Bump stock Bye Bye!

[BillSWPA]

We'll be haunted by this, because the opposition in play is not interested in being reasonable or rational about this, and they'll take a mile from the inch provided by this ban. This SHOULD have been an opportunity to re-write the NFA to include bumpstocks and de-stupify the rest. But we're just rolling over and taking the ban instead because that's 'not the hill we want to die on'. What's the next 'hill we don't want to die on'? Pistol braces? 30 round magazines?

Because they're banning an accessory outright, it sets the precedence that banning accessories based on one terrible use of them in one major crime is justifiable. How much farther of a reach is it to suggest that the actual weapon they were installed upon should also be banned, when it's been used in several of those rare, terrible, high profile crimes?
When we're appealing to the middle, we need to make the argument that policy should not be dictated by profoundly rare uses in crime, but instead be dictated by what can be substantiated as a repeated, common risk to society that otherwise is not used lawfully by lawful citizens. Not what got used once to absolutely terrible effect.

Yes, it's a stupid redneck range toy. But rednecks wasting ammo and simulating full-auto fire isn't a crime nor is it a common injury/murder/suicide vector. Full auto fire does have a very applicable 2A use for 'militia' purposes in modern warfighting, and thus should be protected by the 2A just the same. The compromise, if there was one to make, should be to streamline the NFA process, add the bumpstocks to the NFA, and get rid of SBR's, Suppressors, and the Hughes amendment, but we're not doing that.
The bottom line is that neither bumpstocks nor registered legal MG's are commonly seen in drive bys or other so-called 'gun' crime. So banning them is a politically visible victory for the antis based on nothing substantially useful beyond the optics of banning evil gun stuff.

By the measure of what's commonly used in 'gun' crime, such as handguns, we all know the number of handguns being used for criminal activity are such an infinitesimal minority compared to the numbers of lawfully owned and safely carried/used handguns every day that banning handguns is an idiotic measure and doesn't solve the problem - in addition to completely disregarding the nature of criminality and that no ban makes these items just turn into dust.

So yes, as stupid as this is, it is a hill we should be ready to fight on. Supporting stupid policy is supporting stupid policy. If they want a compromise, it should give us something we don't have that we want. Giving up bump stocks without getting something in return is a full loss. Period.

Whether the opposition is interested in being reasonable or rational should not be of concern to us. The less reasonable and rational they are or they appear, the better off we are.

I am much more interested in making sure we appear rational and reasonable when we are talking to people who may or may not own a gun, don't have strong feelings on principle, the second amendment, etc., but do have strong feelings about their kids coming home safely at the end of the school day.

Cars "kill" tens of thousands of people every year. We know better: bad/stupid/drunk drivers kill tens of thousands of people every year, with cars as the instrument. Yet, we do not ban cars because they are useful. The same can be said of handguns, AR-15's etc. The same argument could even be made for true full auto. The same cannot be said of a bump stock.

Taking a mile from the inch given makes a nice cliche, but exactly how? One victory does not automatically lead to another. In fact, it often leads to elections that make the next victory more difficult. Precedent does not have the same value in the legislative process that it does in court.

Yes, I know: as soon as the next tragedy hits, the other side will demand more, as they always do. That will always be the case, regardless of how much or little they get. Demanding and getting are very different things.

I completely agree that we should have insisted on something in return, and in fact made the same point in other threads. Even so, the only "victory" the other side can claim is the loss of the ability to paint us as extremists who do not care about the safety of their children. That ability, not any "precedent" is what would enable them to successfully push for more.

[JAD]

Interested in the opinion of @joshs

[NH Shooter]

Good and thoughtful debate here.

I do wish that there was greater effort to push for changes that would be beneficial to us, such as removal of SBRs, SBSs and suppressors from NSA, as well as some kind of national CCW licensing system.

While I have zero use or interest in bump stocks, I do wish we had the foresight to use that useless accessory as a bargaining chip for something in our favor.

[Duke]

Wonder what 2 federal regulations they’ll remove to add this into law.

Isn’t that trumps deal.

Any new law require the removal of 2 others?


Also I didn’t read the details....but part of me wonders what the “dispose of in some other manner” means and if anyone’s going to care to check.

And next - turn it in to whom? What will be the chain of custody or proof you’ve turned in legally to some place like the honorable sheriffs of broward county etc?

Like everyone else, bumpstocks are a useles piece of plastic to me. But that’s this issue....it’s an external piece of plastic that does not change the mechanical function of the item.

In my opinion it doesnt really mimic full auto fire, Sort of like your 4x4 bumper doesn’t let you “mimic” a bulldozer...

[Mike C]

@BillSWPA, I'm not a fan but the bump stock and would agree it's nothing more than a silly range toy. What really bothers me is outright ban with no compensation and the slippery slope this will setup for future arguments. Get a heavy left leaning president what's next? Look at how executive privilege/orders have been overused and abused. This just goes to show, (along with other behavior of the Trump administration) that Trump is nothing more than an Authoritarian and has no respect for our constitution or laws if it is of no benefit. Personally it sickens me. He could outlaw kittens tomorrow and I would still be upset.

[BillSWPA]

@BillSWPA, I'm not a fan but the bump stock and would agree it's nothing more than a silly range toy. What really bothers me is outright ban with no compensation and the slippery slope this will setup for future arguments. Get a heavy left leaning president what's next? Look at how executive privilege/orders have been overused and abused.

Where is the slippery slope here?

A "slippery slope" as known in the law is a court ruling that leads to far more than what was intended. For example, a ruling that the second amendment protects private ownership of "arms" without a definition of "arms" could potentially lead to a right to walk down the street with a hand grenade.

Agreeing to one ban does not create any binding precedent requiring another ban.

I do agree re: confiscating property without compensation.

[Mike C]

Where is the slippery slope here?

A "slippery slope" as known in the law is a court ruling that leads to far more than what was intended. For example, a ruling that the second amendment protects private ownership of "arms" without a definition of "arms" could potentially lead to a right to walk down the street with a hand grenade.

Agreeing to one ban does not create any binding precedent requiring another ban.

I do agree re: confiscating property without compensation.

I don't necessarily believe one ban leads to another but it does give precedent and leave room for argument later. The huge alarm for me is out right confiscation without compensation of an "accessory." My slippery slope argument is this: what stops them from going after or relabeling other items later as accessories? After market stock, if your gun didn't come from the factory that's an accessory, grip, sights, hand-guards where does it stop? I can see the argument of the bumpstock not being and integral part of the firearm being labeled as an accessory and therefore be used to reclassify other parts and be labeled as such so they can be struck down with the stroke of a pen. Death by a thousand cuts. That is what scares the shit out of me.

[BillSWPA]

I don't necessarily believe one ban leads to another but it does give precedent and leave room for argument later. The huge alarm for me is out right confiscation without compensation of a "accessory." My slippery slope argument is this: what stops them from going after or relabeling other items later as accessories? After market stock, if your gun didn't come from the factory that's an accessory, grip, sights, hand-guards where does it stop? I can see the argument of the bumpstock not being and integral part of the firearm being labeled as an accessory and therefore be used to reclassify other parts and be labeled as such so they can be struck down with the stroke of a pen. Death by a thousand cuts. That is what scares the shit out of me.

The issue then becomes determining the most effective tactic to avoid those cuts.

[Peally]

Kneejerk reaction and every other twat is right behind it because it's for the children and nobody needs ___.

One more good excuse reason to buy a 3D printer. World is too childish to rely on for products.

[Mike C]

@BillSWPA I completely agree. But the conversation has to be had and it has to start with 1. we will justly compensate you for what you paid for the item in question, 2. We can pass a law through proper channels to prohibit ownership, sale, grandfather ownership of existing or not, or add them to the ATF racket and require blood money tax or not. All of the above is fine with me but issuing a decree is freaking BS and I am sick of our elect bypassing our constitution whenever they freaking feel like it suits them, and that goes for both of the shitty parties.