Call for ban on 'bump stocks'

[LoginName]

I knew this was coming, but never expected it to be this soon.

INAL, but I have a feeling Slide Fire is royally ****ed.

One crucial issue is whether the gun itself is mechanically altered.
By Polly Mosendz
October 10, 2017, 10:57 AM EDT October 10, 2017, 12:33 PM EDT

Last week’s massacre at a Las Vegas country music festival offers gun control advocates a fresh chance to test a law, put in place by Republicans and the gun industry’s lobby, that protects the industry from liability for the criminal actions of some of their customers.

Starting with a lawsuit filed late last week in Nevada state court, the effort follows similar litigation over mass killings, most notably those of 20 elementary school children and six adults in Newtown, Conn. In most cases, the plaintiffs fail to overcome the law’s high bar for liability, but with the Harvest 91 Festival, where almost 60 died and more than 500 were injured, that pattern may shift.

A dozen bump stocks, which allow a semi-automatic weapon to fire with the speed of an automatic weapon, were found in gunman Stephen Paddock’s 32nd-floor Mandalay Bay Resort hotel room. The complaint, which was filed in Clark County District Court and seeks class action status, alleges that Slide Fire Solutions Inc, a bump stock manufacturer, and other, unidentified makers and retailers behaved negligently in selling and producing these devices.

“This horrific assault did not occur, could not occur, and would not have occurred with a conventional handgun, rifle, or shotgun, of the sort used by law-abiding responsible gun owners for hunting or self-defense,” the complaint states.

The named plaintiffs include Devon Prescott, Brooke Freeman, and Tasaneeporn Upright, all residents of Nevada who represent the potential class. The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages as well as funds to pay for the victims’ counseling and treatment for emotional distress. The three are represented by the Las Vegas law firm Eglet Prince and by the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence.

Slide Fire didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

More at https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-10-10/las-vegas-shooting-victims-sue-bump-stock-maker

 

[1903Collector]

If I recall correctly the Brady Bunch ain't got a good track record, Plaintiffs may get stuck with legal bills like in Co.

 

[Boris]

is it me or the lawyers raising the bar for retard:

“This horrific assault did not occur, could not occur, and would not have occurred with a conventional handgun, rifle, or shotgun, of the sort used by law-abiding responsible gun owners for hunting or self-defense,” the complaint states.

May be we should sue their mom's *******s, saying that "this horrific waste of time and money would never occur should their fathers used contraception?"

 

[not new guy]

They're still pulling good money ($500+) on gunbroker.

 

[drgrant]

They're still pulling good money ($500+) on gunbroker.

I thought gunbroker pulled the ads? Or was that gunsamerica?

-Mike

 

[drgrant]

When they come to take them... is when you would want them.

I don't want a "bump stock" not now, not ever. What I REALLY don't want is the slippery slope and political bullshit that we're going to get from the NRA folding on this shit the way that they did though. That's 100x worse than having the stock banned.

-Mike

 

[VetteGirlMA]

Serious question: What should I do with my bump fire stock? If it's made illegal then how will anyone prove that it's illegal? I don't have receipts or anything like that anymore.

 

[LoginName]

I thought gunbroker pulled the ads? Or was that gunsamerica?

-Mike

They allowed them to be relisted, but with a warning...

From: “GunBroker.com Customer Service” <[email protected]>
To: XXXXXXXXXX
Date: October 7, 2017 at 11:02 PM
Subject: A message from GunBroker.com

Dear XXXXXX,

As the public face of internet gun sales, GunBroker.com works closely with the NRA, NSSF, and other industry organizations on matters of public policy. Initial reaction from the industry was that support of bump stocks was PR disaster. However, the industry and NRA have softened their stance and asked regulators and Congress to make a decision as to whether or not these items are legal. As a result we have changed our position to allow the items to be sold as long as they are sold in full compliance with state and local laws.

As a seller you should be aware that bump stocks / slide stocks are not firearms and are almost certainly not protected by the Protection in Lawful Commerce of Arms Act (PLCAA). This means that if you choose to sell these items and get sued over their use or misuse, you will not have the PLCAA to protect you.

Be aware that bump stocks / slide stocks may not be legal in every state and we have not been able to fully assess what jurisdictions in which they may be outlawed. It would be wise to research the local in state laws into which you intend to ship these items to avoid entering into an illegal transaction.

Thank you,

The Management of GunBroker.com

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/20...e-gunbroker-rescinds-itself-on-bump-fire-ban/

A bunch still selling at retarded prices...

http://www.gunbroker.com/All/BI.aspx?Keywords=slide+fire+stock

 

[drgrant]

I bought one literally hours before pricing went nuts and the guy told me since last week that he alone has 1100 orders to process. That's just one dealer. Never mind slide fire themselves and the other countless dealers. Even IF half of the owners turned them in willingly, you would need an entire task force dedicated to finding and confiscating tens of thousands of stocks. I just don't see that as even remotely feasible.

Doesn't matter and won't stop them from making it contraband. This isn't any different from that company that sold the oil filter adapters on shotgun news and got told by the ATF "yew can't do dat!!!! " I doubt they recalled the hundreds or thousands of thread adapters they sold from the customers. Or like when the ATF got pissed about the open bolt MAC-10s and MAC-11 semis out there. (although those I don't think are full on contraband, but I know they banned the manufacture of them. ) .

There are tons of people who probably sawed off a shotgun in their basement to have a barrel less than 18.5" or whatever it is, but just because there are thousands of unregistered SBS in the US, that doesn't magically make them legal.

Basically at some point you'll be holding onto a device which, when constructively possessed with an AR, will either be a state or a federal felony. Or if you're really lucky, the feds will allow you to register it as a machine gun if it's amnesty'ed, but I kinda doubt they want to open that barn door ever again. Although that would be kinda cool- if the slidefire becomes NFA device, then perhaps a real DIAS could be lawfully inserted into an AR as long as the slide fire is attached to it... If that scenario happens, you just saved yourself like 30 grand, but I think I'd bet on powerball first.

-Mike

 

[LoginName]

Link to complaint.... https://static1.squarespace.com/sta.../1507652669158/Vegas-ClassActionComplaint.pdf

 

[Boris]

Serious question: What should I do with my bump fire stock? If it's made illegal then how will anyone prove that it's illegal? I don't have receipts or anything like that anymore.

if you possess it then you will be a felon, which would not be a surprise since everyone in this country is a felon in some way or the other. One more felony should not matter.

 

[Boris]

Or if you're really lucky, the feds will allow you to register it as a machine gun if it's amnesty'ed, but I kinda doubt they want to open that barn door ever again.

What if some town would ignore Furer Maura Healey and create "sanctuary cities" ... and Trump signs an amnesty "MG dreamer act" which would allow all current MGs register as legal?

 

[snd1t]

if you possess it then you will be a felon, which would not be a surprise since everyone in this country is a felon in some way or the other. One more felony should not matter.

One big happy felon family eh?

https://reason.com/archives/2009/10/19/were-all-felons-now

 

[TLB]

One big happy felon family eh?

https://reason.com/archives/2009/10/19/were-all-felons-now

I try to commit a max of two, but preferably only one felony per day.

 

[Len-2A Training]

I don't know if they definitively concluded that ANY of the bump-fire stocks were even used in the shooting. Just because they were present amongst all the guns doesn't mean that they were used.

At any rate, ambulance chasers smell blood and go after it every time, that'll never change.

 

[TayNinh_66]

I don't know if they definitively concluded that ANY of the bump-fire stocks were even used in the shooting. Just because they were present amongst all the guns doesn't mean that they were used.

Spoken like a true skeptic.
Your alternative theory for the rapid rate of firing is ..........????

 

[Dadstoys]

I don't know if they definitively concluded that ANY of the bump-fire stocks were even used in the shooting. Just because they were present amongst all the guns doesn't mean that they were used.

At any rate, ambulance chasers smell blood and go after it every time, that'll never change.

Good point.
With the money he supposedly had, I would think he could afford the real deal.
Seeing as no actual reports have been issued , I can't see how you could file a suit just yet.

 

[Noreaster]

Good point.
With the money he supposedly had, I would think he could afford the real deal.
Seeing as no actual reports have been issued , I can't see how you could file a suit just yet.

I am sure i just poped up on some watch list for this, but a quick search on how to make a lightning link had some promising results. I am not sure why he would have screwed with bump stocks.

I swear this is way to convenient for the Ds that disliked the silencer stuff......

 

[namedpipes]

Spoken like a true skeptic.
Your alternative theory for the rapid rate of firing is ..........????

Jerry Miculek

He base jumped out the window before SWAT burst in.

 

[JJ4]

Let's play devil's advocate* for a minute:

Is it even possible to make an intellectually consistent argument that the 2A protects bump stocks? We've seen many posts with statements about "conceding our rights" or similar.

Given, the 2A:
- Is not about hunting.
- Is not about sporting.
- Is not a "hobby"
- Its purpose, in fact, is to preserve the right to arms for the purposes of self defense, both of the individual and for the security of a free state.
- Protects exactly the kind of arms that are suitable for service in the military (militia or the modern day equivalent).

Given the legal precedence:
Not that this is our favorite case, but US v. Miller 1939 supreme court case (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Miller) [which was a setup by anti-gunners to get a favorable ruling], decided that:

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense.​

What then, is the purpose of a bump stock? It certainly seems to fall into something that is "fun" and a "hobby", but can anyone legitimately claim that a bump stock has practical use as part of personal or for organized defense purposes.

I realize, by extension, this line of thinking would allow banning single-shot hunting rifles as not having any military purpose. Also, by the same extension, select-fire rifles should be protected by the 2A.

Before we all go off cancelling our NRA memberships and stomping our feet about "muh rights", shouldn't we be making sure that we're making an intellectually consistent argument about what the 2A protects?





*Devil's Advocate: In common parlance, the term devil's advocate describes someone who, given a certain point of view, takes a position he or she does not necessarily agree with (or simply an alternative position from the accepted norm), for the sake of debate or to explore the thought further. This is my purpose for this post.

 

[BREWINZ]

I think what's being lost here, besides our rights, is the fact that the bill sneaks in pre ban mags. Much larger issue in my opinion. Setting a precedent for confiscation.

 

[namedpipes]

Let's play devil's advocate* for a minute:

Is it even possible to make an intellectually consistent argument that the 2A protects bump stocks? We've seen many posts with statements about "conceding our rights" or similar.
...

So, who gets to approve designs of new guns as being "legit guns" and what is frippery that isn't covered by 2A?

- - - Updated - - -

I think what's being lost here, besides our rights, is the fact that the bill sneaks in pre ban mags. Much larger issue in my opinion. Setting a precedent for confiscation.

Let them.

Ban it all. Order confiscation.

It'll be a resolution of sorts.

 

[Coyote33]

Let's play devil's advocate* for a minute:

Is it even possible to make an intellectually consistent argument that the 2A protects bump stocks? We've seen many posts with statements about "conceding our rights" or similar.

Given, the 2A:
- Is not about hunting.
- Is not about sporting.
- Is not a "hobby"
- Its purpose, in fact, is to preserve the right to arms for the purposes of self defense, both of the individual and for the security of a free state.
- Protects exactly the kind of arms that are suitable for service in the military (militia or the modern day equivalent).

Given the legal precedence:
Not that this is our favorite case, but US v. Miller 1939 supreme court case (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Miller) [which was a setup by anti-gunners to get a favorable ruling], decided that:


What then, is the purpose of a bump stock? It certainly seems to fall into something that is "fun" and a "hobby", but can anyone legitimately claim that a bump stock has practical use as part of personal or for organized defense purposes.

I realize, by extension, this line of thinking would allow banning single-shot hunting rifles as not having any military purpose. Also, by the same extension, select-fire rifles should be protected by the 2A.

Before we all go off cancelling our NRA memberships and stomping our feet about "muh rights", shouldn't we be making sure that we're making an intellectually consistent argument about what the 2A protects?





*Devil's Advocate: In common parlance, the term devil's advocate describes someone who, given a certain point of view, takes a position he or she does not necessarily agree with (or simply an alternative position from the accepted norm), for the sake of debate or to explore the thought further. This is my purpose for this post.

WE HAVE A WINNER, FOLKS!

 

[Noreaster]

I think what's being lost here, besides our rights, is the fact that the bill sneaks in pre ban mags. Much larger issue in my opinion. Setting a precedent for confiscation.

Thats my gripe, we don't know what bill is being pushed.

There is the Lewinsky bill: H 4366: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BzMiTOrZHc9OZHFZOWxnNU9sVFU/view

Then there is the Tarr bill: SD 2348: https://malegislature.gov/Bills/190/SD2348/Senate/Bill/Text

The Tarr bill does not have any language about magazines or slight modifications that MAY slightly increase rate of fire (thinking aftermarket trigger that has a shorter reset) The Linksy bill is terribly worded. And yes i did spell that different earlier.

 

[JJ4]

I think what's being lost here, besides our rights, is the fact that the bill sneaks in pre ban mags. Much larger issue in my opinion. Setting a precedent for confiscation.

Yes - but there's a whole separate thread for the Linsky bill's specifics and Tarr's alternatives. This thread has mostly been focused on the general call to ban them.

So, who gets to approve designs of new guns as being "legit guns" and what is frippery that isn't covered by 2A?

Excellent point. I certainly don't have an answer. Some people will say "nobody, all guns are protected by 2A". I don't know if there's a better answer.

 

[namedpipes]

Excellent point. I certainly don't have an answer. Some people will say "nobody, all guns are protected by 2A". I don't know if there's a better answer.

I wonder if "modifying" a fun to be bump fire is made illegal, what if a gun is designed and sold that includes it as a feature?

Bottom line is, a bump fire stock decreases the effectiveness of the firearm, not increases.

So... ban it "cuz".

I get your devil's advocate clause.

If we stipulated that a bump fire stock isn't a gun, then it's just a thing that isn't special enough to BE banned. We don't ban pogo sticks or those silly pink hats the antifa nuts wear. It's already illegal to kill people willy nilly, so we don't need a law about that.

 

[Noreaster]

I wonder if "modifying" a fun to be bump fire is made illegal, what if a gun is designed and sold that includes it as a feature?

Excellent point of view.
Actually, that would make if fully legal, ATF says - not a machine gun - Factory option. WOW - law completely bypassed.

 

[JJ4]

So... ban it "cuz".

If we stipulated that a bump fire stock isn't a gun, then it's just a thing that isn't special enough to BE banned. We don't ban pogo sticks or those silly pink hats the antifa nuts wear. It's already illegal to kill people willy nilly, so we don't need a law about that.

Many of us here generally adhere to a libertarian principle that the government shouldn't ban things because of what someone might do. Mere possession of something shouldn't be illegal. No victim, no crime. etc.

Unfortunately, that principle isn't enshrined in our laws. We ban possession of drugs, for example.

I suppose we can break this "call for a ban" into two categories:
- Is it protected by the 2A?
- Is a ban a violation of the principle above?

 

[Len-2A Training]

Spoken like a true skeptic.
Your alternative theory for the rapid rate of firing is ..........????

A real machine gun. He was not a PP, NV and lots of other states require nothing more than a $200 Fed tax stamp to own a machine gun, a wait but no hassle.

I'm just saying that it is too soon to say with certainty that the bump-fires were used, IIRC he had close to 40 guns in the room. I doubt that he used all of them.

 

[Noreaster]

Unfortunately, that principle isn't enshrined in our laws. We ban possession of drugs, for example.

Actually - when druggs - i believe we have safe places to allow those addicted to use in peace, some places even provide clean needles to shoot up with, and if you over do it, we have some life saving narcan on tap and ready for you.

So yeah - they are illegal. Wish our AR-15 copy cats in mass had that kind of support.