Bump stop ban signed today

[TexasJohnBoy]

So one of the things I heard today is that there’s an executive order addressing bump stocks. I believe this would be met with a legal challenge.

If this is a loophole that needs to be fixed, then it should be resolved via legislation, not executive fiat.

[philip964]

Ok, I had previously had said bump stops were stupid and a waste of ammunition.

I'm sorry, I was wrong. I was the one that was stupid.

I had never really seen a bump stop in action. I just imagined how they worked, and I assumed they did not work very well.

This video changed my mind.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2IOZ-5Nk5k

That said. I still don't think they are very accurate. And I figure in a war or zombie something ammunition will be scarce, every bullet will need to count.

However, in a home invasion situation, this would be very intimidating coming down the stairs from the master bedroom in the middle of the night.

[The Annoyed Man]

Ok, I had previously had said bump stops were stupid and a waste of ammunition.

I'm sorry, I was wrong. I was the one that was stupid.

I had never really seen a bump stop in action. I just imagined how they worked, and I assumed they did not work very well.

This video changed my mind.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2IOZ-5Nk5k

That said. I still don't think they are very accurate. And I figure in a war or zombie something ammunition will be scarce, every bullet will need to count.

However, in a home invasion situation, this would be very intimidating coming down the stairs from the master bedroom in the middle of the night.

If you review a lot of the combat footage from Iraq/Afghanistan, you’ll see that what seems like most of the time, soldiers/marines in combat are either firing their weapons in semiautomatic mode, or 2-3 round bursts in automatic mode. Even guys on the SAW or M240 are not hosing the target down with long drawn out 50 round bursts. The reason for this is simple: semiautomatic fire is more controlled, and therefore usually more effective. I am mindful of the fact that US troops armed with semiautomatic Garands got an awful lot of good work done in WW2 - some of it in the face of German troops armed with the first ever intermediate caliber select-fire assault weapons, the MP42 and MP44. Automatic fire has its purpose, but it seems to me that semiauto is a lot more effective in most situations - because aimed fire is more effective than spray and pray, and it is very difficult to aim a weapon in full-auto mode as accurately as one can with semiauto.

That right there, more than anything else, is the reason that I never bought a bump stock. I don’t think they should be illegal, but I don’t think they are that necessary. And one of the things that that Charles Cotton has pointed out before is the optics of the whole thing. In other words, in a political climate in which gun advocates and gun controllers both are wigging out over school shootings, is a device which will increase your rate of fire from maybe 150 rounds per minute to 800 rounds per minute really the issue on which you want to stake out your ground? Passage of National reciprocity is an important issue, and it should pass. It is MORE important to the free exercise of the 2nd Amendment than are bumpstocks. Passage of the Hearing Protection Act is a really important issue for the reasons that it is a matter of hearing health, and a matter of decreasing the power of the ATF to control our affairs. It’s not that bumpstocks should be illegal, but you have to be blind to the optics of the thing to not see that (A) defending it at this time in this climate is a losing proposition, and (B) making a stand on bump stocks will drag down Reciprocity and the HPA along with it. The intelligent response is to cut your losses and try to make gains where you can. In that kind of environment, it seems to me that the best course of action, if need be, is to throw bump stocks to the wolves so that we can possibly still salvage the HPA and national reciprocity.....both of which are more important to the free exercise than the bump stock is.

[DEB]

Ok, I had previously had said bump stops were stupid and a waste of ammunition.

I'm sorry, I was wrong. I was the one that was stupid.

I had never really seen a bump stop in action. I just imagined how they worked, and I assumed they did not work very well.

This video changed my mind.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2IOZ-5Nk5k

That said. I still don't think they are very accurate. And I figure in a war or zombie something ammunition will be scarce, every bullet will need to count.

However, in a home invasion situation, this would be very intimidating coming down the stairs from the master bedroom in the middle of the night.

If you review a lot of the combat footage from Iraq/Afghanistan, you’ll see that what seems like most of the time, soldiers/marines in combat are either firing their weapons in semiautomatic mode, or 2-3 round bursts in automatic mode. Even guys on the SAW or M240 are not hosing the target down with long drawn out 50 round bursts. The reason for this is simple: semiautomatic fire is more controlled, and therefore usually more effective. I am mindful of the fact that US troops armed with semiautomatic Garands got an awful lot of good work done in WW2 - some of it in the face of German troops armed with the first ever intermediate caliber select-fire assault weapons, the MP42 and MP44. Automatic fire has its purpose, but it seems to me that semiauto is a lot more effective in most situations - because aimed fire is more effective than spray and pray, and it is very difficult to aim a weapon in full-auto mode as accurately as one can with semiauto.

That right there, more than anything else, is the reason that I never bought a bump stock. I don’t think they should be illegal, but I don’t think they are that necessary. And one of the things that that Charles Cotton has pointed out before is the optics of the whole thing. In other words, in a political climate in which gun advocates and gun controllers both are wigging out over school shootings, is a device which will increase your rate of fire from maybe 150 rounds per minute to 800 rounds per minute really the issue on which you want to stake out your ground? Passage of National reciprocity is an important issue, and it should pass. It is MORE important to the free exercise of the 2nd Amendment than are bumpstocks. Passage of the Hearing Protection Act is a really important issue for the reasons that it is a matter of hearing health, and a matter of decreasing the power of the ATF to control our affairs. It’s not that bumpstocks should be illegal, but you have to be blind to the optics of the thing to not see that (A) defending it at this time in this climate is a losing proposition, and (B) making a stand on bump stocks will drag down Reciprocity and the HPA along with it. The intelligent response is to cut your losses and try to make gains where you can. In that kind of environment, it seems to me that the best course of action, if need be, is to throw bump stocks to the wolves so that we can possibly still salvage the HPA and national reciprocity.....both of which are more important to the free exercise than the bump stock is.

Absolutely

[philip964]

Ok, I had previously had said bump stops were stupid and a waste of ammunition.

I'm sorry, I was wrong. I was the one that was stupid.

I had never really seen a bump stop in action. I just imagined how they worked, and I assumed they did not work very well.

This video changed my mind.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2IOZ-5Nk5k

That said. I still don't think they are very accurate. And I figure in a war or zombie something ammunition will be scarce, every bullet will need to count.

However, in a home invasion situation, this would be very intimidating coming down the stairs from the master bedroom in the middle of the night.

If you review a lot of the combat footage from Iraq/Afghanistan, you’ll see that what seems like most of the time, soldiers/marines in combat are either firing their weapons in semiautomatic mode, or 2-3 round bursts in automatic mode. Even guys on the SAW or M240 are not hosing the target down with long drawn out 50 round bursts. The reason for this is simple: semiautomatic fire is more controlled, and therefore usually more effective. I am mindful of the fact that US troops armed with semiautomatic Garands got an awful lot of good work done in WW2 - some of it in the face of German troops armed with the first ever intermediate caliber select-fire assault weapons, the MP42 and MP44. Automatic fire has its purpose, but it seems to me that semiauto is a lot more effective in most situations - because aimed fire is more effective than spray and pray, and it is very difficult to aim a weapon in full-auto mode as accurately as one can with semiauto.

That right there, more than anything else, is the reason that I never bought a bump stock. I don’t think they should be illegal, but I don’t think they are that necessary. And one of the things that that Charles Cotton has pointed out before is the optics of the whole thing. In other words, in a political climate in which gun advocates and gun controllers both are wigging out over school shootings, is a device which will increase your rate of fire from maybe 150 rounds per minute to 800 rounds per minute really the issue on which you want to stake out your ground? Passage of National reciprocity is an important issue, and it should pass. It is MORE important to the free exercise of the 2nd Amendment than are bumpstocks. Passage of the Hearing Protection Act is a really important issue for the reasons that it is a matter of hearing health, and a matter of decreasing the power of the ATF to control our affairs. It’s not that bumpstocks should be illegal, but you have to be blind to the optics of the thing to not see that (A) defending it at this time in this climate is a losing proposition, and (B) making a stand on bump stocks will drag down Reciprocity and the HPA along with it. The intelligent response is to cut your losses and try to make gains where you can. In that kind of environment, it seems to me that the best course of action, if need be, is to throw bump stocks to the wolves so that we can possibly still salvage the HPA and national reciprocity.....both of which are more important to the free exercise than the bump stock is.

Great post!! I agree.

[MaduroBU]

I do not see the utility in full auto fire for light weapons. After the Las Vegas shooting, I made it a point to try a select fire MP5. It's far more controllable than a select fire rifle, but at the end of 300 rounds, I had to ask "Why?". For FMJ 9mm, it makes complete sense. For those of us whose ammo options are limited only by chemistry and materials science, subguns aren't a great choice. Anything that a select fire subgun can do, an SBR .300 blackout does better. A .357 Sig or 10mm with good can and a red dot is far shorter and doesn't need 5 center mass hits. A .300 BLK super 125 or 150 grain load is on a different plane than a dangerously overpressure 9mm round,and actually benefits from a 10-12" barrel.

My real concern is that a ban is worded poorly such that it can be used to ban electronic primers and Jerry Miculek's right index finger.

[Pawpaw]

If you review a lot of the combat footage from Iraq/Afghanistan, you’ll see that what seems like most of the time, soldiers/marines in combat are either firing their weapons in semiautomatic mode, or 2-3 round bursts in automatic mode. Even guys on the SAW or M240 are not hosing the target down with long drawn out 50 round bursts. The reason for this is simple: semiautomatic fire is more controlled, and therefore usually more effective. I am mindful of the fact that US troops armed with semiautomatic Garands got an awful lot of good work done in WW2 - some of it in the face of German troops armed with the first ever intermediate caliber select-fire assault weapons, the MP42 and MP44. Automatic fire has its purpose, but it seems to me that semiauto is a lot more effective in most situations - because aimed fire is more effective than spray and pray, and it is very difficult to aim a weapon in full-auto mode as accurately as one can with semiauto.

That right there, more than anything else, is the reason that I never bought a bump stock. I don’t think they should be illegal, but I don’t think they are that necessary. And one of the things that that Charles Cotton has pointed out before is the optics of the whole thing. In other words, in a political climate in which gun advocates and gun controllers both are wigging out over school shootings, is a device which will increase your rate of fire from maybe 150 rounds per minute to 800 rounds per minute really the issue on which you want to stake out your ground? Passage of National reciprocity is an important issue, and it should pass. It is MORE important to the free exercise of the 2nd Amendment than are bumpstocks. Passage of the Hearing Protection Act is a really important issue for the reasons that it is a matter of hearing health, and a matter of decreasing the power of the ATF to control our affairs. It’s not that bumpstocks should be illegal, but you have to be blind to the optics of the thing to not see that (A) defending it at this time in this climate is a losing proposition, and (B) making a stand on bump stocks will drag down Reciprocity and the HPA along with it. The intelligent response is to cut your losses and try to make gains where you can. In that kind of environment, it seems to me that the best course of action, if need be, is to throw bump stocks to the wolves so that we can possibly still salvage the HPA and national reciprocity.....both of which are more important to the free exercise than the bump stock is.

Full-auto with an M-16 will put a BIG smile on your face, but it's practical use is really limited to that few seconds when you are about to be overrun by enemy forces. The 3-round burst is sometimes useful to increase hit probability at shorter (<100 yds) range against a fast moving enemy.

Point to ponder: US Military rifle qualifications are done in semi-auto. Some of our European allies do compete with 3-round burst, but the ones I've seen were shooter-controlled bursts with a full-auto rifle.

[Soccerdad1995]

I always thought that the point of automatic fire from a rifle was primarily for suppressive fire, not to increase the amount of people you hurt or killed with that rifle. I agree that an automatic rifle or one equipped with a bump stock is generally less effective at killing people. As an aside, if our true goal is to reduce the number of people killed in school shootings, we should require, not ban, automatic weapons / bump stocks.

They don't really have a purpose if we are hunting, or defending our home against 1-2 home invaders. But they definitely will have a purpose if we are ever in the situation that our founders faced where their government had become destructive of the very reasons for it's existence.

That said, I personally would be OK with TAM's proposal to give up bump stocks in exchange for both the HPA and national reciprocity purely from a tactical, pragmatic, perspective. But these need to be in the same piece of legislation. I do not trust our political opponents enough to give up anything based on hopes and promises of gaining something else in the future.

[The Annoyed Man]

But these need to be in the same piece of legislation. I do not trust our political opponents enough to give up anything based on hopes and promises of gaining something else in the future.

I absolutely agree, and that is one reason why I was so aghast when Trump rebuffed Scalise’s suggestion to add reciprocity to the gun bill, saying that the bill would never be passed if reciprocity was included. I was appalled. And I think it is safe to say that there isn’t any chance that HPA would be added into the bill Trump wants passed.

[bblhd672]

I do not trust our political opponents enough to give up anything based on hopes and promises of gaining something else in the future.

I don't trust our "political allies" either.

[ninjabread]

That said, I personally would be OK with TAM's proposal to give up bump stocks in exchange for both the HPA and national reciprocity purely from a tactical, pragmatic, perspective. But these need to be in the same piece of legislation. I do not trust our political opponents enough to give up anything based on hopes and promises of gaining something else in the future.

I too would accept horse trading a bump stock ban in exchange for true national reciprocity. However, if the GOP gives up bump stocks without a significant 2A concession, just because the GOP can't stand the heat, I'm happy to help by voting them out of the kitchen come November.

[mojo84]

Contrary to the title of this thread, bumpstocks have not been banned yet. While I have no strong opinions one way or the other regarding bumpstocks, I do not like the idea of more regulations. This too came my attention on facebook.

Here is your opportunity to sound off and let the government know your opinion.

https://www.regulations.gov/document?D= ... -0002-0001

This Proposed Rule document was issued by the Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosives Bureau (ATF)

For related information, Open Docket Folder

Action
Notice of proposed rulemaking.

Summary
The Department of Justice (Department) proposes to amend the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives regulations to clarify that “bump fire” stocks, slide-fire devices, and devices with certain similar characteristics (bump-stock-type devices) are “machineguns” as defined by the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA) and the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA), because such devices allow a shooter of a semiautomatic firearm to initiate a continuous firing cycle with a single pull of the trigger. Specifically, these devices convert an otherwise semiautomatic firearm into a machinegun by functioning as a self-acting or self-regulating mechanism that harnesses the recoil energy of the semiautomatic firearm in a manner that allows the trigger to reset and continue firing without additional physical manipulation of the trigger by the shooter. Hence, a semiautomatic firearm to which a bump-stock-type device is attached is able to produce automatic fire with a single pull of the trigger. With limited exceptions, primarily as to government agencies, the GCA makes it unlawful for any person to transfer or possess a machinegun unless it was lawfully possessed prior to the effective date of the statute. The bump-stock-type devices covered by this proposed rule were not in existence prior to the GCA's effective date, and therefore would fall within the prohibition on machineguns if this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) is implemented. Consequently, current possessors of these devices would be required to surrender them, destroy them, or otherwise render them permanently inoperable upon the effective date of the final rule.

Dates
Written comments must be postmarked and electronic comments must be submitted on or before June 27, 2018. Commenters should be aware that the electronic Federal Docket Management System will not accept comments after midnight Eastern Daylight Time on the last day of the comment period.

Addresses
You may submit comments, identified by docket number ATF 2017R-22, by any of the following methods:

Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the directions for submitting comments.
Fax: (202) 648-9741.
Mail: Vivian Chu, Mailstop 6N-518, Office of Regulatory Affairs, Enforcement Programs and Services, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, 99 New York Ave. NE, Washington DC 20226. ATTN: 2017R-22.
Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name and docket number for this notice of proposed rulemaking. All properly completed comments received will be posted without change to the Federal eRulemaking portal, http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the “Public Participation” section of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

[philip964]

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... -advocates

Supremes leave bump stock ban in place.

[philip964]

"FTA: Today, Justice Neil Gorsuch threw a little shade at the Trump administration for unilaterally rewriting federal gun laws. "The agency used to tell everyone that bump stocks don't qualify as 'machineguns.' Now it says the opposite. The law hasn't changed, only an agency's interpretation of it," Gorsuch wrote. "How, in all of this, can ordinary citizens be expected to keep up—required not only to conform their conduct to the fairest reading of the law they might expect from a neutral judge, but forced to guess whether the statute will be declared ambiguous….And why should courts, charged with the independent and neutral interpretation of the laws Congress has enacted, defer to such bureaucratic pirouetting?"

Gorsuch's statement came attached to the Supreme Court's denial of certiorari in Guedes v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. Damien Guedes, who challenged the legality of Trump's bump stock ban, recently lost before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which said the ban was entitled to judicial deference under the Chevron precedent. The Supreme Court today declined to hear Guedes' case.

Gorsuch agreed with that. "Other courts of appeals are actively considering challenges to the same regulation," he wrote, and "before deciding whether to weigh in, we would benefit from hearing their considered judgments." But, he added, waiting for the right case to come along "should not be mistaken for lack of concern."

In fact, Gorsuch suggested, the right case could not come along fast enough. "The law before us carries the possibility of criminal sanctions," Gorsuch wrote. "Before courts may send people to prison, we owe them an independent determination that the law actually forbids their conduct. A 'reasonable' prosecutor's say-so is cold comfort in comparison.""

Gorsuch wrote about Bump Stop ban. This is from Jews Can Shoot, a facebook page.

[Ruark]

I've seen many videos of soldiers in Iraq running full auto. Nobody can say full or semi is better; each has its own applications. If I stepped around a corner in Fallujah and there were 3 or 4 ISIS fighters standing right in front of me raising their weapons, I'd darn sure want to be on full auto. Another good example is this scene from the movie "Sicario." Of course, it's a movie, but it makes the point.

Everything has its place.

"On the internet, everybody is an expert."