TexasCHLforum.com

Why did we not offer to move bump stocks to the NFA list in exchange for removing suppressors? Seems like that would be a reasonable trade-off.

The Annoyed Man wrote:CCW didn’t kill any students or concert-goers, and neither did the use of suppressors.

exactly right. These two items rather are issues of public safety. We must act to improve the rights of law abiding gun owners. We need reciprocity, we need the elimination of gun free zones, and someone explain to me how banning suppressors is a "common sense" gun law.

Scott Farkus wrote:Why did we not offer to move bump stocks to the NFA list in exchange for removing suppressors? Seems like that would be a reasonable trade-off.

"Reasonable restrictions" are rarely if ever reasonable.

Oldgringo wrote:This may not be an automatic, but this guy has really got it goin' on:

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

I used to think bump stocks were gimmicky, over priced, and no use to me.

I still think they're gimmicky. With the current hysteria, they are even more overpriced than before. However, I now understand how they can be incredibly useful.

I don't want one for hunting or home defense. I don't even need to own one myself for them to be incredibly useful. Why? Because bump stocks serve the same purpose as a canary in a coal mine.

They show which politicians believe the government's legitimate powers come from, and are limited by, the U.S. Constitution and which don't. If a ban goes into effect, enforcement will clearly show who are sheepdogs, and who are wolves.

The problem with the bump stock bans is they are not just saying "bump stocks" are illegal. The popular language being used says that "rate increasing devices" are banned that simulate full auto fire. If you were a gun grabbing politician or bureaucrat, what would be defined as a "rate increasing device"? I think quite a number of aftermarket modifications could included in that. So yeah, bump stocks may not be the hill to die on, but they might be trying to take a different hill.

Also, if the Feds administratively reclassify bump stocks as machine guns, will they allow those that are currently owned to be registered?

US Citizens reclassify DOJ as Terrorist Organization

allisji wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:CCW didn’t kill any students or concert-goers, and neither did the use of suppressors.

exactly right. These two items rather are issues of public safety. We must act to improve the rights of law abiding gun owners. We need reciprocity, we need the elimination of gun free zones, and someone explain to me how banning suppressors is a "common sense" gun law.

its a "liberal common sense" law.... they think that when you slap on a suppressor all of a sudden nobody can hear a gun shot... which is 100% false. you can still hear it, it just might not make you go deaf for 5 seconds afterward like it would if you didnt have one... hollywood has overly dramatized the effectiveness of suppressors. and like all libtards, they get their info form the media. so if john wick shoots someone with a suppressor and all you hear is "tink" of brass hitting the ground, then its GOT to be how it works in real life... like superman... everyone knows people can fly and have heat vision.

Beiruty wrote:What if the new regulation was challenged in court and the plaintiff won?!

What if laws and regulations that infringed rights that "shall not be infringed" were ignored by The People.

spectre wrote:

Beiruty wrote:What if the new regulation was challenged in court and the plaintiff won?!

What if laws and regulations that infringed rights that "shall not be infringed" were ignored by The People.

Then, the people rulez

MechAg94 wrote:The problem with the bump stock bans is they are not just saying "bump stocks" are illegal. The popular language being used says that "rate increasing devices" are banned that simulate full auto fire. If you were a gun grabbing politician or bureaucrat, what would be defined as a "rate increasing device"? I think quite a number of aftermarket modifications could included in that. So yeah, bump stocks may not be the hill to die on, but they might be trying to take a different hill.

Also, if the Feds administratively reclassify bump stocks as machine guns, will they allow those that are currently owned to be registered?

I just saw an interview of a Dem politician and he was wearing a tie, which of course is a "rate increasing device". Do I just call 911, or is there a specific number I can use to report this dangerous criminal?

In all seriousness, I'm really interested to see the exact wording of this new regulation. Does anyone know the gist of their approach / logic?

Are they planning to ban all devices that were not part of the original, manufactured, gun and which increase the rate of fire? That would mean I couldn't drop in a lighter trigger, and also that I can build an AR with a bump stock from the start, so that won't work.

Or are they going to ban any device, which when installed (even as part of the original gun manufacture), allows a potential rate of fire above X rounds per minute? If that is the case, then every gun needs to be banned, including revolvers (google a Jerry Michulek video). The trigger itself allows a tremendous rate of fire in the right hands. Heck even a bolt action can fire rounds pretty rapidly, if we are to believe the official story of the Warren commission.

We already know that they can't use the existing definition of a machine gun since a bump stock, on it's own, has no rate of fire, and can't discharge any rounds at all. Even when installed on a rifle you still can only fire one round per pull of the trigger. But if the ban only applies to devices after they are installed, then bump stocks would not be banned on their own.

So how exactly are they planning to word this regulation?