-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
-
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
Bump stock taking letter
- Thread starter CatSnoutSoup
- Start date
Jason Flare
NES Member
I look at it this way: We won this one.
With only four bumpstocks being turned in statewide the message to lawmakers has been sent.
With only four bumpstocks being turned in statewide the message to lawmakers has been sent.
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2014
- Messages
- 9,409
- Likes
- 9,026
Makes sense to me, from my perspective.. someone who buys legal machineguns.All this bumpfire stuff makes me think sooner or later ill get a letter telling my i cant keep or sell my MGs, that i have 30 days to surrender it, when the process to legally move it out of state could take a year...
I don't agree, we had 100% compliance! Law abiding owners are bigger people than to just let a little burned bridge over "reinterpretation" stand in the way of public safety. If you think we had anything less than full compliance over these previously illegal gimmicks, show me the numbers!
Jason Flare
NES Member
I considered there might only be 4 bumpstocks in MA.
ETA: I really like your post, Drix. I may unlike it so I can like it again. Ask the legislature to prove there were ever more than 4 bumpstocks in MA.
Jsfitzgerald85
NES Member
i think you just need a certain number of signatures for your application
I dunno, is it ok to possess a rifle with a lifetime FID?
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2011
- Messages
- 1,296
- Likes
- 1,335
Not sure how many bumpstocks are actually out there in the first place. Last I heard 4 were turned in. That should tweak the Stasi that the sheeple are non compliant to their evil plan. This can only make the climate very dangerous between citizens and the police should people stand up for their rights. Next to gain compliance they will start kicking in doors to scare and intimidate law abiding gun owners.
At any level it's signatures.
Anything higher than town meeting, selectmen, school committee, that kind of low level municipal position, will take MONEY. I haven't checked the final totals but even Framingham mayoral candidates were up to $40K or more.
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2013
- Messages
- 1,686
- Likes
- 1,084
First you have to sharpen your politician skills. Public speaking, being able to lie to someones face so well they don't question your sincerity. Bribe taking, that's easy to practice at home, take something from your kids and make the kids give you something to get it back, if your wife finds out don't bother running.
3 Bumps and a crank in Chicopee, one bump somewhere in Essex county.
Gun owners have been proven time and again in studies to statistically be the most law abiding citizens out there. According to a Florida study owners are less likely to commit a crime than the police. While owners may have opted to destroy or sell their bump stocks, it can be safely stated that lawful gun owners completely complied with the law, if not the states unconstitutional threats.
Due to the original wording of the AWB bump stocks are only legal on pre-94 lowers- can't put a bump over a pinned stock, and if you pin a bump it becomes useless. This circles back to my original point of compliance- there were so few of these in the first place the state shouldn't be shocked by the low turn in numbers. Using "low compliance" rhetoric as justification for door kicking could only blow up in the states face. Don't buy into the media frenzy, these things could never have been out in mass numbers not only because of pre existing laws but because bumps were dumb range toys. Law abiding citizens who statistically are unlikely to commit a crime aren't ignoring the law, unless of course someone thinks that somehow this group of people have been previously pushed to a position where their willingness to abide by law- the foundation of law itself really, is no longer agreeable. In such a position, any ruling body should stop and think about how to amend such a broken bridge as any law passed targeting that population may too be ignored. If laws are wantonly disregarded, are they laws at all?
They passed that broken bridge a long time ago. The bump stocks are out there.
Now there will be a rush up to NH or ME to buy a bunch and throw them on a table for a photo op.
Then they can brag about how many of those icky gun owners lined up to turn them in.
Kind of like when they empty out the evidence room to show the "hundreds" of guns they got in a "Buyback".
Then they can brag about how many of those icky gun owners lined up to turn them in.
Kind of like when they empty out the evidence room to show the "hundreds" of guns they got in a "Buyback".
namedpipes
NES Member
I have been watching/adding to this thread and the other one as well. Do we think comm 2a, or anyone else is going to make a move here, or Are they they waiting for the poor guy going through a divorce that gets pinched with one, and needs a defense.
You're not going to win on any grounds on contesting the bump stock ban except maybe the constitutionality of "how" it was done. Given that its bump stocks, I don't think anyone with any sort of power gives a shit on the how and those challenges will lose because of the "but guns" precedent. Once you lose the challenge, the doors are open for closing the "high capacity magazine loophole" and the "post 94 assault weapon loophole".
The costs are too great for the reward, its better to let it sort itself out naturally.
GM-GUY
NES Member
I know of three, which is why they forbid them at my local range; further I know of a couple others that banned them - all prior to Las Vegas and you know they didn’t do it as a preventative.
As far as letting it sort itself out naturally, it already is NON COMPLIANCE.
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2010
- Messages
- 6,920
- Likes
- 615
The whole premise of this new law is contrary to the constitution anyway. If they actually wanted any semblance of compliance they should be offering fair market value as in any other situation where the state requires you to give up legally owned property. Of course there would always be holdouts, but I’d say they’d get at least 50% more compliance if they weren’t telling people they had to turn in something they legally purchased for a couple of hundred bucks.
Jason Flare
NES Member
I don’t know if or when it’s coming but I think it’s coming.
I think perhaps Comm2A will assist a team with strong fourth amendment experience.
From a huff post article so take it with a grain of salt....
“They’re not used for any sporting purpose, they’re not used in hunting, they would be impractical for self defense. ... They’re toys,” said Brent Carlton, president and co-founder of the Massachusetts-based gun rights group Comm2A. “But the fact of the matter is people spent money on them, they own them, they presumably have a property interest in them.”
What bothers me is the first half of his statement, it almost seems like he’s saying I don’t give a shit if you ban them but I think you should compensate those who turn them in.
I think the stance should’ve been more along the lines of banning them solves nothing and if you get away with it we feel there should be some form of compensation. It’s almost like he went PC on it.
JayMcB
NES Member
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2011
- Messages
- 22,370
- Likes
- 109,171
From a self defense standpoint, as John Q Public, if you are thinking about attacking a position, would you rather face one where you are facing semi-auto fire or full auto fire? You don't KNOW if the full auto fire is accurate or not, you just know there are a lot of boolits coming in your direction.
Outside of John Q Public, of course accurate bolt rifle fire is better than spray and pray, but doesn't deterrent factor count for something?
Similar threads
