Can we at least agree "Bump Fire Stock" ownership

[HopeAgain]

by civilians should be a felony? Surely even the gun lovers on here could agree with that?

[obamanut2012]

1. I am a gun owner, and I think bump stocking should be illegal

Including handmade bumper stocks. It has always shocked me those and high-volume mags are legal.

[Amishman]

41. They should definitely be under tighter control

I asked my brother-in-law about this as he is a major gun nut and an encyclopedia on the subjects. (And the source of almost everything I know about guns as well. His 'gun room' is better stocked than most sporting goods stores)

His opinion was they could be classified as machine guns and the rifles equipped with them added to the registry. This way no confiscation or need to track down buyers and the rifles with them are treated and controlled just like existing registered machine guns. Tracking the stocks would be hard as they have no serial numbers or paperwork.

He also said it wouldn't do much to prevent crime as full auto is easy to do and can be done by filing a few parts or creative use of a shoe lace.

[Man_Bear_Pig]

43. No need to track down the stocks.

After the BATFE reverses its decision about their legality, anyone keeping one without registering it would have to keep it buried or risk 10 years in prison.

[Towlie]

56. The problem is that you can make one with a 3D printer.

Should it be illegal to design one, or to distribute the STL file?

[citood]

62. I'm a gun owner, and always thought bump stocks were a range gimmick

Its hard enough to fire an automatic weapon accurately...but the pushing and pulling required to make the bump stock work goes against most aspects of good marksmanship.

Hence, all a bump stock is really good for is making a stupid youtube video.

It never occurred to me that one would be used against a crowd of 20k people, accurate or not.

It wouldn't bother me a bit if they were made illegal...but honestly it won't really matter. The vast majority of these mass shooting events are indoors/close quarters where the stupidity of this device would be glaringly obvious.

[Watchfoxheadexplodes]

2. Agree as a gun owner

No need for those what so ever.

Heard a nut last night say some are used for hunting no they are not.

Did you notice in the Las Vegas press conference last night the lady with atf or fbi? Went out of her way to say these device's are legal.

[HAB911]

3. CNN reporting this morning

they are legal to manufacture/sell/buy but illegal to use

WTF?

[Watchfoxheadexplodes]

5. All the rapid fire devices need banning

Saw one called a gat trigger crank taken from gatling gun most I believe who own these device's are pissed because they can't get machine guns.

[oneshooter]

14. How about Gatling Guns.

They are not, by law, a "machine gun".

NOT a machine gun.


Machine gun

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-QLDDac8vK3E/T7xD_2h22OI/AAAAAAAALv4/qtyiZFzG2fc/s1600/china+pla+army+Chongqing+Jianshe+Industry+Group+exhibited+its+own+R+%2526+D+type+CSLM12+7.62+mm+Gatling+machine+gun%252C+rifle+7.62+mm+caliber+effective+range+of+1000+meters%252C+%25286%2529.jpg

Both have rotating barrels.

[Adrahil]

18. You can buy one right now.

Not a very efficient device, but they are available!

[oneshooter]

20. Which one are you refering to?

The top picture, or the lower one?

[Adrahil]

21. Well both, but specifically a gatling gun.

https://www.cdnnsports.com/colt-1877-bulldog-gatling-gun-hispeed-45-70.html#.WdTcEbKGOUk

[comradebillyboy]

29. Nice...I want one.

[oneshooter]

77. $45000 +tax and shipping and it's yours.

Don't forget the background check.

[comradebillyboy]

84. I want a lot of things I can't have.

[oneshooter]

85. Don't we all. n/t

[oneshooter]

78. But you want to ban this weapon of mass destruction. n/t

[yardwork]

4. Someone will be along to tell you that youve used the wrong word to describe them.

[HAB911]

6. They love splitting hairs/semantics

diversion tactics

[yardwork]

7. Yep.

[Adrahil]

76. I'll argue with you here.

Being technically accurate is important when dealing with machines. As an engineer, I often get frustrated by politicians making decisions about technologies they do not understand.

But we DO have some folks here who know about the technical details of guns. Instead of being snarky, why not take advantage of the knowledge? That way instead of just yelling "SEMANTICS! HAIRSPLITTING!," you can actually be technically correct, which often disarms a gun nut (who often are only hazy on the technical details themselves). Because quite often, it's not just semantics.

For example, in the case of bump stocks, how do we define exactly what one is? It's hard.

And Feinstein's bill wants to ban any part that can increase the rate of fire of a semi-automatic? How is she defining rate of fire?

The technical details matter here if the law is going to be effective.

[HAB911]

83. Hmmm, you may have a point

How Gunsplaining Could Lead to Better Gun Laws

https://www.wired.com/story/guns-nerds?mbid=nl_100417_daily

[karadax]

8. This gun lover agrees. Make them illegal to possess.

[hack89]

9. As a gun owner I agree. nt

[melm00se]

10. I agree that they should be restricted

but the BATF has ruled that they are legal:



so restricting (or making them illegal) will require a reworking of either the regulations and definitions of what makes a weapons "automatic" or a specifically crafted piece of legislation.

Both of these will probably draw a legal challenge which will drag on in the courts ad even if the gov't prevails, there are a lot of these devices in circulation so recovering all of them would pose a significant challenge.

[jmg257]

12. And there will probably be a lot more sold in the coming days/weeks as legislation

gets moving.

[melm00se]

17. absolutely

and if the companies who make these types of products disposes of their sales records (I am not sure if they did that it would be illegal) tracing these will be even more difficult.

[HopeAgain]

26. Simple

Don't grandfather

[NickB79]

32. Wouldn't you then have to compensate the owners to avoid illegal "taking" of private property?

I've wondered the same thing about high-capacity magazines, seeing as there are likely almost a billion in circulation right now just in the US.

[jberryhill]

35. No

Read the entire thing:

"...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

Nobody had to compensate the hemp farmers when it was banned. Nobody has to compensate anyone for inventory when the CPSC orders a recall of car seats or cribs either.

The fair market value of an illegal item is zero. The 5th applies to property taken for public use.

[NickB79]

38. It appears that definition is outdated after Horne V. USDA

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horne_v._Department_of_Agriculture

"Writing for a majority of the Court, Chief Justice John Roberts held that the Fifth Amendment requires the government and its agencies to pay just compensation when they take personal property from citizens. Chief Justice Roberts began his analysis by tracing the history of personal property from the protection of farmers’ corn in the 1215 Magna Carta,[15] to the 1641 Massachusetts Body of Liberties,[16] to a 1778 editorial by John Jay.[17] Chief Justice Roberts concluded that personal property has not been given any less protection than real property for at least 800 years and that the physical appropriation of property gives rise to a per se taking. Applying this rule, Chief Justice Roberts held that the raisin reserve requirement constituted a physical taking because the government would physically seize the growers’ raisins. Chief Justice Roberts also held the payout from raisin reserve sales do not change the takings analysis because courts only consider potential remaining uses of property when evaluating regulatory takings, not physical takings."

[HopeAgain]

40. I think this is distinguishable

There is no economically beneficial use for these guns, and even if a taking, you would put money before lives? One man with a couple of these killed/injured almost 600 people.

Temerity is why we have a gun culture we do.

[X_Digger]

74. An attorney should know better. (I'm betting you do, just choosing to ignore the facts.)

Last edited Wed Oct 4, 2017, 09:36 PM - Edit history (1)

Who comes knocking on your door for a recalled child seat?

Do they become illegal to own?

Of course not, it's a voluntary recall. There's no goddamned sheriff with a warrant for your illegal car seat. If you have a recalled child seat at a traffic stop, the cops don't pull you out and arrest you.

Fucking silly.

[NutmegYankee]

61. It isn't that simple.

We are a nation of laws and those laws restrict the powers of government. I agree we should cease selling them ASAP, but to get them our of circulation would require something like amending the NFA of '34 to register them. Frankly, if we as a society are actually serious about getting these and semi-auto rifles out of public hands, we're going to have to buy them back.

Think on this - the great Australian gun buyback happened because they have the same exact provision in their Constitution.

[jmg257]

11. Is this something they can ban outright and confiscate, or do they have to reimburse current owners?

or grandfather them in?

Such arguments are always put up when talking making legal things illegal.

Agree they should be illegal...whatever it takes.

[oneshooter]

15. If they are legal now(they are) and made illegal by changing the law

The current owners must be reimbursed the cost of the item. To do otherwise would be theft by the government.

[HopeAgain]

23. That's debunked gun enthusiasts argument

it is not a taking in the Constitutional sense.

[NutmegYankee]

54. It's not debunked - it law right now.

The government can't for instance outlaw grills because of air pollution and require you to hand them in without compensation. They can only ban further sales, and perhaps cut off the fuel sales. To actually take the grill, the due process and compensation provisions apply.

[jberryhill]

27. ROFL - yeah, just like all the booze taken when prohibition went into effect, NOT

The "fair market value" of an illegal item is 0.

[jmg257]

30. Yep - I keep saying that, but supposedly that isn't constitutional.

[jberryhill]

33. Nonsense

The Fifth Amendment applies to private property taken for PUBLIC USE.

Banning an item is not taking it for public use. These people will try any stupid argument.

"....nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

Gun fanciers have a habit of ignoring words.

[jmg257]

34. Thanks! AWB w/o grandfathering next. Nt

[NutmegYankee]

55. Alcohol made prior to the ban was never illegal to own.

A person with a full wine cellar never had an issue. The act banned the production, sale, and distribution of alcohol after its date, and the famous pictures are of illegally produced alcohol after the ban was in effect.

[NickB79]

36. Booze made before Prohibition was grandfathered in

http://www.history.com/news/10-things-you-should-know-about-prohibition

"It wasn’t illegal to drink alcohol during Prohibition.

The 18th Amendment only forbade the “manufacture, sale and transportation of intoxicating liquors”—not their consumption. By law, any wine, beer or spirits Americans had stashed away in January 1920 were theirs to keep and enjoy in the privacy of their homes. For most, this amounted to only a few bottles, but some affluent drinkers built cavernous wine cellars and even bought out whole liquor store inventories to ensure they had healthy stockpiles of legal hooch."

Thus, the picture you posted would have to be booze made after the Act, and thus illegal from the moment it was created.

[jberryhill]

37. The 18th was implemented by the Volstead Act

Aside from which, the 5th Amendment applies to taking property for use by the public, not banning it.

[NickB79]

39. See post #38

It appears this was decided in 2015.

[NutmegYankee]

53. Banning an item is a taking for public use.

There's been court cases on this.

[NutmegYankee]

52. Possession of alcohol wasn't illegal - only manufacture, distribution, and sales.

The alcohol in that picture was produced after the ban, and was therefore never legally owned.

[melm00se]

19. It's in the Constitution

5th Amendment applies here.

[jberryhill]

28. No it doesn't

The fair market value of an illegal item is 0.

See, e.g., Volstead Act:

[AncientGeezer]

72. You do know the Volstead act was nullified by repeal of the 18th

I'm not sure I get your point.

[Hoyt]

57. Screw the bump stock owners. They bought the damn things to turn their guns into automatics and

skirt other laws.

Just like an investor that bought a now worthless stock, their recourse should be to go after the bump stock manufactures and the gun shops they bought the dang things from.

I read something not long ago that the bump stock manufacturers used this rationale to get the lethal toy approved by ATF -- it is used to help gunners with bad hands. Screw them all, including Paddock.

You still have your receipt?

[NutmegYankee]

63. Why not just get serious and buy them back at full value?

I'm sick of the God Damn culture war BS - it just keeps everyone angry and stalemates any legislation. Let's just outlay the money and buy this shit back and get it done with. Your approach would just lead to years of court hearings and a likely loss - a buyback could get this shit off the streets in months.

[Hoyt]

64. Why? You guys just need to take the loss. You bought an obsolete product that you can no longer

use. Should have been more responsible and concerned about society, rather than your selfish, sick needs.

[NutmegYankee]

68. You use an informal plural pronoun to respond to me.

However, I own neither a bump stock nor a semi-auto rifle. That said, your response again shows me that you are not serious about getting these things out of society. You're just in this for the culture war and don't really care about the innocent's lost.

I'm really sick and tired of this shit. On January 20, 2009 we had Congress and the Presidency, and we didn't do jack shit. By late November 2010, we knew we had lost the house, and we still didn't do jack shit. Why?

[AncientGeezer]

73. Actually a stock doesn't make a semi into an auto.

[NickB79]

13. Agreed. I've seen them for sale at Cabela's here

And I can't believe the ATF let that slip past them.

[linuxman]

49. They didn't. They literally approved it at stated so in an official letter.

[Adrahil]

16. I own one...

I didn't buy it. My gun nut cousin bought it for me as a gift. I always considered it good for one thing: burning $100 worth of ammo in a couple minutes.

I don't see a legitimate purpose for them. I support banning them.

I happily turn mine in, though I'm sure some would insist upon grandfathering or buyback. The problem with straight up confiscation is that compliance could be low, and there is no legal way to get records of who bought these over the years.

[uponit7771]

24. Possession should have serious consequences then bump mod is a form of wmd modification

[Adrahil]

44. The hard part...

is that such a device is NOT needed to bump fire. Bump firing has been around forever. These stocks just make it easier.

You can also just put a rubber band on the trigger to speed trigger reset, and with a little practice, do as much bump firing as you like without this kind of stock. All kinds of Youtube videos of folks doing it.

[Hoyt]

66. Oh, I'm sure the gunners will find all kinds of ways around the law. That's why we need to do

something about semi-autos and let gunners try to modify revolvers and lever actions into something that gives them that rush and courage they crave.

[Adrahil]

69. Good luck banning semi autos...

We'll be lucky to just ban the bump stock. The NRA owns the GOP.

[Hoyt]

59. Glad you acknowledge that gun-strokers aren't as law-abiding as they keep telling us.

[Calculating]

22. Would people who own one receive compensation?

I can see that being a big sticking point.

[HopeAgain]

25. Lives are more important

Then worrying about people losing a few hundred Dollars of worthless gear.

[Adrahil]

46. If you want any level of compliance...

a buy back program would be necessary.

Otherwise, these things will sit in closets and gun lockers. Compliance rates would be low. Look at the low compliance rates for magazines in NY.

[jberryhill]

31. Did people who owned brewing companies and distilleries receive compensation?

Did the companies which had stocks of gasoline lead additives receive compensation?

Did anyone receive compensation for inventories of lead based paint?

Did the hemp farmers receive compensation?

Did the auto manufacturers receive compensation for Takata air bag mechanisms?

No.

When an item is banned, its market value is zero.

"...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

If ownership of something is banned outright, it is not taken for public use.

[Amishman]

42. None of the examples you provided involved confiscation of existing assets

For those examples it blocked manufacture and sale of more after a certain date.

If anything they are support for grandfathering previously sold examples. Possibly prohibiting their resale at a future date.

[Adrahil]

45. Compensation is NOT required....

When California banned magazines above 10 rounds recently they did not offer compensation. Owners were given a chance to sell them out of state, but that's it.

The real issue is compliance, though. You can bet a lot of folks in CA did not turn in their mags to the police. And the same would be true here. The majority of owners would not turn these things in.

A "buy back" program would likely be more successful.

[NickB79]

48. The California law was recently blocked by the courts

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-large-capacity-magazines-gun-law-blocked-20170629-story.html

The fact that no compensation was offered is the stated reason for the judge's decision. Before the most recent law, only the sale of magazines was banned, not ownership.

[Adrahil]

51. right, but what about the New York law?

I did not know about the court case though. Interdasting.

[Lee-Lee]

47. I'm fine with it, but you won't accomplish anything in regards to safety or crime

For background, all a bump fire stick consists of is a spring loaded stock. When the gun is fired the spring absorbs the recoil and compresses then pushes back and pushes the gun forward, against the trigger finger, allowing the trigger to be cycled faster. It's still one shot per trigger pull.

Before there were commercial made bump stocks people made them by just putting a $1 spring inside a collapsible stock or adding springy pads to a fixed one like a cut up yoga mat glued to it. I have seen it done just by sticking the stock in a tennis shoe and shouldering it. Hell, I've seen video of a fat guy doing it just by placing the gun on his belly.

So ban away, but don't think your actually going to have one bit of impact on things like this. If you had banned them 10 years ago he would have just made one from a few springs.

[Hoyt]

60. Well, it might have slowed Paddock down a bit. Do you still have your receipt for your bump stock,

conversion, or other attempts to make your guns even more lethal?

Glad you've already researched how to make your own. Maybe it's just time to ban semi-autos so you guys will have to figure out a way to make your revolver fire faster.

Jeeeeez.

[Lee-Lee]

65. Don't have one, never wanted one

When in a range master I don't allow them on my range because I don't think they are safe.

[Hoyt]

67. Oh like sniper, combative, or urban warfare training? How nice.

[Lee-Lee]

71. What in the world are you rambling about?

[aikoaiko]

50. Felony? No, but a misdemeanor would be OK.

Y'all have to understand that creating a bump stock is super easy.

A board 18x6 inches with a dowel threw it will do the job.

[SoCalMusicLover]

58. The NRA Will Never Allow It

The NRA is ALWAYS moving forward. Looking for the next and newest killing devices.

They do not like to give up ground already gained. They will never support something which will diminish the revenues of the gun humping companies. They'll pressure enough R's that there is no way this would have a chance.

[Ilsa]

70. Unreasonable gun owner on NBC Nightly News just said

"they want to take all of our guns away," and "there should not be any restrictions on guns." No compromise whatsoever.

[Scruffy1]

75. Making bump fire illegal won't make any difference.

You can do the same thing with a rubber band. I sure wish these politicians would do a little research before they jump in the news. As far as assault rifles go, they can be converted to full auto by any competant machinist or gunsmith. We really need to make repeater weapons of all kinds illegal, and pistols completely illegal to do any good. This ain't going to happen in the USA.

[IADEMO2004]

79. More ways than just bump fire

http://www.tacticalinc.com/1022-activator-riflebrcrank-fire-fast-shooting-p-1247.html

BMF ACTIVATOR CRANK FIRE FOR FAST SHOOTING FOR RUGER® 10/22® & CHARGER

This innovative crank gives you the ability to fire your 10/22 or any semi-auto .22 cal. rifle or pistol faster than you could if you were just squeezing the trigger. Each complete crank of the handle fires the rifle four times, letting you achieve the maximum cyclic rate of fire. Activator is not designed for hunting applications.

***NOT LEGAL IN CALIFORNIA***

[HopeAgain]

80. If California can make these thing illegal, why can't the Federal Government? Nt

[IADEMO2004]

82. Costs less to buy a politician in Iowa and the coyote states than CA.

Just my jaded old man get off my lawn opinion.

[bluestarone]

81. should be

ILLEGAL AS HELL