General Discussion

Always Right

(84 posts)

55. The law was enacted in 1934 when Franklin D. Roosevelt was president.

Tue Oct 10, 2017, 05:02 PM

Oct 2017

I don't think that there is anyone to sue as the law was the National Firearms Act and it was passed in 1934 and you can't sue the Federal Government over it as it has sovereign immunity.

In the National Firearms Act, a machine gun is defined in 26 U.S.C. § 5845(b) and it says:

For the purposes of the National Firearms Act the term Machine gun means: Any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.

The ATF, under the Obama administration, ruled that the bump fire stock is legal because the gun still shoots only one shot per single function of the trigger, thus, it doesn't create a machine gun, rather a bump fire stock assists with you bouncing your finger off the trigger.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

156 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Las Vegas Shooting Victims Sue Bump Stock Makers [View all] HAB911 Oct 2017 OP

Yes! This is one way to get some gun control. HopeAgain Oct 2017 #1

I agree and as well...but.... sdfernando Oct 2017 #4

The reason manufacturers are protected by law is precisely because Always Right Oct 2017 #59

This is lot more like cigarettes than drunk drivers HopeAgain Oct 2017 #74

I'm not sure that is a fair comparison. Always Right Oct 2017 #84

Good! lkinwi Oct 2017 #2

Great. Now remove the law that prohibits victims from suing gun manufacturers and profiteers. Hoyt Oct 2017 #3

Modify how? Always Right Oct 2017 #5

It would be quite simple really, modify the trigger guard area where something like that doesn't Hoyt Oct 2017 #6

Trigger guards don't move Always Right Oct 2017 #24

I bet you'd like to see the suit. You probably have some bump stocks, maybe profit from them. Hoyt Oct 2017 #7

I'm just here for the facts, not to debate. Always Right Oct 2017 #12

You've only made 10 and came in through the Gungeon. That tells me a lot about you. Hoyt Oct 2017 #13

Everyone started at post 1 Always Right Oct 2017 #17

The genetic fallacy is a favorite 'go to' for those that have nothing else to counter with... friendly_iconoclast Oct 2017 #88

On ANY talk board fescuerescue Oct 2017 #146

"what post number...t before I'm worthy of not being insulted?" Orrex Oct 2017 #92

those posters tend to have a bad signal-to-noise ratio Reiyuki Oct 2017 #111

Not sure if you're insulting me or not... Orrex Oct 2017 #114

Not saying you in particular, I mean in general on any forum. Nt Reiyuki Oct 2017 #118

Hmm... Now I'm *DEFINITELY* not sure... Orrex Oct 2017 #122

Almost to 50 Always Right Oct 2017 #117

This one goes to eleven. Orrex Oct 2017 #121

Hoyt, stop it. Adrahil Oct 2017 #94

What "technical information" have I provided that is not true? Yes, I do get ticked with gunners Hoyt Oct 2017 #95

Example from earlier in this discussion Always Right Oct 2017 #102

First, BS. Second that is what ads say. Third, I was not Hoyt Oct 2017 #109

Correcting a mistake isn't an apology Always Right Oct 2017 #110

Do any of these ads give the target (buyers) the idea the rifles are military spec? Hoyt Oct 2017 #124

Yes and no Always Right Oct 2017 #139

"Yes and no." LMAO. I guess the one that comes right out and says this gun "is destined Hoyt Oct 2017 #142

The ads are puffery Always Right Oct 2017 #149

The idea that it somehow "easy" for gunmakers to make changes preventing such devices. Adrahil Oct 2017 #132

Oh, I agree and think all semi-autos need to be banned. As to modification to prevent bump stocks, Hoyt Oct 2017 #134

Not impossible, more like impractical Always Right Oct 2017 #136

Well, at least you are thinking and can see that it is possible to modify a rifle where a bump stock Hoyt Oct 2017 #137

I'm not part of "you guys" Always Right Oct 2017 #138

You are a gun promoter. There are millions who support the NRA, but are too cheap to pay dues. Hoyt Oct 2017 #143

Maybe I'm not a member because I disagree with them on things Always Right Oct 2017 #151

"Gun promoter" ClarendonDem Oct 2017 #153

Its up to them. They are the smart ones who have been evading safety laws RainCaster Oct 2017 #52

Legally speaking, the weapons were not fully automatic. Always Right Oct 2017 #57

Sue them for what? THIS lawsuit says couldn't happen without the stocks. jmg257 Oct 2017 #9

The bump stock is worthless without the AR15. Gun manufacturers, dealers and profiteers like Hoyt Oct 2017 #11

Then why does this lawsuit state otherwise? THAT'S the point, Hoyt. jmg257 Oct 2017 #14

Jeeezus. The lawsuit is filed against the bump stock manufacturers. Get you head out of your barrels Hoyt Oct 2017 #16

I KNOW Hoyt. THIS lawsuit (their statement) puts ALL the blame on the stock guys! jmg257 Oct 2017 #18

If you were filing a law suit, wouldn't you write it that way. That's the way all lawsuits are Hoyt Oct 2017 #21

Ha - that'a a funny dig - I get it! Bet the other kids love you at recess! jmg257 Oct 2017 #22

Bump stocks are a legal product, Keefer Oct 2017 #29

Keefer, look up how they brought down the Tobacco companies. Then look up PLCAA. Hoyt Oct 2017 #32

The tobacco companies got caught Keefer Oct 2017 #37

The gun companies are the same, they use the NRA and gun-humpers to hide behind. That needs to Hoyt Oct 2017 #41

You can't hold ANY manufacturer Keefer Oct 2017 #46

Wow - you will LOVE this, Hoyt...you will have to read some though... jmg257 Oct 2017 #49

Exactly. Now the Gun Protection Act needs to repealed legislatively Hoyt Oct 2017 #61

What did the manufacturers and dealers do ClarendonDem Oct 2017 #69

They advertise that guns make you a man, you need guns to survive, their Hoyt Oct 2017 #70

I like you Hoyt ClarendonDem Oct 2017 #72

Look, Dem, there's civil liability and morality to consider. Gun profiteers are implicated. Hoyt Oct 2017 #75

Lawsuits determine liability, not morality. - NT Always Right Oct 2017 #116

And coolaid advertises that a Giant Man will break down your wall fescuerescue Oct 2017 #150

Yea, pretty much Always Right Oct 2017 #152

Bankruptcy doesn't end production of items, it just changes who sells them Always Right Oct 2017 #67

Yeah, but s potential buyer or producer has to factor in the liability for the next massacre. Hoyt Oct 2017 #71

Yes, but not likely in the way you want Always Right Oct 2017 #78

I get it AlwaysRight, gun and accessory manufacturers, dealers and many gun owners are slimy SOBs Hoyt Oct 2017 #80

Lots of industries take advantage of legal tricks Always Right Oct 2017 #86

I'm sure the Trump Admin will likely followup on your recommendations. Hoyt Oct 2017 #99

A prediction isn't a reccomendation Always Right Oct 2017 #103

Your absurd contention then is that pharmaceutical companies have never been sued LanternWaste Oct 2017 #85

If their drug causes harm, Keefer Oct 2017 #93

Guns are designed and built to do what PRIMARY thing? Eliot Rosewater Oct 2017 #30

Fire projectiles. jmg257 Oct 2017 #31

to kill Eliot Rosewater Oct 2017 #39

So other than with all the wounded - his functioned as designed? jmg257 Oct 2017 #44

In a sane world, you would be able to sue, very successfully , a company that Eliot Rosewater Oct 2017 #45

Welcome to America. Here we protect their ownership by the highest laws in the land. nt jmg257 Oct 2017 #50

Do criminals shot by the police get to sue gun manufacturers too? Always Right Oct 2017 #60

Save lives. ileus Oct 2017 #64

It's not the semi autos that are the problem Drahthaardogs Oct 2017 #34

Agreed - that hi-capacity mags are also an issue. jmg257 Oct 2017 #40

Happens to pharma companies rather often... LanternWaste Oct 2017 #83

Pharma, huh? Don't think I have ever posted in a thread about them. jmg257 Oct 2017 #90

Bump fire and bump stocks are not limited to AR-15 style guns. Always Right Oct 2017 #15

You don't get it. As far as those not performing back ground checks, I'm referring to gun-humpers Hoyt Oct 2017 #19

Who said I sell guns without background checks? Always Right Oct 2017 #23

It's kind of Obvious. Hoyt Oct 2017 #35

Is that you, Fred Colon? friendly_iconoclast Oct 2017 #89

He's not defending guns and gunners because he's altruistic. Hoyt Oct 2017 #98

Kindly point out what's factually inaccurate in his posts. Show your work friendly_iconoclast Oct 2017 #100

..which request got the expected reply: friendly_iconoclast Oct 2017 #106

Is not immediately replying to a post I didn't see til now, considered awkward silence? - NT Always Right Oct 2017 #120

My apologies for being unclear- that was meant for your interlocutor, not you friendly_iconoclast Oct 2017 #129

What evidence do you have that poster sells guns without background checks? Marengo Oct 2017 #108

Most of you gunners do, that's why you want to protect private sales without background checks. Hoyt Oct 2017 #125

No evidence, eh? If you have any integrity, you'll retract that accusation. Additionally, you can... Marengo Oct 2017 #128

Don't hold your breath- that one has been 'all advertising and no product' for years friendly_iconoclast Oct 2017 #130

In what way is it obvious? Always Right Oct 2017 #119

I replied to what you wrote #23-"I've never said that I do or don't own guns." Again, it's obvious. Hoyt Oct 2017 #126

"Again, it's obvious." Only to you... friendly_iconoclast Oct 2017 #131

I know, all the Gungeoneers are just acting like gunners. None have any guns, don't want anyone Hoyt Oct 2017 #133

Perhaps someday you'll learn that "my firm belief(s)" and "things that are demonstrably true"... friendly_iconoclast Oct 2017 #135

Gun sales without background checks Always Right Oct 2017 #140

No, because gunners will sell to anyone with a fistful of cash. All transfers need Hoyt Oct 2017 #141

All transfers have to go through a FFL? Always Right Oct 2017 #147

Jeeez, go post to someone else. You are too obtuse to own or speak on behalf of your guns. n/t Hoyt Oct 2017 #148

You said all Always Right Oct 2017 #154

Are you a NRA member? I think you lost your way rockfordfile Oct 2017 #144

Not a member. Always Right Oct 2017 #155

Unless it's made for an AK47, then it'd be useless without an AK. ileus Oct 2017 #62

you can bump-fire without the stock. I've seen it all over youtube samir.g Oct 2017 #104

Great - win this, so bump stocks are THE culprit, and semi-autos are off the hook. jmg257 Oct 2017 #8

Why would this mean that anything else is "off the hook." Weekend Warrior Oct 2017 #26

Because, the way I read it (w/o seeing the complaint) it states that the guns were not the issue jmg257 Oct 2017 #27

It's a correct statement. Weekend Warrior Oct 2017 #28

Ah I see your point about this is the end game, as it gets even better for the gunners & builders... jmg257 Oct 2017 #51

K&R... spanone Oct 2017 #10

Hope they sue the magazine manufacturers malaise Oct 2017 #20

Good. Now remove the special protections for gun manufacturers. nt. Weekend Warrior Oct 2017 #25

Link to complaint Always Right Oct 2017 #33

They'll be suing shortly, don't you think? I bet a lot of people and groups file suits too. Hoyt Oct 2017 #36

I am sure there will be lots of law suits Always Right Oct 2017 #43

Thank you for posting this link to the complaint Gothmog Oct 2017 #112

The PLCAA refers to suits against makers of "qualified" products, which it defines petronius Oct 2017 #38

Agree. The PLCAA shouldn't apply to guns either. It allows gun manufacturers and profiteers to Hoyt Oct 2017 #42

Stocks are not optional Always Right Oct 2017 #47

Huh, good point! If a stock is a stock is a stock, and a stock petronius Oct 2017 #53

No, but there are a wide variety of stocks for this rifle jmowreader Oct 2017 #73

Yes, there are lots of other choices for a stock Always Right Oct 2017 #79

This suit will go nowhere. former9thward Oct 2017 #48

Then sue the Federal Government. Sue every Congressperson who voted for it and the President who coolsandy Oct 2017 #54

The law was enacted in 1934 when Franklin D. Roosevelt was president. Always Right Oct 2017 #55

Youre right: gun bans work! Nevernose Oct 2017 #63

I haven't advocated a position for or against anything Always Right Oct 2017 #65

You said it Nevernose Oct 2017 #66

I think you confused me with someone else. Always Right Oct 2017 #68

If these devices are not guns according to the ATF, then they are not protected Gothmog Oct 2017 #56

The law protects components of guns, not just guns Always Right Oct 2017 #58

The rationale for the Obama ATF to not regulate this device is that it is not a gun Gothmog Oct 2017 #113

The rational for not regulating is that does not meet the definition of machine gun conversion part Always Right Oct 2017 #115

How do you sue someone for a product that performed just doc03 Oct 2017 #76

Designed to turn a legal device into a legal one? Atman Oct 2017 #81

Hell, why not? Doreen Oct 2017 #77

Looks like the gunners not liking this one. Kingofalldems Oct 2017 #82

the gunners don't like anything HAB911 Oct 2017 #87

Which ones aren't digging it? jmg257 Oct 2017 #91

That's not allowed here. Kingofalldems Oct 2017 #96

Ah - gotcha - that would be call-out? Strange, but understood - I guess. jmg257 Oct 2017 #97

Good! Good!💰The only way to stop it🔫is take their 💸. Alice11111 Oct 2017 #101

The stocks are meaningless, the guns have to go samir.g Oct 2017 #105

Was it a Colt 1911 in .45acp rather than a Colt 45? Always Right Oct 2017 #123

the way i look at it is bluestarone Oct 2017 #107

If only they could sue tinfoil nutjobs who think ot was a hoax. LW1977 Oct 2017 #127

It Would be good if they could succeed. It straighten them up. rockfordfile Oct 2017 #145

Big K/R JDC Oct 2017 #156