amendment to the NFA laws written which would also need to be voted on by congress. Nothing is getting around the law as there is no law on the books that addresses bump stock devices. The executive branch is overreaching by trying to use that “spirit of the law” jargon that is a disaster waiting to happen for gun owners. According to many the “spirit” of the 2A was only muskets and black powder guns which is a total load of BS just like trying to say the 1A only applies to telegrams and carrier pigeon communications.

 

[SirBannedAlot]

This is the federal law on what a machine gun is


View attachment 2064292


Bumpstocks do not meet that definition, that's why they were approved and remained legal for years. It wasn't until they got media attention that the executive branch decided to bypass Congress and the Constitution and write it's own law.

Again, everyone knows what the technical definition of the firing mechanism is. But we all know that the bump stock was just a technicality, a way to convert a semi-auto weapon into a weapon that fires the same relative rate as the NFA full auto.

 

[SirBannedAlot]

Your fallacy is your “spirit of the law” argument on this. Laws are not living breathing things to be interpreted in any other way than exactly as how they are written. If Bumpstocks were to be banned then legislation should have been drafted to clearly describe bumpstocks and voted on by congress, or an amendment to the NFA laws written which would also need to be voted on by congress. Nothing is getting around the law as there is no law on the books that addresses bump stock devices. The executive branch is overreaching by trying to use that “spirit of the law” jargon that is a disaster waiting to happen for gun owners. According to many the “spirit” of the 2A was only muskets and black powder guns which is a total load of BS just like trying to say the 1A only applies to telegrams and carrier pidgeon communications.

Well, then according to your logic the BATF should not be able to render an opinion that says that "braces" can be shouldered. They need to draft a law through Congress that SAYS that.

So stop shouldering your "pistol" until they do so.

 

[SirBannedAlot]

It's like having suppressors on the NFA list. And so I screw on an oil filter, and claim that it's not a supressor.

Well, it wasn't manufactured to be, but obviously when I thread on an oil filter or a "solvent catch can" and go and fire the weapon, it wasn't to filter oil or catch Hopp's solvent. It was to suppress the sound of the gun...

I can't just point to the label and say, "See, it says Fram oil filter on it, not suppressor"...

Think that will fly? Of course not. So the solution isn't to keep finding what you think are loopholes to suppress your weapon... go and change the lame law and get suppressors off the NFA list and then use whatever you want!

 

[batoncolle]

It's like having suppressors on the NFA list. And so I screw on an oil filter, and claim that it's not a supressor.

Well, it wasn't manufactured to be, but obviously when I thread on an oil filter or a "solvent catch can" and go and fire the weapon, it wasn't to filter oil or catch Hopp's solvent. It was to suppress the sound of the gun...

I can't just point to the label and say, "See, it says Fram oil filter on it, not suppressor"...

Think that will fly? Of course not. So the solution isn't to keep finding what you think are loopholes to suppress your weapon... go and change the lame law and get suppressors off the NFA list and then use whatever you want!

Except according to the definition of the law, you are creating a suppressor with the oil filter. So yes you would be guilty.

In the case of bump stocks or the pistol stocks, they are not in violation of the letter of the law. And the ATF, nor any other government entity, has the authority to interpret law and say otherwise. If they wanted to ban bump stocks, then it had to be done via the legislature.

Even Obama, who spat on the rule of law daily, knew he couldn't do anything about bump stocks. What the Trump administration did was completely Unconstitutional, and every firearms owner should be outraged over it.

 

[Fatal_Bert]

It's like having suppressors on the NFA list. And so I screw on an oil filter, and claim that it's not a supressor.

Well, it wasn't manufactured to be, but obviously when I thread on an oil filter or a "solvent catch can" and go and fire the weapon, it wasn't to filter oil or catch Hopp's solvent. It was to suppress the sound of the gun...

I can't just point to the label and say, "See, it says Fram oil filter on it, not suppressor"...

Think that will fly? Of course not. So the solution isn't to keep finding what you think are loopholes to suppress your weapon... go and change the lame law and get suppressors off the NFA list and then use whatever you want!

You're completely missing the point. Screwing an Oil filter on the end of your barrel and shooting through it does meet the legal definition written plainly in black and white in the NFA definition of a suppressor.

A bump stock does not meet the NFA's definition of a machine gun. Huge difference.
Laws are written in black and white and should be enforces that way. It's incredibly dangerous to start enforcing what one thinks the intent or spirit of the law is.

I can't think of a bigger statist cuck move than to disagree with a law, but at the same time think it should be enforced beyond the text of the law itself. Especially when such law is unconstitutional to begin with.

 

[SirBannedAlot]

A bump stock is an accessory. It's not a firearm, and so it is not protected by the 2AM in my opinion.

I don't know that you need the Congress to ban a piece of plastic.

 

[SirBannedAlot]

You're completely missing the point. Screwing an Oil filter on the end of your barrel and shooting through it does meet the legal definition written plainly in black and white in the NFA definition of a suppressor.

A bump stock does not meet the NFA's definition of a machine gun. Huge difference.
Laws are written in black and white and should be enforces that way. It's incredibly dangerous to start enforcing what one thinks the intent or spirit of the law is.

I can't think of a bigger statist cuck move than to disagree with a law, but at the same time think it should be enforced beyond the text of the law itself. Especially when such law is unconstitutional to begin with.

Get rid of the NFA and problem solved. I didn't say that I WANTED it enforced, or that I even want the law to exist. I am simply saying that with the laws on the books, and the bump stock CLEARLY being an attempt to "Create a full auto without it technically be a full auto", that it doesn't surprise me that this happened.

What you read into it beyond that, is on you. Call me a cuck, call me a commie ****** and Trump fellator all you want, that's just the typical "gun guy" tinfoil hat rhetoric that comes from anyone not believing everything you believe, hook, line and sinker...