• ODT Gun Show & Swap Meet - May 4, 2024! - Click here for info

What's yalls opinion? (poll) Should Bumpfire stocks stay around?

Should the Bump Fire stock system be banned or regulated?


  • Total voters
    273
I give up :lol:

You are making this way more complicated than it is. Fatal_Bert Fatal_Bert posted the pertinent part of the law above. The bump stock does not meet that definition, and that's why the ATF ruled the way they did - not once but twice.

1934 law vs 21st century technology...


OK, so in a previous life I probably was one of those people arguing about how many angels dance on the head of a pin... Guilty as charged. At least 50% of my argument is playing devil's advocate.

And to be perfectly clear, if I was king for a day, every single gun control law on the books would be null and void. I see no reason that law abiding citizens should be restricted in any kind of weaponry at all. The whole purpose of an armed citizenry is to offset the potential tyranny of a government military or police force that has exclusive access to more advanced weaponry.


However we are talking about an agency that somehow thought moving a pistol with a 'brace' on it from your forearm to your shoulder somehow magically made it into an SBR.

You can't simply look at GCA-68 as etched in stone, since many 'rulings' and 'ATF letters' have expanded and constricted that law over the last (almost) 50 years.


With the ATF and 'machine guns' they have been somewhat consistent.

1) You can't have some kind of motorized activation is one. This was just shown with the denial of the motorized glove they just denied.

2) Any kind of trigger manipulation that results in more than one shot being fired is a 'machine gun'.


I honestly think that my interpretation of the ATF's past rulings clearly show that a bump stock changes the definition of a 'trigger' on a gun equipped with one, since the original trigger no longer fits that definition.

It doesn't fire the gun, and is not involved in anything more than the mechanical linkage of the real 'trigger'... The bump-fire stock itself.


Not only is this logical and consistent with their previous rulings on similar matters, it has a very real, practical purpose.

The NRA was smart in deflecting the legislation that multiple gun grabbers and RINOs supported, by shifting this into a regulatory versus legislative arena.

Is it 'right'? Of course not. But we have to play the cards we're dealt. And with GOPers climbing all over themselves to 'ban' bump fire stocks, we'd end up with one of the biggest gifts we could give the gun control industry.

We've seen the various laws that have been proposed, and they are all back-doors to setting the precedent of arbitrarily banning certain accessories as 'too dangerous' for any citizen to own. As many folks here have pointed out, this would easily include any kind of trigger. But it could easily be extended to magazine bans and other 'slippery slope' items that Pelosi was (for once) honest enough to admit they would love to push forward.


Bump-stocks could have been designed to prevent any kind of action faster than an unmodified rifle. The ATF dropped the ball on that, and if they have to eat a bit of humble pie and reverse this, it won't be a problem in my mind, and it won't negatively affect the actual laws we have to deal with.


Back to the personal side, I really wished that the leadership of the House and Senate gave a big FU to the gun grabbers and passed the SHARE Act just to get their goats, but as we've seen the GOP is mainly a bunch of spineless wimps.

Our best-case scenario here is to isolate the problem (bump stocks) and eliminate them as a political issue in a way that the GOPers can deal with. They may not be ideal, but when it comes to 2A issues, they are better than the alternative.
 
OK, so in a previous life I probably was one of those people arguing about how many angels dance on the head of a pin... Guilty as charged. At least 50% of my argument is playing devil's advocate.

And to be perfectly clear, if I was king for a day, every single gun control law on the books would be null and void. I see no reason that law abiding citizens should be restricted in any kind of weaponry at all. The whole purpose of an armed citizenry is to offset the potential tyranny of a government military or police force that has exclusive access to more advanced weaponry.


However we are talking about an agency that somehow thought moving a pistol with a 'brace' on it from your forearm to your shoulder somehow magically made it into an SBR.

You can't simply look at GCA-68 as etched in stone, since many 'rulings' and 'ATF letters' have expanded and constricted that law over the last (almost) 50 years.


With the ATF and 'machine guns' they have been somewhat consistent.

1) You can't have some kind of motorized activation is one. This was just shown with the denial of the motorized glove they just denied.

2) Any kind of trigger manipulation that results in more than one shot being fired is a 'machine gun'.


I honestly think that my interpretation of the ATF's past rulings clearly show that a bump stock changes the definition of a 'trigger' on a gun equipped with one, since the original trigger no longer fits that definition.

It doesn't fire the gun, and is not involved in anything more than the mechanical linkage of the real 'trigger'... The bump-fire stock itself.


Not only is this logical and consistent with their previous rulings on similar matters, it has a very real, practical purpose.

The NRA was smart in deflecting the legislation that multiple gun grabbers and RINOs supported, by shifting this into a regulatory versus legislative arena.

Is it 'right'? Of course not. But we have to play the cards we're dealt. And with GOPers climbing all over themselves to 'ban' bump fire stocks, we'd end up with one of the biggest gifts we could give the gun control industry.

We've seen the various laws that have been proposed, and they are all back-doors to setting the precedent of arbitrarily banning certain accessories as 'too dangerous' for any citizen to own. As many folks here have pointed out, this would easily include any kind of trigger. But it could easily be extended to magazine bans and other 'slippery slope' items that Pelosi was (for once) honest enough to admit they would love to push forward.


Bump-stocks could have been designed to prevent any kind of action faster than an unmodified rifle. The ATF dropped the ball on that, and if they have to eat a bit of humble pie and reverse this, it won't be a problem in my mind, and it won't negatively affect the actual laws we have to deal with.


Back to the personal side, I really wished that the leadership of the House and Senate gave a big FU to the gun grabbers and passed the SHARE Act just to get their goats, but as we've seen the GOP is mainly a bunch of spineless wimps.

Our best-case scenario here is to isolate the problem (bump stocks) and eliminate them as a political issue in a way that the GOPers can deal with. They may not be ideal, but when it comes to 2A issues, they are better than the alternative.

Once again you're making this way too complicated... https://www.theoutdoorstrader.com/threads/atf-official-who-analyzed-bump-stocks-defends-agency’s-ruling.1525249/#post-7569821

And the NRA is wrong because they not only suggested the ATF write new regulation that contradicts existing law, but they also requested additional regulations, "The NRA believes that devices designed to allow semi-automatic rifles to function like fully-automatic rifles should be subject to additional regulations."

The NRA sold gun owners out, and either the board, Cox, and Lapierre goes, or the NRA is done.
 
The NRA was smart in deflecting the legislation that multiple gun grabbers and RINOs supported, by shifting this into a regulatory versus legislative arena.

That's what people who are defending the NRA keep telling me. Problem is, it obviously hasn't worked. I tend to just take them for their word. They don't believe the average citizen should be allowed to own automatics or even simulated automatics.
 
BULL****! Some Cars are governed meaning that they are only able to go lets say 99mph @ 99mph the throttle will slack off and not let it go over the set mph computer cars will regulate fuel. NO car company is going to make a car shut off on its own causing loss of power steering and power brakes while going down the road at 120mph:rolleyes: . Your car would simply just not let you go over "120mph" if it only wanted you to do 80mph like "where it started back up":rolleyes: then you would have only been able to go 80mph and nothing more.

And to the nozzle a bump fire stock doesn't make a gun full auto and you can fire individually with the stock on and unlocked. Only one side of the stock has a piece that extends out to the trigger guard that why there are left and right handed bump fire stocks.

To the best of my recollection, 30ish years ago a Mitsubishi Conquest Turbo the first year the were produced. The engine powered down till it hit double digits. So if you or someone you know had one to 120 then I will rethink my post. I do not recall loosing power steering or brakes. I did own a Dodge Pickup that would completely shut down if you took a curve to quickly and all power was lost and required a restart. I even had a 350Z brand new that you couldnt put gas in. :rolleyes: :barbershop_quartet_ :cupcake: :very_drunk: :smiley_simmons: :wacko: :pop2:
 
OK, so in a previous life I probably was one of those people arguing about how many angels dance on the head of a pin... Guilty as charged. At least 50% of my argument is playing devil's advocate.

And to be perfectly clear, if I was king for a day, every single gun control law on the books would be null and void. I see no reason that law abiding citizens should be restricted in any kind of weaponry at all. The whole purpose of an armed citizenry is to offset the potential tyranny of a government military or police force that has exclusive access to more advanced weaponry.


However we are talking about an agency that somehow thought moving a pistol with a 'brace' on it from your forearm to your shoulder somehow magically made it into an SBR.

You can't simply look at GCA-68 as etched in stone, since many 'rulings' and 'ATF letters' have expanded and constricted that law over the last (almost) 50 years.


With the ATF and 'machine guns' they have been somewhat consistent.

1) You can't have some kind of motorized activation is one. This was just shown with the denial of the motorized glove they just denied.

2) Any kind of trigger manipulation that results in more than one shot being fired is a 'machine gun'.


I honestly think that my interpretation of the ATF's past rulings clearly show that a bump stock changes the definition of a 'trigger' on a gun equipped with one, since the original trigger no longer fits that definition.

It doesn't fire the gun, and is not involved in anything more than the mechanical linkage of the real 'trigger'... The bump-fire stock itself.


Not only is this logical and consistent with their previous rulings on similar matters, it has a very real, practical purpose.

The NRA was smart in deflecting the legislation that multiple gun grabbers and RINOs supported, by shifting this into a regulatory versus legislative arena.

Is it 'right'? Of course not. But we have to play the cards we're dealt. And with GOPers climbing all over themselves to 'ban' bump fire stocks, we'd end up with one of the biggest gifts we could give the gun control industry.

We've seen the various laws that have been proposed, and they are all back-doors to setting the precedent of arbitrarily banning certain accessories as 'too dangerous' for any citizen to own. As many folks here have pointed out, this would easily include any kind of trigger. But it could easily be extended to magazine bans and other 'slippery slope' items that Pelosi was (for once) honest enough to admit they would love to push forward.


Bump-stocks could have been designed to prevent any kind of action faster than an unmodified rifle. The ATF dropped the ball on that, and if they have to eat a bit of humble pie and reverse this, it won't be a problem in my mind, and it won't negatively affect the actual laws we have to deal with.


Back to the personal side, I really wished that the leadership of the House and Senate gave a big FU to the gun grabbers and passed the SHARE Act just to get their goats, but as we've seen the GOP is mainly a bunch of spineless wimps.

Our best-case scenario here is to isolate the problem (bump stocks) and eliminate them as a political issue in a way that the GOPers can deal with. They may not be ideal, but when it comes to 2A issues, they are better than the alternative.
Very well written, I agree with most of what you said but it still comes down to the fact that even if you forgo the bumpstocks, will it end? Even with the bumpstocks as a isolated piece of legislature, the head lines "bumpstocks banned by ATF" will ring a victory for gun control advocates across the country.

The media runs this country in a essence, and with the headlines of passed gun control legislation, I feel as though gun control lobbyist will have more fuel and backing to continue onward with their agenda.

Its truly a tricky situation. Part of us want to just give them the POS bumpstocks and others don't want to because of the fear of loosing more ( a legitimate fear) both sides have good points
 
That's what people who are defending the NRA keep telling me. Problem is, it obviously hasn't worked. I tend to just take them for their word. They don't believe the average citizen should be allowed to own automatics or even simulated automatics.

I think you're probably right there. I know the Hughes amendment was supposed to be some kind of huge end-run, but I've always been convinced it was a back-room deal to get FOPA through. That being said, I'd bet a large percentage of our 'pro-gun' legislators and the vast majority of the public would say that 'normal' people shouldn't have automatic weapons.

Besides the NRA and GC, I'm also a GOA member. While I admire their all-or-nothing stance, the fact is that it simply doesn't do much because they almost always end up with 'nothing'.

The NRA is more realistic, and far more used to the legislative quid-pro-quo. In this latest attack I think they've done a pretty good job tamping things down. The gun-grabbers picked bump-stocks as their legislative stalking horse this time, and the NRA was able to shunt that aside to the point you just don't hear about it in the news cycle anymore.

I'm sure it'll pop up again whenever the ATF makes their determination, but for now it's taken the wind out of the gun controllers sails and bought some time. That's our biggest ally, because the gun grabbers need to move fast and capitalize on the moment. The longer it takes for the whole issue of bump stocks to resurface, the less impact it will have on public opinion and the less likely that we'll see any kind of legislative action.
 
If a bump stock makes firing faster what about 3 gun triggers? What about adjustable gas blocks? What about flat springs? What about muzzle breaks? Recoil pads? ect...
This is where it will go if the left gets there foot in the door on the bump stocks.
 
Very well written, I agree with most of what you said but it still comes down to the fact that even if you forgo the bumpstocks, will it end? Even with the bumpstocks as a isolated piece of legislature, the head lines "bumpstocks banned by ATF" will ring a victory for gun control advocates across the country.

The media runs this country in a essence, and with the headlines of passed gun control legislation, I feel as though gun control lobbyist will have more fuel and backing to continue onward with their agenda.

Its truly a tricky situation. Part of us want to just give them the POS bumpstocks and others don't want to because of the fear of loosing more ( a legitimate fear) both sides have good points

First of all, Thanks.

I honestly don't see it ever ending though. We'll go through cycles and I hope this is a good one, where we can gain some ground back, but 'this too will end'.

It's sad, because the Brady's and the VPC are pretty much nonentities these days. Even with Dems they don't necessarily have much influence anymore. In D.C., like anywhere else, money talks and ^&*@# walks, and they were pretty much broke. The Dems still blamed them for losing to Newt and the rest after pushing through a pointless AWB, and the media looked at them as a sympathetic underdog at-best.

Bloomberg changed all that. He's pumped at least a billion dollars of his own money into gun control and raised a similar amount from a bunch of his multi-billionaire friends. He single-handedly put gun control back on the map, and is doing it in a much smarter way.

He's been 'educating' the media on 'how to write about gun violence' at these snazzy 'seminars' for years. He'll fly a bunch of reporters out to some fancy resort, wine and dine them and somewhere along the line have a presentation that runs through all his propaganda points. He gives them nice little resource kits full of factoids to use in articles and pet 'experts' to call on for interviews, then sends them home with a gift basket.

It's no wonder the media is almost universally against us. And the media drives the politicians as much as back-room arm twisting and campaign contribution do.

For a little bit the NRA was an 800-lb gorilla compared to the Brady Center and VPC. But then Bloomberg showed up and resource-wise... he's King Kong.

Just to illustrate that...

- Bloomberg could give the NRA money to cover their annual budget for the next 100 years, and he'd still be a MULTI-billionaire.

- He could buy every firearm made in the US in 2017, and 2016, and 2015 and dump them into the sea, and still be a MULTI-billionaire.

- In 2015 the NRA-ILA spent $3.5 million on lobbying. The most it ever spent. That same year Bloomberg spent $20 million in Nevada alone.

The sad thing is, even if he got hit by a bus tomorrow, Bloomberg has given the gun control industry the energy (and cash) it needs to run on auto-pilot for years now. The old gun control players (Brady, VPC, etc.) took 30 years to start sputtering. Bloomberg has pretty much ensured the same for today's new gun control players.

The momentum has shifted a little in our favor just because we have a whole new crop of gun owners... Something the gun control industry still can't wrap their heads around. A lot of them are women too, and minorities... which makes those heads explode.

We also have a lot better grass-roots system than the astro-turf gun control lobbyists, and us older gun owners do tend to get out and vote the Second Amendment in every single election (not sure how Gun Culture 2.0 ranks there). The gun control supporters only seem to show up when an election is 'important'.

There's some battles I think we are in good shape on. I think it would be almost impossible to get an AWB type law through today, and concealed carry has pretty much been settled.

There's some that I really think we're going to lose unless we get really lucky and play things really, really smart.

Background checks for private transfers is one I see Bloomberg winning. He can do it state-by-state, and flood a market with ads in a way that no local group like GA Carry can compete with. He spent at least $20 million in each state he's tried it in so far, and he's only lost Maine (by less than 1%). Even if every state costs that much, it's $100 million or so total. Pocket change for him.

Another area that's he's been very effective in is banning people, not guns.

He's been pushing these domestic violence 'protection order' bills that strip people of guns and gun rights based on almost any kind of accusation you can get a judge to listen to. Never mind that most DV disputes never even make it to court because they are 'heat of the moment' accusations.

Heck, in many of these bills you don't even have to be directly involved, you can simply be a 'concerned 3rd party' to get one of these seizure orders issued.

It's a tough argument to counter, since guns DO play heavily in domestic violence, and just try to get a politician to come out and say they don't want to protect abuse victims. Ain't going to happen.

Unfortunately a lot of people seem willing to give up the concept of due process if they think they are saving lives, and the gun control owned media would back that view as 'normal' 100% of the time.

So yeah, we got lots of fights left and I don't think it'll ever end.

Gun control has been a 'thing' since at least the 1800's in the US. Almost every large town in the Old West had laws banning carry, and the Sullivan Act, which created the whole idea of a 'carry permit' system was passed in NY in 1911.

That's why I'm hoping we can nip this latest push in the bud. We should be pushing a pro-rights agenda forward these next few years, not playing defense. I think until now a lot of us have been resting, with a Trump win and a GOP Congress. This whole bump-fire push shows that even in the best of times there'll always be a fight.
 
Back
Top Bottom